N / 33
PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE AT SYDNEY AIRPOnT
28 JUNE 1977
PRIME MINISTER
some of the more important parts of the visit as I see it.
The visit started with the rather lengthy Commonwealth Heads
of Government meeting and that did provide a very useful opportunity
to get to know and to meet at first hand a number of leaders in the
Commonwealth whom I otherwise would not have had an opportunity to
see. But two or three things came out of that meeting and there
was as you know the outright condemnation of Uganda overwhelmingly
by the Commonwealth and I think it is the first time that the
Commonwealth has acted in that way. I believe, and other Heads
of Government believe that it was very important for the credibility
of the Commonwealth to speak in a very forthright way about the
atrocities in Uganda, and that in fact occurred. The Commonwealth
expressed an urgency about moving to majority rule in Zimbabwe,
Rhodesia, and I believe there is an urgency about this. Prime
Minister Callaghan spoke in terms of Zimbabwe being seated at the
next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, and that would be
in a little less than two years time. Any policy that in 1977
tends to perpetuate a racist supremacy, of a minority over a
majority is a policy doomed to failure, and if it persists, doonaed
to disaster. Now these are not new views. Some people have tended
. to suggest that so far as the Liberal Party is concerned or my
Government is concerned, that it is a new view. In fact, apartheid
was condemned by Sir Robert Menzies in very forthright terms in the
Australian Parliament in 1960 or 1961. But the fact that policies
in Rhodesia have continued in all the years since then make it I
think all the more necessary that there be an early change to
majority rule. You have a situation in which whichever persists
more and more people will turn to a violent solution. That will
tend to leave scars on Africa in relations between many countries
that can be avoided if a negotiated settlement is reached. 7ow
I think there are some things which are pressing more towards a
negotiated settlement than in the past. Not only the firmness
of view of the Commonwealth but the support that President Carter
is offering towards the same objective, and the thrust towards
human rights which he has initiated, and I believe that these things
give many people in Africa and in the Commonwealth a greater hope
that there will he a sensible negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe.
The other major matter that came out of the Commonwealth was the
considerable discussion of what has come to be called a Common
Fund, but that is two words for what would be rather complex
arrangements to try and achieve stability in the marketing of
commodities of developing countries. We have known in Australia
how in the past our own economy would have been disrupted because
of violent changes in the prices of wool and the prices of wheat or
meat, and we have sought to get commodity arrangements to stabilis.
these particular matters. Now many of the developing countrie-.
are. dependent very much on one or two commodities. Their prices
fluctuate greatly. They need more stable prices and reasonable
prices that terms of trade do not continually move against thei-.
As a result of an initiative that Australia took, the Comm-onwealth
is establishing a technical working group to try and define tc a
greater extent what is possible in pursuing arrangements for
stability in the marketing of commodities from the developing world.
2-
In the United States, there was I believe a very useful and
constructive meeting with President Carter. There was a very full
and free exchange of views on many matters affecting the tiestern
Pacific and the Indian Ocean. We have the forthright a ss u
that we will be kept very fully informed of the progress of~ discussio:
affecting the Indian Ocean, and certainly consulted if it gets to the
stage of coming to any agreement with the Soviets. But I think, goi; n,
beyond bilateral matters between Australia and the United States, we
have got to a situation where the general thrust of President Carter's
policies are giving life and hope to free peoples around the world.
Very often, or in many years, in recent times, democracies have tended
to be on the defensive, reacting to what has happened; but really wher
we know what we stand for and what we believe in, democracies should
not be on the defensive and the democratic idea of free peoplesgoverning
themselves should be proclaimed. I believe that President
Carter's thrust towards human rights, greater attempts to provide
sensible arrangements for trading with the third world, about which'
I have been speaking, the Common Fund, the drive towards making sure
that there will not be nuclear proliferation are policies to be
applauded ardin these areas put the democracies very much on the
offensive, and I think that is a good thing, and I believe there
is much merit in the policies that he is pursuing. I think there
is a similarity in objective in many areas, especially in the area
of trying to seek the arrangements that will do most to avoid nuclear
proliferation between the United States and Australia.
