Embargoed until delivery F 77/ 142
1FOR PRESS JULY .19.77
PRIME. MINISTER'S ADDRESS TO THE. NATION : 3 JULY .19.77
It was good to return to Australia last Tuesday after discussions
in the United Kingdom, Europe and in the United States. I would
like to take a few moments to touch on three aspects: the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London, relations
between the United States and Australia, relations between the
European Economic Community and * Australia, and their importance
to Us.
At the Commonwealth Conference there was a valuable opportunity to
meet and get to know the leaders of about a quarter of the world's
population. The discussions there centred to a large extent on
the prQblems of developing~ co * untries, which is not surprisIng
because about 900 million of the world's people have incomes of
Australian or less a year. Australia committed herself to a
substantial increase in food aid, but however important aid might
be, fairer and more equitable international trade is likely in the
longer term to be much more helpful.
Many developing countries depend upon one or two commodities
such as sugar for their overseas income. In recent years the
prices of commodities have Varied very widely. Commodity prices
have tended to fall in relation to other goods, making it hard for
developing countries to pursue their own development plans in a
reasonable way. If we cannot achieve better trading arrangements
and more stable prices at reasonable levels for the developing.
countries, there is going to be a great deal of disillusion.
Australia has extensive experience to offer in this area. We
have participated in international agreements for sugar and for
wheat in the past, and I therefore suggested that a technical
working group should be established to work out what progress can
be made within a reasonable time frame. The Conference accepted
that suggestion, and such a working group will be set up.
At the Commonwealth Conference, much time was also spent discussing
the problems of Southern Africa. Apartheid is a pernicious and evil
doctrine which has long been condemned from Australia. Sir Robert
Menzics condemned apartheid as early as 1961, indicating that in his
view it was a policy that would end~ in the most frightful disaster.
The problems of Zimbabwe Rhodesia. are very real and they are
urgent. The British Prime minister indicated that it was his
Government's objective to have Zimbabwe seated as an independent
state at the next Commonwealth Conference in 1979. / The United States
The United States is lending its support to the United Kingdom's
efforts. I believe that there is now greater hope that a negotiated.
solution will be reached in relation to this very difficult problem.
I also think time is running out for those who want a negotiated
settlement a peaceful settlement. The longer a settlement is
delayed, the more people will come to believe that the only solution
will be through some violent means that would leave scars on the
face of Africa, scars between countries, that we could well do
without. For Australia, I spoke with a clear voice on these issues, supporting
the efforts of the United Kingdom and of the United States, because
it is important that countries such as Australia speak plainly about
these issues. It is important that those supporting the white
minority government in Rhodesia, in Zimbabwe, know that they have
no international support. If they know they have no international
support, there will be a great likelihood of achieving a peaceful,
negotiated, solution.
It was also important for the Commonwealth Conference to condemn
what is happening in Uganda, and President Amin's regime was overwhelmingly
condemned by the Conference. I believe everyone
recognised that it would have been one sided to take the attitudes
that were taken in relation to Rhodesia, to Zimbabwe, while
remaining silent in relation to Uganda. But the Commonwealth
did speak, in forthright terms, and in strong terms. Thus the
Commonwealth's own reputation as an organisation with concern for
human decency was enhanced. It expressed its views fairly and
fearlessly. In the United States, I emphasised the importance that Australia
attaches to making progress on the issues of race in Southern
Africa. I also emphasised the importance of the grave economic
issues affecting the developing world. Beyond that, with President
Carter and other officers-of his administration, there were very
full discussions on the political and strategic matters affecting
the Western Pacific, South East Asia and the Indian Ocean.
Concerning the Indian Ocean, I found an identity of interest on
the need to stabilise the situation. Our views are being taken
into account very fully in the consultations now going on between
the Soviet Union and the United States and our views will be fully
taken into account before any eventual agreement.
