Subjects: Cabinet; economy; social issues; salmon; agricultural
trade
E&OE...................
Well thank you very much Paul. To Sue Napier, the Leader of the Tasmanian
Opposition and Parliamentary Liberal Party in Tasmania, my Lord Mayor,
my Cabinet and Parliamentary colleagues, and citizens of Hobart. Can
I say how grateful I am Lord Mayor that you've made this magnificent
and elegant old building available for our meeting.
I understand this is probably the first time in 20 years or more that
Federal Cabinet has met in Hobart, and we are doing so in furtherance
to the policy I adopted when becoming Prime Minister of making certain
that when Parliament was not sitting Cabinet met on a regular basis
outside the triangle of Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. And as a consequence
over the last three-and-a-quarter years we've held meetings not only
in the State capitals but also in major regional centres such as Longreach
in Queensland, all around Australia to drive home the point that we
are in every sense of the word, a government for all sections of the
Australian people and to try and express some understanding and sensitivity
towards the particular challenges and the particular problem of different
parts of Australia. And it's on that basis that my colleagues and
I are delighted to be here today to have the opportunity of continuing
the normal pattern of our meeting, and also to respond to and deal
with a number of issues that I know are of particular concern to the
people of Tasmania.
But before I come to one of those which is salmon, and I do want to
deal with that issue, I want to say something generally about the
health and strength of our nation. Australia's economic position generally
speaking at present is stronger than it's been for more than 30 years.
We have the lowest levels of inflation, the lowest levels of interest
rates. We have in just over three years turned a deficit running annually
at more than $10 billion into a very healthy surplus.
Of all the economic statistics that I can quote with pride, there's
none that I'm prouder of than the one that says that of the 24 nations
of the OECD, that is of the 24 industrialised nations, Australia has
the lowest government debt to GDP ratio of any country in the OECD.
In other words government debt is less of a burden to the Australian
taxpayers than it is in any of the major industrialised countries.
Now that is a pretty important statistic because it means something
for the future.
It means that we are bequeathing to future generations of Australians
a society that will be free of net Commonwealth debt. And I can say
to you that if we were able to sell the remaining just over 50% of
Telstra, by the year 2002 this country would be completely free of
net debt at a Federal level. And when you bear in mind the level of
accumulated debt that existed when we came to office we think that
is a pretty significant achievement.
And I have found in the time that I've been Prime Minister and I've
travelled around different parts of the world, and I was recently
in Japan and the United States, that the attitudinal change towards
this country over the last three years has been quite marked. The
first visit I paid to the Asian Pacific region I felt as though Australia
was the anxious outsider seeking admission to the rich club of the
Asian Pacific region. And in three and a bit years that's changed.
We are now seen as a very strong performer. We are seen as having
achieved the remarkable feat of staring down the worst downturn the
Asian economies have seen since World War II. Our performance surpassed
that of many of our critics and it also surpassed, I have to say to
you, some of the best predictions that were available to us in government.
We in fact performed a lot better on that front than people expected,
and I think many of us expected.
But in mentioning those things I do say them with a deal of pride
and satisfaction but in no sense of smugness or complacency. It's
not just a question of good luck. You make your own luck in government
as you do in life, and we've worked very hard as a government and
as a community to bring about those changes.
And we haven't just focused on economic issues, and I know that today
brings together a lot of representatives of the major welfare organisations
of the city of Hobart. And one of the many things that I've endeavoured
to do over the last three years is to build what I describe as a social
coalition in Australia. I've endeavoured to use the best talents of
the government, the business community, the welfare organisations,
and the willingness and the resources of individual Australians to
tackle social problems in a cooperative way. I don't see great organisations
such as the Salvation Army and the Society of St Vincent de Paul merely
being the dispensers of charity and human compassion and understanding,
priceless though they are in performing that kind of role. I also
see them as valuable contributors to policy making within our community.
