Ministerial Statement
in the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister on
11 February 1975
I wish to report to the House and to the Australian
people on my recent mission abroad. It
was, I believe, the most arduous and comprehensive
overseas visit ever undertaken by an
Australian Prime Minister. It was also among
the most necessary and productive. From
Australia's point of view it was long overdue; in
each of the countries I visited it was welcomed
without reservation. It enabled me to put
Australia's views, to hear the views of our
friends and trading partners and to strengthen
our goodwill in regions of undoubted importance
to us. I count it an unqualified success.
Between 14 December and 21 January I visited
Sri Lanka, Belgium, the headquarters of the
European Communities in Brussels. Britain,
Ireland, Greece, the Netherlands, France. Italy,
Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Pakistan and
Bangladesh. I had intended also to visit Malta,
but because of my return to Australia after the
disaster in Darwin. the Special Minister of State,
Mr Lionel Bowen, who accompanied me
throughout my mission, visited Malta in my
stead. Mr Bowen and I were accompanied by a
team of senior officials, including the Secretary
of the Department of Minerals and Energy, the
Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade,
the Deputy Secretary of my own Department, a
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Foreign
Affairs and for part of our visit, a First Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of
the Attorney-General's Department.
It will be seen from the duration of my trip, from
the number and range of the countries visited
and from the number and seniority of the
officials who accompanied me, how highly I
rated the importance of this mission and the tasks I undertook on Australia's behalf. No Australian
Prime Minister had visited the Soviet
Union in the 33 years since diplomatic relations
were established between the Soviet Union and
Australia. Many of the other countries I visited
had not previously been visited by an Australian
Prime Minister. Yet the nations of the European
Economic Community constitute Australia's
second largest trading partner after Japan. The
Soviet Union is one of the world's two superpowers-
one of the nations whose policies
determine the fate of all mankind. More than
one and a half million citizens have come to
Australia from the nations of continental
Europe. We share with many of the countries I
visited economic and social problems which it
was clearly in our interests to discuss together.
I saw my mission as an essential part of my duty
as a head of government. It had already been
postponed for six months because of the action
of the Opposition in refusing Supply and forcing
an election last May. I did not believe it should
be postponed again. Quite apart from the
inconvenience and disruption this would have
caused to the Governments I visited, the issues
we discussed were so important, so pressing, so
central to Australia's immediate and long-term
interests, that a further postponement could not
be contemplated.
I stress that point because, for some weeks, the
Australian people witnessed a persistent and
often unscrupulous campaign by sections of the
media to deter me from my visit, and when I was
not deterred, to disparage what I did. The
specious view was put forward that a Prime
Minister's duty is to stay at home at a time of
economic difficulty. Now however serious our
own problems and however acute my concern
about them-and I trust my concern is not in
question-I believe a Prime Minister, in the
nature of his office, has a special and at times an
overriding duty to promote Australia's place in
the world. This is not to say that our economic
problems are unimportant. I agree that domestic
matters, inflation and unemployment,
have a greater priority in our thinking and are
more important to the nation's welfare than any
of the matters with which I had to deal overseas.
The point is really this: while it was possible for
my colleagues to deal with our domestic problems
in my absence, it was not possible for anyone
other than the Prime Minister to deal with
the matters that arose during my mission.
That is the crux of the matter. In all the denigration
of my visit I have not seen this point
acknowledged, let alone refuted. Only a visit by
a head of government enables Australia to put
her point of view at the highest level and in the
most forceful terms. Only a visit by a head of
government obliges the countries visited to
clarify and co-ordinate their policies towards us.
Only a visit that includes all European countries-
or at least the majority of those of importance
to us-can generate a cumulative impact
and promote Australia's advantage on the
widest scale.