President Carter is in many ways initiating a new and exciting era
in international politics. For too long in the past democracies
have been on the defensive. They have been reactive to events,
on the defensive in relation to material matters and in relation
to ideas. Of all the political philosophies, democracy ought not
to be on the defensive because the very idea of a free people uniting
tthoagte thtehre wion rlgdo vhearsn mesneten . i s tBhuet miots ti s nnobelcee sseaxrpye rifmoern td emino crgoavteircn mleenatd* ers
to proclaim the value and virtues of democracies.
President Carter understands this, and he expresses it very well
indeed. What he is doing in relation to human rights, nonproliferation
and United States-Soviet relations, demonstrates
very real concern for matters of importance. / It is
3
It is important from Australia's point of view that President
Carter, himself and his administrators, want to hear our views
on matters of common concern before pol. icies are decided. I
know very well that if a matter is important enough there is
immediate access to the White House in matters that affect
Australia's national interest.
Now I would like to talk for a moment about our relations with
the European Economic Community a group of 260 million people,
perhaps the wealthiest, the most scientific and technologically
advanced group that the world has seen, and certainly a very powerful
trading group. The European Community has had a reputation for
being in favour of low levels of protection, almost for being free
traders. They have had that reputation despite the fact that in
agriculture their policies of protection have made it almost
impossible for products from countries like Australia to be sold
in Europe. We have lost many markets because of their agricultural
policies of high protection. They have not only done that, but
have also subsidised their surplus products for sale on other
markets, thus disrupting the traditional markets of Australia
and other countries. While these policies applied only to
agricultural produce, they seemed to be able to get away with
this, and still have their reputation for favouring low levels
of protection.
Recently we have seen a very disturbing development with these
policies of high levels of protection being applied to manufactured
goods from Japan, or to Australian steel. I was very surprised to
learn in Europe that they regarded Australia as an unfair competitor
in steel, and that they wanted us voluntarily to restrict exports
to Europe. Their definition of unfair competition seems to be
competition which harms European industry. If this is allowed
to continue, it is going to have very serious consequences for
international trade.
Our manufacturing industry has a base market of about 14 million.
people compared to Europe's 260 million people, and that is why,
in many instances, we do need higher levels of protection than does
Europe. But even when our industries are harmed by international
trade, we have still allowed access to our markets, and market
penetration has often increased despite some damage to Australian
industries. If we'acted as Europe acted in those circumstances,
we would say imports must cease entirely. But we have not done this.
We have taken a responsible course. These are serious matters and
there are going to be discussions in coming months between the
European Community and Australia, and between France, Germany, and
the United Kingdom and Australia. At these discussions the
totality of our commercial and trading relations will be
discussed, and I would hope that we would reach some solution
for these very difficult and important problems.
In Europe I found that the main matter they wished to discuss
with me was uranium. They look upon Australia as a potential
reliable supplier of energy for the homes, for the factories of
Europe, so that their people can be employed, and so that their
standard of life can be maintained. We sometimes forget that
Europe is short of energy and desperately wants secure and
reliable supplies, not for a few months, but for years ahead.
/ I made
4
I made it plain that my Government has yet to make a decision
whether or not uranium exports will be allowed, but it is a
very important matter from their point of view as well as from
ours. I make the point now, as I made it to them; that if
Europeans want stability of access to supplies of energy, to
supplies of uranium, it is reasonable enough for us to seek to
have that principle of stability applied to access to their
markets. Stability is a principle that cannot just apply to one part
of trade between nations. It ought to apply to supplies of
raw materials and to access to markets, and I believe that
Europeans are coming to understand that. Therefore, I hope
very much that the discussions that we will be having will lead
to the acceptance on both sides of some sensible principles
which will lead to a better and a more reliable trading
relationship. The discussions overseas were timely. They will have made it
possible for Australia to contribute more effectively to
international peace; to advance sensible trading relations;
and at the same time to advance Australia's own national
interest. 1.