And it's no accident that I've had as head of a number of the major
welfare activities of this Government, the development of welfare
policy by this Government, representatives of organisations like that.
The chairman of my advisory council on drugs is a Major in the Salvation
Army. The chairman of the Youth Homelessness Task Force like wise
is an officer in the Salvation Army. And I've had many representatives
of organisations such as Anglicare and the Society of St Vincent de
Paul involved in an advisory policy role. We need as we seek answers
to these problems to work in a very cooperative spirit, to recognise
that you can't as a government do it all on your own. You can't as
a government ask welfare organisations to shoulder a greater financial
burden, and nothing that I say about the social coalition implies
that for a moment. You can't leave it all to individuals and you can't
leave it all to the business community. But if you can get each of
them involved according to their own particular capacities through
a social coalition you can build a very effective result and a very
very effective outcome.
And we've been able to achieve the economic goals that I outlined
three years ago, and we've been able to see Australia stare down this
Asian economic downturn without a abandoning the social security safety
net. All of the things that were said when we came to government,
about how we were going to abolish all sorts of social security benefits
have naturally of course not materialised. We are not a government
that ignores our social obligations. We're a government that believes
that it's always been the Australian way to provide a decent social
security safety net to those in our community who through no fault
of their own need some help and assistance from their fellow Australians.
That has always been the Australian way and it will always be the
Australian way under this Government. The only rider I would add to
that is that in accordance with the principle of mutual obligation
we believe very strongly that if people are provided with assistance,
if they are able to do so they should be asked to provide something
back to the community in return for that assistance. And that of course
underlines the principle of Work for the Dole.
And I'm very interested to see over the recent months the emergence
within the community, not necessarily from within the ranks of the
Government parties, but from other parties and from other groups in
the community, a recognition of the importance and the value of this
particular principle.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know that many people are here today, and
a number of people in the State of Tasmania are concerned about the
decision of the independent body AQIS regarding the importation of
Salmon. Can I say that I've had some discussion with a number of you
as I've moved around the hall today. We discussed the issue at Cabinet
this morning and I've asked the new Minister for Agriculture, Warren
Truss who's with us today, and the new Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile,
who's also with us today, I've asked both of them to have a meeting
with representatives of the industry and others who are concerned
about this issue within the next week at a time of their convenience.
Because I believe that there are some aspects of the decision that
has been taken by AQIS which have been the cause of misunderstanding,
but equally I recognise that it is an issue where legitimately, strongly
held different points of view can exist.
I want to make a couple of, I hope, objective observations about the
background of this decision by AQIS and the context in which it should
be seen. The first point I should make to you is that each year Tasmania
alone exports nearly $500 million worth of agriculture and seafood
products. Now therefore it's a very important source of income and
sustenance to this island State. It is very important that whenever
we talk about the conditions under which something comes into Australia,
be it into Tasmania or any other part of our country, we must also
have in mind the circumstances under which our exports go into other
countries. It is never never real life in this country to look at
trade as a one-way traffic. There is always a reaction. For everything
we do there can be an opposite reaction in other parts of the world.
You've had examples in Tasmania recently of the value of opening up
new markets. I was in Japan recently and I heard with great pride
the officers of Austrade and other representatives of Australia telling
me about how Fuji apples from Tasmania for the first time this year
had obtained access into the Japanese markets. And in recent years
as a result of our trading efforts, and inviting the disciplines of
the World Trade Organisation, we have been able to not only get apples
into China, we've been able to get live cattle to China and Mexico,
we've been able to get pig meat to Taiwan and Singapore. And can I
say something more about pork? You may remember last year when Cabinet
met in Queensland there was a very noisy demonstration, not from people
involved in the fishing industry, but there was a very noisy demonstration
from people involved in the pork industry. And we were told that the
assistance and the response that we gave to that industry was woefully
inadequate. And we were told by people in that industry that what
we had to do was to stop imports of pork coming into Australia. But
we were also told by people at the same meeting that if we stopped
imports of pork coming into Australia then the Canadians would stop
imports of sugar and beef and other things going into Canada.