Our economic problems, far from being irrelevant
to the matters discussed on my trip, in
fact bore closely upon them. One of the themes
of my mission was the essential and growing
interdependence of nations in dealing with their
economic problems. It would have been curious
indeed if I had given the impression to our
friends and trading partners, by cancelling or
again postponing my mission, that Australia is
the only country whose problems can be
isolated from the rest of the world. The whole
point of my mission, the point persistently
ignored by the critics, was that Australia cannot
isolate herself. Our inflation and unemployment
are to a large extent linked with the present
economic recession in the United States and
much of Western Europe. I left Europe with the
feeling that despite our temporary difficulties,
Australia's economy is healthier and basically
sounder than those of most of the countries I
visited. I left Europe with the sure knowledge
that the management of the western monetary
system and the western economy is, along with
the maintenance of peace, the greatest and most immediate problem of 1975. In meeting
that problem, Australia, like every other advanced
industrialised nation, has a part to play.
For the information of honourable members I
shall give a brief outline of my itinerary and
official discussions before dealing with particular
issues.
I left Sydney on 14 December and made an initial
stop in Sri Lanka, where I had talk: s with
President Gopallawa and Prime Minister Bandaranaike.
The following day I flew to Brussels
for a stay of four days, during which I was
received by their Majesties the King and Queen
of the Belgians and had discussions with Prime
Minister Tindemans. I had talks in Brussels with
the President of the Commission of the
European Communities, M. Ortoli, and with the
Vice-President, Sir Christopher Soames. I
addressed the International Press Centre there
on 18 December.
On 19 December I flew to London for a five-day
visit, which included an audience with Her Majesty
the Queen of Australia and discussions
with Prime Minister Wilson and the Leader of
the Opposition, Mr Heath. I sought to define
Australia's relations with Britain in my speech at
the Mansion House at a luncheon given by the
Lord Mayor of London.
On 23 December I paid a short visit to the Irish
Republic for talks with the Taoiseach, Mr
Cosgrave, and other Senior Ministers. I was also
received by President O'Dalaigh.
On my return to Europe I visited Greece, where I
had talks on 3 January with the recently elected
Prime Minister, Mr Karamanlis. The same
evening I flew to The Hague for a two-day visit.
There I was received by Her Majesty the Queen
of the Netherlands and had talks with Prime
Minister Den Uyl and other senior Ministers
On 6 January I went to Paris for two days of
talks with President Giscard D'Estaing Prime
Minister Chirac and other French Ministers. In
Paris I attended a ground-breaking ceremony at
the site of the new Australian Embassy building
and a civic reception in the Hotel de \ lille. I had
talks with the Secretary-General of the
Organisation for Economic Co-opeiation and
Development, whose headquarters are in Paris.
From Paris I travelled to Rome, where I had discussions
with President Leone and Prime Minis-
ter Moro, the Foreign Minister, Mr Rumor, and
several other senior Ministers. During my visit to
Rome I signed a Cultural Agreement between
Australia and Italy.
I flew next to Yugoslavia, the first Australian
Prime Minister to visit that country. I had talks
on 9 and 10 January with Prime Minister
Bijedic and met President Tito.
On 12 January I flew to Leningrad and two days
later to Moscow where I had wide-ranging discussions
with President Podgorny and Prime
Minister Kosygin of the Soviet Union and signed
cultural and scientific agreements between the
Soviet Union and Australia.
I visited the Federal Republic of Germany from
16 to 18 January. In Bonn I met President
Scheel and had talks with Chancellor Schmidt
and other senior Ministers. I addressed a meeting
of bankers and industrialists at the Federation
of German Industry in Cologne on 16
January. On my way back to Australia I paid a brief visit to
Pakistan on 19 January for talks with Prime
Minister Bhutto, and Bangladesh, where I met
Prime Minister-now President-Sheikh
Mujibur Rahman. Joint communiques were
issued after my visits to Yugoslavia and the
Soviet Union.
The EEC-Uranium
It became apparent as my visit to the seven EEC
countries progressed that Western Europe's
demand for uranium in the late 70' s and the
will be very substantial. Our role as a
potential major supplier of uranium means that
Australia's importance to these countries will
increase.
