VISIT TO THE U. S.
AND CANADA 1969
CANADAV 4Y96
PRESS CONFERENCE GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER,
MR. JOHN -GORTON, AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB,
OTTAWA 3 APRIL 1969
PM. It is pleasant to be visiting Canada, and I hope an augury
of the visits backwards and forwards by ministers between our two
countries, both of which are so interested in the Pacific. This is an
area where, I think, we have an opportunity for greater joint action in
the future than we may have had in the past.
I would like publicly to announce that there will be an
Australian parliamentary delegation visiting Canada this year. It will
be lead by one of our ministers and will have six other members, three
of whom will be from the government parties. The details of the
programme haven't been worked out, but the visit will occur during
the Australian winter recess which is round about June, and I think will
be of immense advantage to our own members of parliament. We are
grateful that the opportunity for this visit has been afforded to us, as
I am grateful for. the opportunity for my owna short visit. And that is
all I think I wish to say by way of an opening comment. It's over to you.
Q. Did you discuss the price of wheat with Mr. Pepin and
the Prime Minister, and what were the upshots of these discussions?
PM. Well, we mentioned the subject of wheat, and as you
know, it is suggested that Australia is doing something about freights
which is enabling it to sell wheat at lower than the I. G. A. arrangements.
This, on the other hand, in my view, has not by any means been
demonstrated, although as a result of the claim which, as I say has
not been demonstrated to our satisfaction, both the United States and
Canada have felt it necessary to drop the price at which they are sellibg
wheat. But the upshot of the discussion, I think, can be put this way:
that these things ought to be clearly demonstrated and shown to be
matters of fact, and there's a technical meeting going on in Washington
today and tomorrow or tomorrow and the next day, I'm not sure
which but more important than that is the clear agreement between
all our three countries that it is essential that the International Grains
Agreement should be made to work. We all have an equal interest in
seeing that it works and there will be further discussions on this
matter with our Minister for Trade when Mr. Pepin comes to Australia.
Q. I believe you've had your problems too with foreign
ownership. Do you have any very definite ideas as to what should be
done with it, do you have any policies in the direction of buying back
Australian industry? / 2
-2-
PM. -NWljiawemusAruhsatvraeli-ai ni f we're to develop
as quickly as we., have-to-develop, if we're to. bring . in the number of'
migrants that we need to bringin1Jif~ we~ re. to -bring in the technological
know-how, if we're to have the capital which we can't generate from
within a population of our own size, then we must have large quantities
of overseas capital, We start from that point. It just must come
either from the United States, the United Kingdom, or other countries.
What we have been saying is that we welcome this, we need it, we must
have it. But we would like countries who come in for developmental
purposes to give an opportunity for Australian equity in their enterprise
at the beginning, if possible, of that enterprise. This has been an
expression of governmental opinion, and I am told that it has had some
effect even though it is not a matter of legislative compulsion. We
believe that responsible companies, and most of the big companies are
responsible, will take notice of expressions of governmental desires
and governmental opinion, and we want to see a participation by
Australians in equity holdings in the development of Australia. It is
very difficult to translate this, in fact I think it would be wrong to try
to translate this, in any codified legal form because there are so many
variations and combinations that it would be self-destructive to try and
do it. But we do express the view that good corporate behaviour, which
is a phrase I think one of your own former ministers developed, does
require that the capital which comes in and is owned from abroad
must or should give Australians a chance at some stage to
participate in the growth of these companies. We don't expect that an
Australian should be given an advantage to come in and buy shares in
the company after it has been proved to be successful, and not take a
risk before. it's been proved to be successful. But we'd just like them
to have a chance to have some participation in growth.
Q. Are you moving at all in the direction of a development
fund similar to ours which would enable the government to plow
Canadian savings into it?
PM. Well, we've got a resources development bank,
Australian Resources Development Bank, which I think has some
relation to the fund you are going to set up you haven't set it up yet,
I think which you are going to set up. But I haven't studied it
sufficiently to know how close those relationships are, but there is an
Australian Resources Development Bank.
Q. I'm sorry, Sir, but I would like to get back to wheat. I'd
like to pin it down. Do you deny outright that Australia had anything to
do with breaking the International Grains Agreement?
Pm. Well, I haven't seen any conclusive figures or facts
produced that indicate that there was anything for me to deny.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, you have a reputation for always
wanting to see what the weather is well ahead. Could you tell us
something of your defence policies after 1971, and whether you will
have to rely much more on your own defence resources and not perhaps
on the Americans, if they so choose to move some of their forces?
