Prime Minister' s Pres-s Conference
BRITAINS " EAST OF SUEZ"' DECISION
( Main points from press briefing by the Frime Minister,
Mr Harold Holt, to H-eads of Bureau in the Parliamentary
Press Gallery, Canberra) -19TH JULY,-1967
PRIME MINISTER: One useful result from all the discussion which has
proceeded on the " East of Suez" question over recent months has been
the development of a closer contact between the other interested countries.
I speak in particular of the United '_ tates, New Zealand, Malaysia and
Singapore. Australia has been in frequent contact with these countries
on various aspects of the matters covered by the United Kingdom defence
paper, and we have, I think, established a basis as a result of these
contacts for even closer co-operation for the future, though 41t is of
course much too early to say in what direction the co-operation would
develop or to discuss it in any detail.
The second thing which I thirk does come out of is that over the
years ahead and we do have a very considerable period of years in
which to carry out our defence planning and our consultations together
there will emerge no doubt some regional defence arrangements. But
who will be party to these, or again, what form they will take remains
to be resolved. But the very fact that a group of countries are associated
in the Vietnam conflict and the fact that others of us have been associated
in maintaining the security and stability of Malaysia and Singapore at
least provides the groundwork of some future co-operation in directions
which may develop arising out of consultations we shall be having together.
The third pont I would like to make about it ; is that it becomes
all the more important to Australia that we should have in office a
government which at least has a consistent foreign policy and an ' ntelligible
foreign policy, and a government capable of working in close co-operation
with allies who see the needs of the area in much the same terms.
Fourthly, these developments will, I hope, bring home to the
great mass of Australians the fact that -we don't live in some sort of a
lotus land, that we are placed by geography in an area of the world where
some of the greatest dangers, and at the same time some of the greatest.
opportunities exist in the world today. We can't afford an attitude that
we can defend and develop this vast continent on the basis of ' 5weeks of
work a year of ' 2hours a week. ' e just have to realise as fellow Australians
we have to put our best efforts forward 4n the years ahead for the security of
the country and for its growing strength and prosperity, and out of that the.
growing contribution that we can make to the security and stability of the area
in which we live.
Q. Sir, reference to your remark about 45weeks of 610 hours, you are
not suggesting that you are going to shorten the holidays and lengthen the
working week?
FM: No, I'm not. I'm just putting that that is the current si tuationthree
weeks' annual leave, ten days of holidays, public holidays, a
week of sick leave is usually taken, and an accumulative week for
long service leave that is the net effect of it. I merely used that as
an illustration 17e have got ourselves, many of us, I think, into the
frame of mind that we can just go on indefinitely, doing less and getting / 2
2-
PM ( Contd.)
more in a period of our history when we have very important problems of
defence and development ahead of us.
Q. You are not 4mplying, Sir, that there will be an increase i~ n
the working hours?
PM: No, I'm not. Of course I recognise that many Australians work
considerably longer hours, But what I am trying to direct my comment at is
a mental attitude which does exist in some places and which will, I hope,
receive something of a jolt from developments such as these, I'm speaking
in particular, in making this comment of the younger generation of
Australians who -are building their future in a country which, I repeat,
has great opportunities, , but by virtue of its geographical position and
political developments in the region also faces dangers which this country
has probably not been conscious of earlier in its history.
Now, there is one fairly obvious question: Is Australia likely
to build up forces to compensate for the United Kingdom force reductions
In South-East Asia, particularly in the(" Commonwealth Brigade? Australia
has had this long-standing association with the United Kingdom and New
ZLealand in assisting in the defence of the Malaysian area and we wil I
continue in co-operation with these gove-.. nr-i-ts and the Malaysian and
Singap~ re Governments to contribute to the stability of the area.
First, there is the fact that the United Kingdom withdrawals
will be spread over a fairly long period of years, measured in modern terms
in a fairly rapidly changing world, and also the United Kingdom has made the
statement clearly that she will continue to honour her obligations to defend
this area under the present defence agreement and will engage in
consultations as to the best way of meeting those obligations. The fact
that these plans for reductions are spread over a fairly long period of time
indicates the United Kingdom's continuing sense of responsibility for
assisting the security and stability of the area. The precise shape and
size of Australian forces deployed in the area in the years to come will
have to be determined, of course, after the review which will become
necessary of our own defence arrangements, but it will require not only
considerable study by us but consultation with our allies. This applies in
particular to the Commonwealth Brigade which Australia has always rated
as a valuable protective force from the point of view of preserving . a military
presence in the area and for the deterrent effect it provided In that it
indicated the backing to It of the countries concerned.
V/ ill the British decisions mean an increase in our contributions
to aid Malaysia and Singapore to build up their own forces?
Aiustralia has already committed $ 25 million towards the
build-up of forces the Malaysian area, and following the visit of the
Malaysian Minister for Defence, Tun Razak, to Australia several months
ago, the Australian Government announced that it would continue to provide
aid up to 1970. A technical mission was sent to examine needs with the
appropriate representatives of Malays-: a and Singapore and its report is
now being submitted to Ministers.
