IJB. it 3o(
5-e
TRANSCRIPT
TELE RT. HON* MALC2MII SUR: Prime Mnister of Australia
MAXIMILIAN ASH:
WARREN RXBt:
ANDROBERT MOORE. _ ABCe IS xi -viw BY
Editor of the " Finanoial Review"
Canbrra Bureau Chief of News Limited
heoutive Producer and Program Anohorman
~ L I IIIYI
lt47 -77 CBNFBvNC
At,,
PRIME MINISTER ON " MONDAY CONFERENCE"-4 JULY 1977
MOORE Good evening, welcome to Monday Conference, this evening live,
from a very chilly Canberra.
Mr Fraser has just returned from his longest and most important
visit abroad as Prime Minister. Most notably the Commonwealth
Heads of Government Conference, the European Economic Community,
and Washington.
Tonight an assessment of that tour. It is also what could be
a half term -report onthe Fraser Government. With me to interview
the Prime Minister are Maximillian Walsh, Editor of the Financial
Review, 3 and the former head of the Canberra bureau of that paper;
and Warren Beeby, the present Canberra bureau chief of News Ltd.
and one of the journalists who accompanied the Prime Minister
abroad.
__ Prime Minister, what is it that you are saying to the E. E. C.
countries are you saying that if they don't take our
primary produce, and perhaps steel, then they don't get our
uranium. PRIME MINISTER
No, what we are saying is that they can't make rules just-to
suit themselves, in the products that suit the European Community.
We used to sell, about 60% of our trade used to go to Britain, and
now the Common Market countries that is down to about
14 or 1S%. It is down not because we produce less well, but
because of the utterly restrictive policies that the Common
Market has.
MOORE Can I ask you if you think our uranium is going to change
the ball-game, if I can put it that way. Is this a new stick
to beat them with?
PRIME MINISTER
I think that is the wrong term. I think what we can do is
point out that they want stability of access to raw materials,
for energy, because Europe is short of its own energy supplies.
It is fair enough to go on to point out that if they want
stability of access to energy supplies, it is fair enough
for stablility to apply to a total trade relationship.
MOORE Is it your impression that. they will listen to us, that they really
will take us setiously?
PRIME MINISTER
I think they have started to listenTh. eTreh wrewree efofuru oorr fiivve
hours of discussions with nine of the Commoln Market* commissioners,
that then went onto another several hours of discussions between
officials their officials and ours, and at the end of-all
that time, I think they were starting to listen.
In France, also, they were beginning to listen when I pointed
out that we don't challenge your right to protect French
farmers we know quite well what the problems are in the
farming communities, it is a national responsibility, a
European responsibility to protect those farming communities.
But, having said that,' there is no need to do it in such a way
that makes trade utterly impossible, and at the margin
we can see ways in which the Common Agricultural policy
could be modified not challenging your rights, not challenging
the principles but then modified at the margin, which will
enable some trade to take place. They seemed to respond to that,
in I thought, a fairly forthright manner.
MOORE, The inducement is what, uranium? The inducement
PRIME MINISTER
These things were not spoken of in the same voice. It was
not an either/ or situation. Certainly the fact that they want
energy supplies, enables us to make a point in relation to the
principles that ought to apply to trade.
MOORE Could I ask you this. Has there been now, enough public
debate about uranium in Australia, -for you to make a decision on
it. PRIME MINISTER
The Labor Party seems to think so.
MOORE That there has been, or has not been enough?
PRIME MINISTER
That there has been enough. Aren't they going to make a
decision on their policy?
MOORE What do you think. Wle heard about the need for a public debate,
when do we say, enough, it has been going long enough?
PRIME MINISTER
I would have though-lt that there has basically been adequate
public debate. While I was away, departments were assessing
the environmental reports, cabinet papers, have been prepared, and
we will start to examine these pretty shortly.
* When Cabinet starts to examine an important issue it is
always possible for the Cabinet to come to a view that
the papers don't cover all the questions as-well as we want,
and that therefore we would call for further reports.
I think that is unlikely, and I can't see any reasons why
decisions should not be made fairly shortly.
MOORE How shortly, could you put a number of days on that?
PRIME MINISTER
I have said before that the decisions could certainly be made
before August.
MOORE Have you made up your own mind, personally, by this stage?
PRIME MINISTER
I am going to examine all the papers, but the input of
what has happened in Europe has certainly been valuable in
this process.
We have also got, as you know, a safeguards team in Europe
explaining our safeguards policy to the Europeans, getting their
reaction to that, and it has been very useful for me to know
how the Europeans look at this particular matter.
WALSH Mr Fraser, one input that you can't get from your experts
is the political input. What do you think the political climate
is in Australia towards uranium mining and export?
PRIME MINISTER
The majority of people would be in favour of it.
WALSH A large majority? Do you see it as a serious political is * sue
or do you see it as an issue which has attracted a great
deal of attention, but which does not really engage the
attention of most of the community?