So we resisted those entreaties a year ago, or less than a year ago.
And we provided on [tape break] export capacity. And now you have
the remarkable situation of where that industry has been turned around
in less than a year, and that in fact some of the pork exporters from
this country can't fill their export orders. And I ran into a couple
of them, ironically enough at the sheepvention in Hamilton in Western
Victoria which is a great gathering of the people in the wool industry
of Australia, and two or three of these pork producers came up to
me and said - look, we can't fill our orders. It's terrific the way
the industry has turned around.
Now I tell you that little story to make the point that trade is by
definition and in reality a two way thing. I have only one objective,
and I said this to my colleagues this morning and I don't mind repeating
it, I have only one objective when I apply my mind to international
trading issues. Not [tape break] of convoluted economic theory, about
free trade or protection or this or that. I have only one criteria
and that is what is in the national economic benefit of Australia.
That is the only thing that will ever govern and instruct the decisions
that the Government I lead make on these issues.
It so happens that in my sincere view expanding world markets are
of benefit to Australia. And the reason they are of benefit to Australia
is that we are a small country and it's in our interests because we
have a small domestic market and flowing from the fact that we are
a small country we have to export to survive.
We learnt that from lamb. I mean, the American decision on lamb was
absolutely indefensible on trading grounds. The President didn't even
try and offer me a detailed economic justification of what the American
administration had done. They decided for domestic political reasons
that they could slam an import tariff on our lamb. And because they
are big enough and strong enough to get away with it and they're big
enough and strong enough to get away with it with every country in
the world not just Australia they went ahead and did it.
Now, that is the brutal reality of trading with the Americans. The
other side of it I should mention is that last year although we had
trouble with lamb we increased our exports to the United States by
34 per cent. And I actually had a couple of beef producers at the
same sheepvention in Hamilton yesterday morning come up to me and
say: hey, don't complain too much about the lamb they might knock
off some of our beef. And I said, I don't think that is very likely
and that wouldn't be defensible.
But I simply make the point is that what we are doing in all of these
things, and it's relevant to the issue of salmon, and its the sort
of thing that my colleagues are going to talk to your people in your
industry about is that in the long run you have to ask yourself the
question what is the best way of handling these things that promotes
the overall benefit of Australia. And if we are seen by the rest of
the world as blocking things coming to this country without any valid
reason at all, if we are just doing it for a particular local industry
advantage they are entitled to do the same thing to us. And all the
complaints in the world are not going to stop them. They are not,
I promise you. You can have all the fancy theories under the sun but
if domestic political pressure is applied in markets that we sell
to now that block out Australian products. The Canadians demonstrated
it last year in relation to the debate over salmon. There was a retaliation
there, they would never admit it but it seemed to have a remarkable
coincidence in relation to our beef industry. And we have always got
to bear that in mind.
And in the long run it is not in the interests of Australia to have
a contracting market for agricultural products. And the reason for
that is that we are a very efficient agricultural nation. We have
a very efficient industry, not only agriculture but the seafood industry
as well. And it is in the long term interests of this country that
we open up markets. And we have had a lot more success than the critics
would suggest. 30 per cent of the imported beef into Japan now comes
from Australia. And I can go around the world, particularly in Asia,
and give you example after example in order to support the proposition
that I am putting.
And I make the point that we export four times as much agriculture
as we import. We export 80 per cent of our agricultural produce because
we don't have a big enough domestic market to consume it and unless
we export it, we just won't be able to get any return on the investment
and the sweat and the hard work of our farmers and of our producers.
So I mention those things, ladies and gentlemen, not to think for
a moment that they directly answer some of the concerns that people
in your industry have. But I do mention them because they are relevant
to the way in which a national Government has to behave in relation
to these issues.