Are you on your own?
3-
PM. It depends on what part of the world you are talking
about. I would regard Australia and New Zealand as in fact being
covered by the Anzus agreement we have with the United States. But
if you are talking of the region to our north, where not the United States
but Britain, in fact, took the main heat and burden of the day until
recently, then we have made it clear that we regard ourselves as having
an obligation in that region. A responsibility not only militarily, but
to try to help economic growth, to try to help build the standard of
living, to try to bring the countries in the region into a better
understanding of each other, and to provide some defence forces there
on the spot and visible after 1971. I don't know that I've got enough of
a crystal ball to know whether if something developed after that period
of time we would then be on our own or not. The United Kingdom has
indicated that under certain circumstances it would be coming back to
the region, but these circumstances are not clear. All I can say is that
we feel that at the request of Malaysia and Sirgapore, in particular, and
with the unstinted acquiescence of Indonesia, we do feel we can contribute
towards stability by having some forces stationed in that area, and
therefore a declared military interest. By contributing to stability we
are going to contribute to that kind of economic growth which, in the
long run, is the real basis of security.
Q. Are you going to increase your defence budget?
Pm. I think you'd have to wait until the budget came down,
but if you are talking in terms of money as distinct from talking in
terms of gross national product, I would think it quite likely that this
would have to occur.
Q. You know that Canada trades a lot around the world, but
has almost no merchant navy. You, being an island, must have similar
problems. How do you tackle that field?
PM. Well, we've just recently made when I say recently,
I mean some months ago the announcement that we propose to obtain
ships ourselves, one to take part in the Japanese-Australian conference,
one to take part in the Australian-European conference, and one to take
part in the Australian-West Coast of America conference. These ships
will be Australian manned, and they will, in fact, herald the entry of
Australia into having some ships of its own.
Q. What is the actual situation?
Pm. Well, at the moment we've just decided to buy them.
At the moment we only do coastal shipping.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, did you have an exchange of views
with Mr. Trudeau on the recognition of Red China?
PM. No, that was not a subject that was discussed at any
length at all.
Q. Do you have plans for opening up Australia for these
people to the north, or do you still have a strong white Australia policy?
e / 4
4-
PM. Well, we don't use the term you've just used. We call
it ' restrictive immigration policy' and we always have. And, there are
some reasons, I think, for calling it a restrictive immigration policy
because if it were able to be accurately described in the words you've
used, then there would be nothing but white people allowed to immigrate
to Australia and this is not the case. Apart from some ten or twelve
thousand students from Asian countries which we have constantly in
Australia, there are many who become naturalized Australians. Of
course, if someone marries an Australian, they automatically become
naturalized, but l am speaking of people who have been living there for
some time and who apply for naturalization and becone naturalized
Australians. The policy has been liberalized considerably over recent
years. Again speak from memory but I think I'm pretty accurate in
this. I think at one stage people from our north had to live in Australia
for 15 years before they could apply for naturalization. Now it's five,
the same as people from any other country. So, there has been quite a
liberalization and quite an increase in the numbers coming to us. But
we do look for two things. We do look to see that such people integrate
with the Australian community; in other words that they will belong to
the local football club or the local tennis club and have a circle of friends
amongst the community in which they live rather than communities of
their own. This is of pretty great significance, we think. I believe
that at the moment it is true to say there is less racial feeling in
Australia than almost any other country that I know. It just doesn't
occur to people. It just simply doesn't occur to people that there is
a racial question, and I think one of the reasons for this is because
there is a reasonably small minority and an integrated minority.
Q. The Trudeau government is facing a real problem in
Western Canada for various reasons. Western Canadians feel this
government is not adopting an economic policy vis-a-vis the American
market they would like, but more specifically in relation to your case,
western Canadians, particularly British Columbians, feel Canada should
pay far more attention to the Pacific nations, the Pacific Rim as they
call it, from an economic point of view. Could you tell us if you feel
that Canada is doing enough in the Pacific area, in a general sense?
PM. I don't think it's up to me to indicate what I think the
policies of Canada, or the policies of Mr. Trudeau should be, but I
have understood and I think it has been made clear, has it not, that
there has been more emphasis placed by this government on interests
in the Pacific than has been the case in the past. At least so it has
seemed to me. And we welcome that.
Q. For obvious reasons, your country took a f irm stand
in South East Asia. Did you discuss the Vietnam situation and the
Paris talks with our Prime Minister?