In Brussels, London, The Hague, Paris, Rome
and Bonn, as well as in Moscow, I consistently
asserted Australia's wish to develop her own
enrichment capability so that as much uranium
as possible should be exported in an enriched
form. There are important policy issues to be
resolved, such as the choice of enrichment
technology, the capital investment required,
and the extent to which we may be prepared to
sell unenriched uranium both before and after
we have our own enrichment capability. I am
convinced that my visit, and the fact that the
Head of the Department of Minerals and Energy,
Sir Lenox Hewitt, accompanied me, has greatly facilitated the Government's consideration
of the total uranium supply and demand
situation over the next decade.
The obvious interest shown throughout Europe
in Australia as a supplier of uranium suggests
that we shall exercise considerable influence in
this important area.
The EEC-Beef
In each European Community capital I took up
forcefully the Community's current import restrictions
on beef. I left heads of Government in
no doubt about our attitude to the Community's
action in imposing restrictions without warning
or consultation. I pointed out the disruptive and
harmful nature of this action to the Australian
meat industry and urged on European leaders
the need for stable long-term marketing
arrangements. The response of individual
Governments was, in the main, apologetic and
sympathetic. I believe that my visit has made it
more likely that the Community market will be
re-opened to Australian beef, if not later this
year, then by mid-1976. I was informed that
the total market could return to about 400 000
to 500 000 tons by mid-1976. This total market,
of which we would have a share, would
mean that we would be still selling less beef
than we did before the market was closed, but it
would be an improvement. I also believe that
the strong stand which I took on this matter and
the interest of the European countries in Australian
uranium will make it much less likely that
such restrictive actions will be taken against
Australian commodities again.
Energy In a number of countries I discussed in some
depth the energy crisis and the Middle-East. I
assured European leaders that while we agreed
that an increase in the price of oil was justified,
we did not wish to see a confrontation develop
between cartels of producers and consumers. I
asserted strongly our attitude that while producers
have every right to negotiate with consumers
for fair prices for their resources, we will
also work to harmonise the interests of producers
and consumers with proper concern for
the international situation as a whole.
The Middle East
In my discussions on the Middle-East I asserted
the right of all countries in the Middle-East,
including Israel, to secure and recognised
boundaries. I believe that Israel's integrity as a
State must be upheld. At the same time, a lasting
solution in the Middle-East wil' -? quire
withdrawal from occupied territories and
measures to meet the legitimate needs of the
Palestinian people. While I cannot go into the
details of private discussions, I was not discouraged
by my discussions in the Kremlin and
in Belgrade on this matter.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
I took the opportunity in a number of capitals to
urge greater support for the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. In particular I did so in
Paris, Bonn and Rome. Australia wants to see
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
strengthened and all countries accept the
multilateral obligations which the Treaty
embodies. I sensed that there is a real possibility
of movement by the governments in Rome and
Bonn, which is most encouraging. In France I
explained frankly the problems of selling
uranium to countries which had not ratified the
NPT or adhered to the International Atomic
Energy Agency safeguards. Although France
has not signed the NPT, I believe that she too is
concerned about the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and I hope that she too will sign.
Meanwhile, France has said that she will behave
as if she were a party to the NPT and that
she already applies the safeguards adopted by
the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Non-aligned Movement
I discussed with Mrs Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka
and with President Tito and Prime Minister
Bijedic in Yugoslavia Australia's interest in the
Third World and the non-aligned movement.
Although Australia is an aligned country-and
there can be no doubt about this-we have
interests which overlap those of the Third
World. Many of the non-aligned countries-like Sri
Lanka-are within or on the borders of the
Indian Ocean. I explained to Mrs Bandaranaike,
President Tito and Prime Minister Bijedic our
interest in attending future meetings of the
non -aligned group either as a guest or as an observer.
I found all three appreciative of the
interest of Australia in the problems of the Third
World and the objectives of the non-aligned movement and sympathetic to our association
as a guest or as an observer with future meetings.
We shall in the future be examining further the
possibilities of our attendance in this capacity at
future meetings of the non-aligned countries
with other important members of the movement
in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
The Indian Ocean
I had discussions on the Indian Ocean while I
was abroad. Honourable members will recall
that I raised this matter in the United States and
that the Government had raised it previously
through diplomatic channels in both Washington
and Moscow. I took the opportunity of my
visit to Moscow to refer to this matter at the
highest levels in the Kremlin. The Soviet
Government understands our attitude. In the
joint communique issued after my visit to Moscow
the Soviet Government endorsed ' its readiness
to participate' in ' seeking a favourable sol
ution to the problem of making the Indian
Ocean an area of peace'.