The question of our further aid is under consideration at
present in relation to Budget matters generally, but it may not be possible
to resolve this in any detail at this time because we will need to consider
the bearing that these developments will have on it. In any event, it may a. 9 / 3
-3
PM ( Contd.)
appropriately form part of a wider discussion with others later on.
Will the United Kingdom announcement preclude a further
Australian contribution to Vietnam or even necessitate a withdrawal of
Australian forces deployed there?
Australia will maintain its commitment to contribute to the
defence of South Vietnam against communist subversion and aggression in
that country. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Australian
Government maintains a continuing defence review which includes the size,
and shape, of its force contribution to the Vietnam conflict. This review
is made in the light of military developments in the area kind in concert
with our allies. The reduction of the United Kingdom forces over a fairly
long period of years will not require us to change this practice.
Well, another question that might be likely to arise is whether
the Australian defence expenditure is likely to rise rapidly in the next few
years as a result of the planned British force reductions.
Wle have a Budget in preparation right now and I am not discussing
it nor to be taken as discussing it in any sense. But given the long-term
nature of the United Kingdom plans for reducing forces in the area, I
wouldn't expect that any of the adjustments arising out of the British decisions
will have large and immediate financial implications. This is a gradual
phasing out and already, of course, our defence provision is a very
substantial one. I am thinking in terms of a percentage of GNP exceeded by
very few countries in the world the United Kingdom and the United States
perhaps, but it wouldn't be easy to point to others. In the longer term, as
I have stated on previous occasions, Australia will continue to contribute
to the defence of South-East Asia and its own defence needs on a scale which
will be related to our economic growth and the view we take from time to
time of our interests and responsibilities in the area.
Tell, I think those are the main items. There may be others
which are in your mind. just before I go on, I don't think I need to fill
you in on the sort of discussions we had with the United Kingdom Government.
I did that pretty thoroughly, I think, while we were in London those of
you who were there and when I came back here subsequently. You will
know the sort of views we put forward and the reasons for them, but what
I would like to make clear is that they were not only views put by Australia,
but this was the general approach of the other governments I mentioned,
including the United States.
C. Have you had any request from President Johnson yet for more
military aid in Vietnam?
PM: Well, as Secretary McNamara pointed out, this is not the way
business is done between governments who are interested there. There
is a process of consultation and discussion. One government indicates what
it feels necessary to be done. I've not even had a proposal put to me in
any form which you could term a specific request but we recognise, of
course, that whatever any of the of the allied countries are able to contribute
is welcomed by the Government of South Vietnam, and we do from time to
time review the size and nature of our own contribution. I have already
pointed to the very considerable defence provision falling on our Budget and
indicated earlier, without trying to prejudge the outcome of our Budget, that / 4
-4-
PM ( Contd.
this year's appropriation for defence will, J'n the nature of things, be
larger than that of last year. just how large depends on the view taken of
our Budget responsibilities generally. I would believe that the kind of
continuing review which includes, from time to time, an assessment of
what we can do in Vietnam would need, on the next occasion we come together
for it, to take account of these developments in the Malays ia/ Singapore
area and just what provision we need to make in relation to those.
C. Sir, the tone of that suggests that any additional aidwhich we
might give in Vietnam will be only marginal.
PM: Well, I wouldn't like to have too much significance read into the
tone at this point of time. There have been suggestions which you may
have seen for another meeting of the countries represented at the Manila
Conference, and I can just fill you in on that to this extent.
In the course of the year I have discussed this myself with various
heads of governments in the countries concerned with whom I have been in
contact Mr Holyoake when I visited him, Prime Minister Ky when he wa
out here, the Prime Minister of Korea when I was there, and Presidert
Johnson himself. And all those with whom I have talked about the matter
when it has arisen 4 n discussions between us have favoured another meeting,
but the timing of it we felt called for some consideration in view of the
impending elections South Vietnam. But for that, I think, you would have
seen a conference held In an earlier point of time than this.
Now, for my part, I would prefer some discussion on force levels
to take place In this kind of company because we could all assess what could
usefully be done and what commitments we had in other directions.
Australia, of course, does have to make defence provision in other
directions and this is not always clearly perceived by our allies who look
to what we are doing in South Vietnam and tend to ignore that we are also
making a contribution in the Malays ia/ Singapore area and that we have some
responsibilities in respect of Papua and New Guinea as well as responsibilities
in relation to the Australian mainland. Another factor which is not widely
recognised, it * seems to me in the countries concerned, is that Australia
is the one country in addition to the United States of America which i~ s
providing a three -S'ervice contribution. Australia, of course, is paying
its own way entirely for what it is contributing. If it is a case of doing
more, then I think it would be helpful if we all considered together what
each is contributing, what each is capable of doing.