In Europe there were extensive discussions with a significant number
of Commissioners from the European Community, as well as with
Britain, Prance, Germany and Belgium, and their discussions
centered on the economic relationships, not only between Australia
and the Community, but also between Australia and the individual
national countries and governments. It has been agreed that there
should be full and wide-ranging talks on trade and commercial matters
between ourselves and the Community in a way that has not occurred
in'the past, with the objective of coming to solutions. Similar
discussions will be held with both France and with Germany, and I
would be hopeful that we will make some progress in matters which
are of importance to us.
sometimes in Australia we are accused of being protectionist in the
policies we pursue in relation to manufactured goods. But I think it
needs to be understood in context. We are a relatively small market,
of 14 million People. Europe is a large market of 260 million peop-le.
For that reason alone I think we are lucky to need higher levels of
protection than would be the case in Europe. But even in spite of
that, our tariffs have been lowered, and there is considerable access
into our market, even though industries have at times suffered quite
severely, especially over the last two or three years. But what
happens to the European Community? They want lower and lower
protection in the things which they sell, but if there comes a
time in which they do not produce so well, if any of their industrie~ s
tend to get hifrt in any way, they try to introduce, or tend to
introduce, protective measures of a very severe kind indeed, and
very often measures that exclude trade completely. Now in the past
they had got away with this because the exclusions tended to be in
the agricultural area, and people tended to accept that agriculture
was a special case which gave them special rights to have that kind
of protectionist policy. But in recent times we have seen the
exclusion of * a number of goods from Japan and we have seen the
decisions to reduce imports of steel from Japan and South Africa
by 50% and a decision to try to reduce imports of steel from Australia
by 25%, and I really thought it was stretching it too far when they
/ said
said that BHP Australia was an unfair competitor in steel.
Well I am reasonably optimistic that those cuts in BHP's exports
will not actually be applied, but there will be many hard discussions
in the future. On another matter also relating to trade,
European countries were eager to know what our position was in.
relation to uranium, and I stressed that we would be making final
decisions about that after our return to Australia. But we
discussed the matter of safeguards, and we discussed the
possibility of dealing either with the Community or with
national governments. There is an interesting situation
developing because the Community, if we export, would want us
to deal with them. National governments, if we export, would
want us to deal quite directly with national governments.. But
any discussion in that area was completely contingent on whatever
decision Australia might make on the major question.
I think that has probably given enough to open it up for questions.
I have tried to give an over-view of the nature of the discussions
and what was involved in the discussions in the different areas.
QUESTION How many countries Mr. Fraser seem to want our uranium?
PRIME MINISTER
Certainly European countries do. United States I think basically
has sufficient resources of her own. But our officials at the
moment are trying to undertake an assessment of what the likely
demand might be against the background of a known stated safeguards
policy. It is not impossible that some countries that would
otherwise have wanted uranium, when they see the nature of the
safeguards policy might say ' no, we are not prepared to enter into
those commitments' and officials are overseas at this moment in
making an assessment against the background of Australians
safeguards policy, which is a very strict one indeed.
QUESTION What were you able to tell them?
PRIME MINISTER
In relation to what?
QUESTION To uranium. How many countries would want to buy uranium?
PRIME MINISTER
Every country I visited would be interested in purchasing
Australian uranium. There is no doubt about that.
QUESTIOV Are you satisfied about-the safeguards that exist in Europe?
/ PRIME Z-MINISTER
-4
PRIME MINISTER
I am satisfied about the nature of our safeguards. But we
would certainly part of that policy is to have a bilateral
treaty with individual countries, and there could be some hard
negotiating in relation to that. Now there is a team of experts
overseas at the moment explaining our safeguards policy, getting
the reaction of European countries, Common Market countries in
particular, in relation to it; and their reactions will be one of
the things that the Government will have in mind when it does make
a final decision on whether to export or not.
QUESTION it is suggested that you might be able to make a decision by
August. Is that too soon?
PRIME MINISTER
No, I cannot see why we should not even make a decision before
that. It will depend to some extent how much processing has gone
on in the last three or four weeks in Australia while I have been
away, of the nature of the environmental enquiries.
QUESTION Now badly do these countries want it. Was it the primary topic
of discussion when it came to matters of trade?
PRIME MINISTER
It was the most important topic from their point of view,
because many of these countries are countries without a basic
energy source, and this does need to be understood.
It is hard for Australia; it has a degree of self-sufficiency
in oil. a real self-sufficiency in coal and uranium, and natural
gas, to understand the need, the very real concern of the countries
of Europe which have not got a basic energy source of their own.