I believe that in urging mutual restraint on the
great powers we are on the correct course. To
support any further development of bases in the
Indian Ocean-or any long-term naval deployments
in the area-is to support escalation and
a heightening of tension in the region. We reject
that course.
Investment
While in Western Europe, and especially in
Bonn, I had full discussions on the question of
investment in Australia. I made it plain that the
Australian Government continues to welcome
foreign investment but that we wish as far as
possible to control our own industries and
resources. I agreed that a West German mission
should visit Australia in the near futuire to discuss
in detail all aspects of investment in
Australia. I agreed also to take up with the Australian
taxation authorities the strongly expressed
interest of the Belgian, Netherlands and
Italian Governments in negotiating a double
taxation agreement with Australia.
The International Court
Honourable members should know that I took
advantage of my visit to The Hague-the city in
which the International Court of Justice is
based-to refer to our warm support for the
principles and objectives of, the International
Court and to urge that the international community
give greater attention to the Court as an
instrument for world peace and harmony. I
urged that the Court's jurisdiction should be
made compulsory and universal. Honourable
members will know that it has been the practice
of most countries, including Australia, to accept
the Court's jurisdiction only with reservations or
with the exclusion of certain categories of dispute.
I take this opportunity to inform the House
that, as an earnest of our respect for the Court,
Australia proposes to forgo her existing reservations,
and in any dispute which we litigate before
the Court, to accept its judgment unreservedly.
Relations with Britain
In London I had useful and cordial talks with
Prime Minister Wilson on important issues
including energy problems, unemployment,
inflation, the dangers of a world recession, British
attitudes to the re-negotiation of the Treaty
of Rome, and Constitutional issues including
the right of appeal to the Privy Council. I have
today introduced Bills to give effect to the
Government's policy on Privy Council appeals.
That policy can be stated simply: we do not believe
that Australians should litigate their disputes
before the Courtsof another country. I believe
that attitude is understood and accepted in
Britain to a greater extent, regrettably, than it is
in some quarters in Australia.
In case there are any lingering misconceptions
about the Government's approach to its relations
with the United Kingdom, at the Mansion
House I made it clear in a speech, which was
widely publicised and applauded by the British
media, that changes in the world situation had
naturally led to changes in Australia's traditional
relationship with Britain. I made it clear
that those who saw the Government's recent
actions concerning Britain as a manifestation of
strident new nationalism or anti-British sentiment
had completely misread the Government's
intentions. What we are seeking to do is
establish an independent Australian identity in
the world and especially in our region. We have
grown up. Our actions are in no way anti-
British; they are simply pro-Australian. Contrary
to a popular impression, I did not raise in
Britain the question of State Agents-General. I
made it clear that the traditional understanding and affection between Australia and Britain,
based on strong historical and family connections,
would deepen rather than diminish as
Australia assumed her rightful place as an
independent nation with a distinctive Australian
role and a distinctive Australian voice in the
South East Asian region, in the Commonwealth
and in the world at large. We see particular
value in our continuing associations with the
Commonwealth. With the majority of member
nations of the Commonwealth now lying in and
around the Indian and South Pacific Oceans,
Australia is geographically closer to the centre
of the modern Commonwealth than is Britain
herself. The Soviet Union
It is thirty-three years since a former Labor
Government established diplomatic relations
with the Soviet Union. When I spent more than
six hours in discussions with Chairman Kosygin
and President Podgorny in the Kremlin it was
the first time that Australia's views on a wide
range of important issues had been put at this
level. We discussed such matters as the situation
in the North Asian region, Japan, China,
Korea, detente and disarmament.