C. This meeting is likely to be in September, Sir, in South Korea,
is it?
PM: Well, I have heard September and October mentioned. I would,
myself, have thought it would appropriately be held after a Presidential
election, possibly even af ter the assembly elections they have in South
Vietnam. I should have mentioned that the matter was discussed at the
conference in WTashington attended by Mr Hasluck. I think it followed on
the SEATO discussions. It was discussed there and both Korea and Thailand
have apparently indicated their willingness to have a conference held there.
I think it gets pretty cold in Korea abou~ t October.
C. When do you hope the conference will take place from your
point of view?
FM: Well, first, as you will be aware, it is not a conference which
occupies a great deal of time. The whole exercise for me last time took
two days of travel and two days of conference
Q. Talking in terms of October, what month do you think
PM: The Assembly elections are held in November, I am told, but
I think the really important thing is the Presidential election, and no doubt
the appointment of a Prime Minister and a Vice President. They would be in
a position to speak for the country, so I don't think it would be necessary
to await the Assembly elections, but I would have thought it desirable to
await the Presidential election.
C. VWhich is when, Sir?
PM: September 3rd.
Q. VWill the increased costs of defence next year have any impact on
national development?
PM: Well, we can't indicate at this stage what the defence bill will be
You mean the defence bill we are now deciding in our Budget discussions?
Q. Yes. You said it would be larger next year than it was this year.
Will this mean that
PM: Well, our revenues will be larger also. It would be the aim of
the Government to retain sufficient flexibility in its Budget arrangements to
keep the process of development going steadily forward.
C. W~ ill this mean higher taxation?
PM: Not necessarily. You are e sking me to indicate the contents of
the Budget. We have just started our discussions on it.
Q. Mr Holt, do you visualise an early meeting on a Minister,; al
level of the countries concerned with Singapore and Malaysia?
PM: There have been press reports that the Tunku is thinking of
a five-power conference to discuss future arrangements for defence in
the Malaysian region in the light of Britain's planning decisions. However,
no proposal has yet reached me at the governmnental level, and whether a
formal conference is necessary I think is still too early for us to say. My
own Government would first wa nt to study the British decisions closely and
consider, as I have said, how our own arrangements and policy might be
affected and whether any changes are desirable. Clearly there will need
to be consultations among interested governments. Tlbse have been taking
place already as I mentioned and will continue. A proposal for a conference
could arise out of these consultations. Vie should then want to consider
what the conference is intended to do and how other governments feel about
it, but at this stage, the question has not arisen in our own considerations.
It hasn't been discussed as a substantial matter by Cabinet. / 6
-6
Q. When do you expect to be in a position to tell the Americans
the result of Cabinet's review on the Vietnam commitment?
PM: Well, first of all I have indicated that there has been no
particular proposal put to me from any source, although if the Americans
are reviewing their own force contribution, I imagine that they would
expect that once they have reached their own conclusions that their allies
would have also been giving some thought to theirs, but I would not expect
us to be making any early decision on this matter because, as I have said,
we have first to resolve just what we can provide through the Budget for
defence and, secondly, we have to see the total picture which includes
future developments now notified to us formally in Malays ia/ Singapore.
Q. Mr Holt, how much regard do you attach to the British suggestion
about sharing bases in Australia.? WHill the discussions that have been
going on be stepped up?
PM: I would like to give you a fairly precise comment on that.
Yes, well, the United Kingdom air, land and sea forces already make
some use of our facilities in Australia in exercises, and as you will be
aware, we also have begun a preliminarxy study involving an initial
survey in relation to Cockburn Sound. I did speak in my statement about
feasibility studies and that includes this one. But the question of specific
facilities for use by British forces in the 197C,' s is, as indicated in their
own White Paper, a matter for further examination between our countries.
You will remember that when Denis Healey was here, one of the points
made at the time was that if it became impracticable to remain on In
Malaysia and Singapore, then either they would need to come to bases in
Australia or they would need to go home. We put in hand some studies at
the Service level on various possibilities.
Q. Mr Holt, in view of the rapidly-changing assumptions on which
we based our defence policies, is it likely that Mr Fairhall will be bringing
out a White Paper, giving our estimates and saying where we stand and what
we see the policy alte-;-natives are in the years ahead?
PM: Well, I couldn't comment on that yet. We havent really ha'd the
opportunity to sit round on this. I imagine it will be a fairly early item
of business for us, but we have first to get through what is a major exercise
for us and that is the Budget, including the defence vote in the Budget.
While I have no doubt that at the Service level and in the Departments
concerned there will be immediate activity in reassessment of where we
stand and the implications flowing from all this, we should still have in
mind that this is a programme which runs for over eight years at least
or it is likely to run for at least eight years, it could conceivably be
longer, it could conceivably be less, but at least it is going to run over
some years. That doesn't mean that we can just sit back and take our
time; it doesn't mean that we are faced with decisions that have to be
announced in the next few days.