They have to import their energy source. They were given a great
shock as a result of the oil countries decisions of a year or two
back,. and it is understandable from their point of view let me
emphasise, from their point of view that they would want to have
long term, secure, supplies of energy so that the lights in their
homes can keep burning, so that their factories can keep operating,
so that their people can be employed. From their point of view,
from the point of view of many European countries, getting access
to reliable, reasonable sources of energy, is a matter of the
greatest ' possible importance.
QUESTION Will you be able to use that then as a lever to get access
for our other goods into the Common Market?
PRIME MINISTER
I think that is the wrong way of putting it. What I hav e
stressed to the Europeans is that while I could understand
their desire and concern for stability of access of an energy
source, surely they could understand our desire and concern for
stability in access to markets. Stability in trade is something
that goes both ways. Stability is a principle that I think is
/ very
very important indeed. But it ought not just to apply to one
part of the trade, to trade in one direction. It ought to apply
to goods that we supply, access to markets it is a two-way
business. We have been stressing stability for trade in Japan,
when beef supplies were cut off, then resurrected again. It is
disruptive to relations between countries, disruptive to producers
and to consumers, if there are sudden changes in attitudes or
decisions by governments. I believe that in the discussions whi-ch
will take place within the next two to three to four months, that.
we will be able to gain a great deal of recognition for the need
for stability in trade and access. Now, I do not know how far
that will go. But I was encouraged to believe that once one or
two European countries understood that we were not threatening the
basis and the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy for
example once it was understood that we could point to areas
at the margin which -if modified would make a substantial difference
from our point of view and from the ' point of view of traders outside
Europe, then there seemed to be a greater willingness to consult arnd
to come, hopefully, to a reasonable solution.
QUESTION There would not be any question though of you withholding
uranium if they did not agree to what we wanted in terms of
access for our other goods?
PRIME MINISTER
I think that when you are having trade negotiations with a
country, it is appropriate that those negotiations march forward
as a whole; and I believe that Europeans understand this.
QUESTION It sounds as though the argument these countries put up in
favour of uranium exports was fairly persuasive.-. Would you
say that you have returned personally committed to the fact
that these exports should take place?
PRIME MINISTER
This is not anything new what I have said about Europe's need
for an energy source. I-did not learn that on this visit. That
is known. But i ' t is something that they stressed, and I was
emphasising how important they regard it from their point of
view. This is something that is known. The other point of
course which is important in relation to uranium, that with limited
access to uranium, European-countries are much more likely to go in
for large scale reprocessing into the plutonium economy as it is
called. That is getting much nearer a use of nuclear power which
makes it harder to make sure that proliferation does not take place,
makes it harder to control because it is getting nearer the edge of
military technology. Now with a larger supply of the basic material
so that you do not need to go into reprocessing, do not need to get
so close to the plutonium economy, there is a greater chance of
( inaudible) international safeguards, at least until more is known
about the second stage of nuclear power for peaceful purposes
developoment. From that point of view, from the point of view
of those who would want President Carter's non-proliferation policies
to succeed, they would regard an adequate supply of uranium, of
enriched uranium, as a matter of major importance. Now all of
these matters Australia will have to take into account. QUESTIO0N
QUESTION As a result of your trip Mr. Fraser, how important do you
think uranium export is for Australia rather than for Europe?
PRIME MINISTER
Any country that is rich in natural Kesources as Australia isand
I am not just talking about uranium in this context has
some international obligations to be a reliable and stable
supplier of raw materials. Compare our circumstances with
the circumstances of a country such as Japan that relies preeminently
on the energy initiative and creativity of her own
people, but with very few, if any, natural resources of the kind
that we have got. There is an international obligation on a
country such as Australia. I do not want to put it higher than
that. I do not want to be specific in relation to one particular
commodity at the moment.
QUESTIONsaid last weekend that within a decade uranium would be
Australia's most important export. Do you agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER
We have not yet made a decision have we?
QUESTION Mr. Fraser** to turn to the question of your policy on Southern
* Africa, can you tell me if your Government supports the principle
of one -person, one vote that is, majority rule in South Africa
itself, and if so what steps do you think your Government will take
* towards implementing this policy and in particular in working
* towards the dismantling of apartheid?
PRIME MINISTER
My Government has condemned apartheid in full and I think very
-strong terms, as did Sir Robert Menzies in 1960/ 1961 in the
* Parliament, and people often forget this. But the words he
* used against apartheid were strong indeed. We support the
* general position that the Commonwealth has taken in relation
to that. It does not go beyond that at this moment.