PM. What I did was explain the reasons why Australia has
taken the stand it has taken in Vietnam arid why the government
believes it is right for us to be there.
Q. Could you tell us what other matters came into your
discussions with our Prime Minister, and in particular, as a result
of these talks, is there a possibility of Mr. Trudeau making a
reciprocating visit to Australia in the near future?
PM. Well, I hope there is, but the question of a return visit
wasn't raised. I had previously understood that it would be some time
before Mr. Trudeau could make a visit, but he knows and has known
since the London Conference that we would be delighted to welcome
him, more than delighted to welcome him, at any time he could get
away from Canada to come and talk to us.
Q. What about the other matters you discussed?
PM. Well, we had a quick survey of situations in South East
Asia, generally, not confined to Vietnam, but generally. I put forward
some views of my own on behalf of the Australian government on the
importance we attached to the region of Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Singapore, and its economic development and the improvement of the
standard of life of its people. And we had, as you say, some
discussions on wheat, and several other matters relating to how we
could seek to have greater numbers of visits between our two countries.
And we both, I think, agree on this: that talking closer affinity is good
and Mr. Trudeau is doing it and I'm doing it and we want it. But it
is not going to happen on Tuesday week. One of the difficulties of
wanting something and saying this is what should happen is that if
you're not careful, everybody says in a fortnight's time, " VWell,
you've said you'd like this, and it hasn't happened, so what's the
good of it?" It's not like that; it's something that must grow and
grow gradually. I believe the seeds are growing and will grow.
Q. I wanted to go back to the Canadian recognition of Red
China. What are your views of Canada' s attitude on this matter? What
is the position of the Australian government? I gather that you have no
intention of following that course with Peking. Could you tell us what
your personal view of this matter is?
PM. Well, our view is that the Canadian government is a
completely independent government and a government quite capable
of making its own judgments. Such jUdgrn-nts as3 it wishes to make
we will naturally respect.
Q. What about your own position vis-a-vis China?
PM. I think our own position is clear. That we do not intend
to recognize Red China. That has been our announced policy and at
this stage I see no change in it.
Q. In what areas do you anticipate this joint action, as
mentioned in your opening statement? / 6
-6-
PM. Well it could well be in the economic field, in various
countries in Asia. It could be an interest perhaps of Canada in helping
the economic growth of countries around our part of the world. It could
h~ e visits not only of politicians and of academics but of experts of
various kinds who could try and study various problems not only in
Australia, but again in that area of the world. Not anything startling
or significant for a start.
Q. Foreign aid, health, and so on.
PM. That kind of thing, yes.
Q. Canada's attempt to establish diplomatic relations with
communist China seems to be based on the assumption that recognition
of the Peking regime might lessen tensions in the Far East, in the
Pacific area, and in the world generally. What is your view of this
assumption?
PM. Well, I am not sure that that is the assumption that the
Canadian government has made and I'm certainly not going to be put into
any position of commenting on any Canadian government decisions. I
think we would all of us, eventually, wish to see China brought into the
community of nations, and behaving as a responsible member of the
community of nations. This must be the long-term hope of the world,
but for our own part, looking at it as at present, we don't propose to
change our present policy.
Q. Do you see China as the main threat in your area?
PM. I'm not quite sure what you mean as the main threat in
our particular area. I don't expect to be invaded by China next week
or anything of that kind, but I don't think there is much to be served
by picking out particular places and calling them main threats anyway.
Q. Did you and Mr. Trudeau discuss Mr. Nixon's recent
anti-ballistic missile decision?
PM. No, not at all. This, I think, is a matter which affects
Canada but not us.
Q. In light of your recent discussions with President Nixon
do you feel his policy in Vietnam has changed any from President
Johnson?
PM. I would think it essential that any discussions that were
held between President Nixon and myself, if they were to be meaningful
discussions, were discussions which were held between President Nixon
and myself and remain between President Nixon and myself.