I was also able to raise a number of human
rights issues. While the Soviet Union maintains
that these are matters within its domestic jurisdiction
it is not insensitive to representations on
these matters. I raised the matter of Jewish
emigration. I raised the matter of ' Operation
Reunion', that is, the scheme under which persons
resident in the Soviet Union seek to join
relatives or friends in Australia. Prime Minister
Kosygin listened with courtesy to my presentation
and replied in some detail on the question
of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union and
on the question of ' Operation Reunion'. The
Soviet Government takes the view that these
are matters of purely domestic concern.
Australia for her part, believes that on any matters
involving broad humanitarian rights
nations have a duty to put their viewpoints
strongly. No purpose is served if we avoid issues
where agreement is unlikely. The Soviet Union
has a better understanding of our views and, I
believe, a greater respect for our candour.
France In France I had substantial and lengthy discussions
with President Giscard D'Estaing and
Prime Minister Chirac. I believe it is true to say
that my visit and my reception by my hosts in
Paris put the seal at the highest level on the
resumption of normal relations with France following
the strains which had developed over
France's atmospheric testing in the Pacific. This
testing has now ceased.
Arising from my visit to Paris, it was agreed that
a French trade mission should visit Australia in
the coming months to explore the possibility of
increasing commercial exchanges between our
two countries. Businessmen in Australia should
understand that there is no political constraint
upon their initiating contacts with France. It was
agreed also to negotiate a cultural agreement
between Australia and France and an agreement
on co-operation in science and technology.
It was further agreed to hold regular
consultations between officials of the Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs and the Quai
d'Orsay. The first round of these consultations is
likely to be held towards the middle of this year.
Bangladesh My visit to Dacca brought into focus the issues
involved in responding to Bangladesh's enormous
needs, especially for food. I explained the
great sympathy which the Australian Government
and people felt for the people of
Bangladesh in their struggle to feed their population.
However, I felt obliged to point out to
Sheikh Mujib that while Australia is willing to do
as much as we can for his country, it is not right
that the whole burden for supplying as aid, or
selling on credit, wheat for Bangladesh should
fall on the relatively few countries which produce
surplus grain. I suggested international
arrangements under which some of the
developed Governments with capital, such as
the Federal Republic of Germany or Japan, or
the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, might use
some of their petrodollars to finance the purchase
of wheat on credit from the grain producers.
Detente I turn now to the broader issue of world peace. I
see the peace of the world as resting on the progressive
reinforcement of the network of accommodations
and understandings between
the two superpowers, the United States and the
Soviet Union. This network of understandings is
itself part of a wider balance of interests involving the other principal powers, China, Japan
and the enlarged European Community.
If peace is to be preserved-and in the ultimate
analysis nothing is more important than thatthe
interests of the United States, the Soviet
Union, Japan and China and those of the enlarged
European Community must be kept in balance
in Europe and in Asia. Each must live with
respect for the legitimate interests and aspirations
of the others. Only in this way will
detente become durable and global. Only in this
way will peace be secured.
It is the duty of the middle powers and the
smaller powers to make their views heard in
seeking to strengthen the structure of peace.
This must be a common collective concern, not
something left to the major powers alone. The
future belongs to us all and, as I said in my address
to the General Assembly last September,
the Government rejects a concept of a world in
which a handful of powerful men in charge of
the most powerful nations chart the course for
the rest of us to follow.
Some may ask what influence a country like
Australia has in the White House, in the
Kremlin, in the Councils of Europe, in th~ e Great
Hall of the People, or in Tokyo? I believe we can
and do have influence. I believe at the very least
we should not fail to try to exert some influence
for the causes in which we believe. We should
not permit our views on major international
problems like the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and access to markets to go by default.
I had a number of objectives in undertaking this
journey and I believe I fulfilled them all.
I wanted to emphasise Australia's continuing
and substantial interest in Europe and to
strengthen Europe's awareness of Australia. I
have done so.
I wanted to complete. as far as possible:, the pattern
of visits which my Foreign Minister and I
have been undertaking abroad to outline
Australia's policies in a number of areas following
the first change of government in twentythree
years. I have now largely completed that
pattern of visits.
I wanted to establish or strengthen personal
contacts with the heads of government of
important countries and exchange views with
them on matters of international concern and on
common economic problems including inflation
and unemployment. I have done so.