QUESTION
* This is-the first time that you have used the name Zimbabwe.
Can you tell us why you...?
PRIME MINISTER
No, it is not the first time I have used it. I have used
it many times.
QUESTION In Australia?
PRIME MINISTER
Yes, in Australia. And outside. / QUESTION
-7
QUESTION
Mr. Fraser, the Nigerian Government has just set up a Southern
Africa Relief Fund. Do you think your Government will be
contributing towards this, to the aid of those who are suffering
from apartheid?
PRIME MINISTER
The which Government?
QUESTION The Nigerian Government.
PRIME MINISTER
The Nigerian Government did propose some interesting initiatives
in the Commonwealth Conference. What they were proposing was
something which would allow private citizens to contribute as
well as contributions by Governments. As you know Australia did
announce substantial increases in food aid and Commonwealth
Technical Fund subst.. ntial increases to that and a number
of Governments, including Australia, said that the Nigerian
proposal would be considered in our own context. Again I cannot
take it further than that.
QUESTION You are being described here as the white knight of black Africa.
How do you react to that?
PRIME MINISTER
I do not react at all..
QUESTION Sir, could you tell us what your assessment is'of the Soviet
threat in the Indian ocean following your talks in Hawaii?
PRIME MINISTER
I do not think the talks in Hawaii added anything to the talks
I had in Brussels, or the talks that I had in Washington. it
remains very much as it was. There is a capacity of the Soviet
Union to reach into almost any corner of the world that it wishes
to. The NATO Foreign Ministers and the NATO Defence Ministers have
drawn attention to this in nearly every communique in the last
several years, and what is often not understood is that our
concern in relation to the Indian Ocean has only been an extension
of a global situation coming from the fact that the Soviets spend
13-14-15% of their gross national product on defence each year.
QUESTION ( first part of question inaudible)., to improve Australia's
prospects for rural products in particular in the EEC countries
at all? / PRIME MINISTER
-8a-
PRIME MINISTER
I think it is too early to say that at this point. But quite
certainly the discussions that w ill be taking place with the EEC,
with Belgium, France and Germany, will be involving rural products
very substantially, and there is also an agreement to work with
the British Government that has its own problems with some aspects
of the Common Agricultural Policy. It needs to be understood that
it is not only access into Europe that is important because if they
as a result of their internal subsidies get a surplus of it might
be flour they say, well where is a market for flour, that ' might
be Sri Lanka, they say how much subsidy is needed to unload ou-r
flour into Sri Lanka, and this often disrupts the long-term and
traditional markets of countries such as Australia, and Australia
is not the only government that is affected in this way. So it is
the policy they use the term restitutions -probably they think it
is a nicer term than subsidy, policy of restitutions getting rid of
surplus commodity into markets outside Europe that also causes
significant damage from time to time to exports of our agricultural
commodities. Now, that also is a policy-that needs examining, and
it-will be.
QUESTION What was your reaction to Jimmy Carter calling you John?
PRIME MINISTER
No reaction at all.
QUESTION Were you embarrassed at all by it?
PRIME MINISTER
Good heavens no.
-QUESTION Did you feel it was a gaff on his part?
PRIME MINISTER
I think I have been called many worse things than that.
QUESTION Are you concerned that the stand you have taken in relation to
Africa, in relation to Southern Africa, may help strengthen the
Soviet Union position in the Indian Ocean?
PRIME MINISTER
No. If anyone came to that conclusion they completely and
utterly misunderstand the position. Because if people believe in
a negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe, there is an obligation then to
make a negotiated settlement work. Now that is where the commitment
of the British Government for Zimbabwe to be seated before th~ e: cx
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is important. That is where
President Carter's commitment to human rights and to supporting the
British in relation to Zimbabwe or Rhodesia if you prefer it, is also
important. But the longer a negotiated settlement is delayed the
/ mo re
-9
more people will turn to violence as the Dnly means of solution
of a problem that is an affront to human decency the supremacy
of one race over another merely on the basis of colour. Therefore
if one wants a settled and reasonable solution to these matters
the sooner there is a negotiated solution the better. If one
was concerned with Soviet intrusion into Africa, one would want
to press all the more for an early solution because the longer
the present situation continues, the more opportunity there will
be for * people with other influences arnd other ideologies to gain
support and sway out of a thoroughly unreasonable situation that
now exists.