Q. I wanted to ask you if President Nixon or Prime Minister
Trudeau asked you to abide by I. G. A. prices. / 7
-7-
PM. The-answer-to that is no. President Nixon did not mention
the-matter of. wheat -at all, and Mr. Trudeau did not ask us to abide by
the 1. G. A. price. The matter rather lies along these lines. That the
United States and Canada have dropped their prices below 1. G. A. prices
and they say that they did this because they felt that although Australia
had not dropped its prices below 1. G. A. prices, there~ was something
funny going on with freight rates. But I gather that they haven't quite
been able to point out exactly what it is that is alleged to be funny that
is going on with freight rates. This, I think, will be the subject of these
technical discussions that are taking place. If, in fact, it can be shown
that in a disguised sort of a way and it hasn't yet been shown that
Australia is dropping below the I. G. A. ( prices), then that would be
serious and we would meet with Canada and the United States in order
to make sure that the 1. G. A. which is so important to all our three
countries, would meet the ends for which it was designed. But none
of that is to indicate that I am in any way accepting that there is anything
funny going on.
Q. Don't you feel it rather odd that the trade minister of
our country says to you openly and publicly that he feels that there is
something going on in the freight rates?
PM. I'm paraphrasing. You're not to say that I put those words
into his mouth I'm paraphrasing the general thing that there is a
question of whether freight rates are accurately worked out according
to the formula which was devised. Now, that's a better way of putting
it, but my own way of putting it means exactly the same thing.
Q. I was going to ask you about China again. Perhaps it
might give you an opportunity to say something you might want to say.
In the light of Canada's position with China, in the light of the statements
by Senator Kennedy about the U. S. moving closer to China, is there any
possibility of Australia doing the sensible thing and reviewing its position?
PM. I believe as I said before that ultimately we all want to
bring China into the community of nations as a responsible member of
the community of nations, and I am sure that any steps that Australia
takes, if and when it takes them, will be sensible steps.
Q. I think it would be very helpful, with regard to communist
China, if you would explain why you do not now recognise the communist
China government.
PM. I think there are a number of reasons. One is that the
communist Chinese government does not, in fact, look with favour upon
being recognised unless its claim to Formosa is also recognised. And
we would have some strong reservations about a community of 12 or
13 million people, a community which is probably giving to its citizens
one of the highest living standards of any country in Asia, being handed
over willy-nilly, to the control of a power to which it didn't wish to
go. That would seem to us to be wrong. That's one reason. / 8
8-
Q. I was-wondering while-you were in Washington, did you
see any signs-of---change-in-the America nattitude, a softening?
PM. Well, we didn't discuss that matter at all so I had no
chance to see any signs.
Q. You are going to see our defence minister. Do you know
of any problem on this level?
PM. None whatsoever, but I would be interested in his views
of how the use of joint services by the Canadian Armed Forces i s
progressing, and in telling him of our defence explaining to him our
own defence policy as to our involvement in our region. But there is no
sort of concrete defence proposals between the defence services of our
two countries that I know of.
Q. In your talks in Washington, did President Nixon give
any indication that the United States is contemplating reducing the
level of its forces in Vietnam this year? And, additionally, is Australia
contemplating any reduction in the level of its forces in Vietnam?
PM. I would answer only for Australia, and I am saying under
present circumstances there would be no reduction of Australian forces
in Vietnam this yeari But you're asking me to predicate something on a
whole lot of things that might or mightn't happen.
Q. This involves the domino theory going back to communist
China. Do you fear is there a fear in Australia that if there is
a communist victory in Vietnam that Australia will eventually be on the
Chinese or communist Asian domino board?
PM. I'd like to rephrase that question for you, if I may. I
still think that if aggression and force succeeds in South Vietnam, that
Laos and Cambodia would be in a position where they would be either
completely dominated or perhaps occupied. And I think it quite likely
that countries at present having some difficulty would also be more open
to infiltration and subversion. In other words, 1, like most of the pEople
who live in that area, as distinct from people who live in other areas,
most of the people who live in that area don't dismiss the domino theory
as being sheer nonsense. Neither do I.
Q. Do you think that Australia would eventually be on the
domino board?
PM. I have no fear about Australia as such at all. But I feel
that it could well be as we have seen in our lifetime once before, if one
place after another becomes the focal point of subversion and disruption
and overthrowing. Rightly or wrongly, and this is a matter for each
man's individual judgment and conscience, we felt in Korea and in the
emergency in Malaya and in the confrontation between Indonesia and
Malaya, and in Vietnam that aggression, even small aggression, should
/ 9
-9-
be prevented from succeeding; or else one would run into the same
danger the world ran into before when aggression in Poland and
aggression in the Sudatenland, when aggression in Austria was allowed
step by step to succeed. We believe that for all nations, and particularly
for small ones, there ought to be a world in which aggression doesn't
take place. That if it does take place, it should be seen to be not
successful.