I wanted to discuss at first hand Australia's
interest in long-term arrangements for the
access of our commodities in markets in Europe
and I have done so. It is less likely, I believe, that
Australia will ever again be subjected to summary
and restrictive closures of markets which
we have carefully nurtured.
I wanted to discuss at the highest level the international
energy situation and to form my own
assessments on the major policy issues involved
in the sale of Australia's bountiful mineral
resources, especially uranium and coal, to the
countries of Europe. I have done so, and I believe
the outlook for Australia in the area of energy
supply is immensely encouraging.
I wanted to discuss with those countries whose
people have contributed to Australia's cultural
heritage and economic development the
present attitude of the Government towards
immigration. This I did in Britain, Ireland, Italy,
Greece, Yugoslavia and the Netherlands.
I wished also to explain Australia's policies on
foreign investment and to remove any uncertainties
about these policies. I have done so.
Finally, I wanted to examine ways in which
Australia might make its contribution to
strengthening the fabric of co-operation between
Australia and Europe and to explore, at
the highest level, the attitudes of countries like
the Soviet Union, France and Yugoslavia to
detente and to the Middle-East, which are
essential to forming any sound assessment of
the prospects for world peace. I have done so.
I regret that many of these things, these
immense and tangible benefits for Australia,
have been obscured from the Australian people.
I do not resent fair criticism from the media.
Everyone in public life accepts such criticsm and
frequently benefits from it. Even my worst enemies
would concede that I have rarely
complained about the media's treatment of me,
that I have been more accessible to the media,
more frank in my dealings with them, than any
of my predecessors in this office. A free press
has an essential and constructive role in democratic
society. I regret however that on this
occasion the Australian public was not served by the media as objectively or as intelligently as
it deserved. Too often matters of substance
were subordinated to reports of trivia. It was
repeatedly suggested that much of my time was
taken up with sightseeing in visits to
archaeological sites and museums. Very little
time was taken up with these things and most of
it was during public holidays and weekends.
Such diversions, of course, are a normal part of
the hospitality extended to visiting heads of
government, and I make no apology for my
interest in the culture and histories of the countries
I visited, of the countries from which so
many of my fellow citizens have come.
We are not a nation of Philistines; we should not
be content with an image abroad based mainly
on Barry McKenzie. I take some pride in the
extensive and sympathetic presentation of my
mission in the media in all the countries I visited.
I found immense goodwill, not just for me, but
for Australia. This goodwill was expressed and
symbolised in many different ways. In
Bangladesh, for example, there was a warm appreciation
of Australia's food aid programs. In
the visits of the Special Minister and myself to
war cemeteries in France, in Belgium, in Crete,
in Athens, I found deep and genuine gratitude
for the contribution of Australian soldiers to the
allied cause in two world wars. In many countries
there was a ready understanding of the
links forged by our immigration program.
Everywhere in the media of the countries I
visited I found a full appreciation of the importance
and urgency of the matters I sought to
raise. I regret that I found much less understanding
in the media of my own country.
Over a year ago, on my return from China and
Japan, I had occasion to say that Australia had
at last got her relations right with the four
powers of most immediate concern to us-with
Indonesia, our nearest neighbour; with Japan,
our largest trading partner; with China, the
most populous nation on earth; and with the
United States, the world's most powerful nation
and our firmest ally. My visit to China ended a
generation of lost contact with a quarter of the
world's people. My visits to the United States,
Japan, Indonesia and India consolidated,
improved and matured existing relationships of
great importance to us. My visit to the Soviet
Union has marked a new stage in the development
of practical and realistic relations with the
other powerful nation on earth. My visit to
Europe has reasserted our strong and continuing
interest in the European Community, and I
believe, rekindled Europe's interest in a strong,
progressive and independent Australia. Taken
together, we have begun to fashion a more contemporary
relationship with Europe-East and
West-more appropriate to the changed conditions
of our time. We can now say confidently
that Australia has got her relations right, not just
with the countries nearest to us but also with
most nations of importance, and regions of
importance, in the world.