Now, there has been a decision taken by an independent body. And that
decision that has been taken, according to all the advice I've received
and all the information I've read, will apply in relation to all fish
imports greater stringency than now applies in relation to them under
present arrangements. And I understand that the decision is being
seen by those who've taken it, by those who try and look at these
things independently, as having been based on proper scientific grounds.
Now, there are people who will disagree with me and the purpose of
my Ministers' meeting you is to listen to those points of view. I'm
not going to make any wild promises about what their responses will
be. That would not be fair of me. It would not be honest of me. Because
I think it's very difficult to ignore the findings of a body such
as this, particularly against the background that I've endeavoured
to outline because if we can put aside the finding of a so-called
independent body that is independent then other countries can do the
same thing. And in the long run, if we sell overseas four times more
than we import from overseas it's a matter of common sense that in
a tit-for-tat, blow-for-blow, retaliatory exercise we will suffer
four times as much punishment as the benefit we have from such an
exercise. Now that, in the end, is what world trade is all about.
Because don't think Australia is the only country that looks at the
impact of imports on its own domestic industry, other countries do
the same thing. If the balance were the other way around, if we were
a nation of 200 million people, it might be different.
Now, this is not an easy message to get across because people quite
understandably look at a situation as it affects our own community,
our own country and our own industry. I understand that and I'm very
sympathetic to that. But I've got to look at the aggregate outcome
for Australia. And the aggregate outcome for Australia is that if
we get into a trade war on agriculture and seafood we will get murdered.
That is the brutal reality of it. We will be punished far more severely
than we will gain from that. And we should understand that that is,
when you strip of it all the verbiage and all the fine talk about
this or that argument, on a tit-for-tat basis we will suffer far more
from a trade war and retaliatory trade action in relation to agriculture
and seafood than we will gain from it. Now, I know that's not a message
that some people want to hear but sometimes, in my situation, I've
got to try and outline it as best I can and as candidly as I can and
with all the good will in the world, and with a profound sympathy
for the particular challenges of industries in different parts of
Australia.
Now, there are some things that we can talk to you about and I would
like Mark and Warren to have a discussion with the representatives
of your industry and I know that that's going to take place at a time
of your convenience in the next week or so. And we'll approach those
discussions with a great feeling of good will and a great sense of
trying to come to terms with your particular problems.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, can I say that one of the real delights
of being in government and one of the - because it is much better
than being in Opposition and those 13 barren years of being in Opposition
were pretty ordinary and we're very happy to be back - but one of
the real delights of being in government is the opportunity that is
afforded to us of moving around different parts of Australia, of talking
to people in their local communities rather than seeing government
as just sort of an endless procession of representatives of an organisation
or industry going to Canberra and sitting in a sterile office and
putting their point of view to a Minister or to a Parliamentary committee.
And it's very important that all of us practise what we preach when
it comes to going out and meeting people and reaching people. And
we've certainly endeavoured to do that.
And, very finally, may I join Eric in expressing to you, Jocelyn,
the profound affection and admiration of all of your Parliamentary
colleagues for the difficult days through which you've passed in recent
times, the very fond memories we all have of Kevin and also and most
particular the tremendous contribution you make as the senior Parliamentary
representative for the Government from the State of Tasmania. You
are a magnificent Minister and you're doing an absolutely first class
job for the Australian community as a member of the Federal Cabinet.
And I know all of your colleagues feel that way and would want me
to say that on their behalf.
And also to my other Senate colleagues from Tasmania, I'm sorry it's
only Senate colleagues at present, and I'm delighted to hear from
Eric that you're working hard on making certain - now I know this
is not a political gathering so I won't say any more - but you're
working hard to see that there is a greater sense of balance in the
representation from the House of Representatives here from the State
of Tasmania. And I look forward to the fruits of that hard work, Eric,
whenever it may manifest itself.
But, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues and I are delighted to be
amongst you. We find these gatherings of enormous benefit and once
again to you, my Lord Mayor, our thanks for your gracious hospitality
in this lovely old building.
[Ends]