PRIME MINISTER
I think people are concerned about uranium I am quite
certain that people would want to know that if the Government
makes a decisions to export, that the safeguards policies
are going to be very strictly applied. There is a problem
about proliferation, that is why there is an international
treaty, that is why in our own safeguards policy, which I think
is probably the strictest of any exporting country at this point,
we would insist on bi-lateral treaties, with any country that
might become a customer of ours. These are matters that ought
to he taken very seriously, and President Carter is completely and
utterly right in focussing world attention to very difficult
problems. I believe that, certainly at this stage, and
before the fuel cycle evaluation study is complete, he is
right in trying to keep the countries that have got nuclear
power for peaceful purposes away from the plutonium economy.
WALSH Just, on that safeguards. They are a subject which, while
you were away, was reported, there is some confusion as to
whether the safeguards will -allow the export of yellow-cake
or would require uranium yellow-cake to be benefitiated
further. Could you clear me up on that? Do you fell that
yellow-cake is what we are talking about exporting, or
are you seeing uranium being enriched to a greater extent than
yellow-cake?
PRIME MINISTER
I think there has been some comment in your own journal about that.
WALSH That is . correct.
PRIME MINISTER
It is our view that it would be possible to export the
yellow-cake form, but for ownership, not to change hands,
until it has been enriched to the appropriate point, to a
point that attracts full safeguards. That is one way of
doing it, it is not necessarily the only way of doing it.
If there is export, one of the decisions we have to make
* is whether enrichment facilities are established in Australia
and if so, do we do it by ourselves, do we do it in cooperation
with one or two countries, do we do it in cooperation with
a larger group of countries. If thadt decision is made, one
of the governing principles would be which is the safest
way from the point of view of proliferation.
MOORE If you decided not to export uranium, what would be the
repercussions in the United States,, and in the European countries
with whom you have been dealing?
PRIME MINISTER
I-think it would be serious, because Europeans are short of
energy, they were desperately upset and their economies hurt
as a result of the oil crisis much more than ours was, and
for reasons that we know: we have got a degree of our own
self-sufficiency in oil. So they need energy supplies.
Unless they can get new sources of uranium there is no
doubt that a number of European countries are going to
go very smartly into reproccssing, into the plutonium economy.
That is taking nuclear power for peaceful purposes much closer
to the edge of military technology, and therefore making
it harder for appropriate safeguards to prevail. It is also
making the problem of nuclear waste more difficult, because the
waste from the second stage development of nuclear power
as I understand it, is the much more difficult waste to store.
MOORE What I really meant-is what do you think would be the consequences
for their political attitudes towards Australia? Do you think
they would feel let-down, mislead, disappointed?
PRIME MINISTER
I mentioned that it is important from the point of view
of'keeping Europe away from the plutonium economy, therefore
away-from military technology. I think that if we said there
is no export, many European countries, would feel that this
is a very resource-rich country, not only in uranium, but
also in coal, and compared to many of them also in oil, and in
gas. They would regard that as rather a selfish use of
resources, which are necessary to keep the lights in their homes
burning,. to keep their factories operating, to keep their
people employed.
BEE BY
Access to markets is a two-way thing. If we withhold our
uranium, are we then going to invite retaliation against
Australia PRIME MINISTER
I think the European Economic Community have just about done
all the retaliation in advance they can, so far as Australia's
exports are concerned. I used the figures earlier
to 60% of our exports used to go to Britain and Europe
now it is 14% or 15%, and that is very largely as a result
of the Common Agricultural Policies, and they used to be
able to get away with that degree of protectionism, I believe,
when it was reslated to agriculture alone. They could say
it was agriculture, and they would plead a special case.
Btit in recent times they have started'to apply that policy
to motorbikes frolfh Japan, to balibearings, to steel from Japan,
to steel from Australia they wanted to apply it, although
I believe they won't. Even though they supplied 95% or so
of their total steel requirements they had no hesitation in
putting 50% cuts on Japan and South Africa.
WALSH Doesn't this invite the very proposition, the obvious
proposition, that we arc behaving in exactly the same fashion,
with other countries, developing countries of Asia thcy
have pointed this out in Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines,
have all made specific complaints about our protectionist
-behaviour. You used the expression I think that you said that
the Europeans seem to think that anything that hurts their
industry is unfair. It seems to me that we are liable
to be attached to the same charge as that.
PRIME MINISTER
I don't think so at all. I think it would be a very good
thing to examine some of the facts and figures of our
trading relationship with the ASEAN wuntries. I don't
know how many people realise that. Singapore is inning a
balance of payments surplus with us, and in recent times has
been running a balance of trade surplus in addition..
I don't think we want too many figures, but just one or
two to demonstrate this point, because a great
deal has been written about the unreasonable way that Australia
treats her trading partners in the ASEAN countries.
I think this is unfortunate because it then gets rewritten in
Malaysia, and Singapore, taken verbatum out. of Australian
journals and I know it is done in good faith and for
proper motives, I don't challenge that I just think
that it is misdirected, on the facts I think it is misdirected.
In recent years ASEAN's penetration of our markets has
been increasing at the rate of about 29% a year, our exports
to then have been increasing at a much lesser rate than thatif
the present rates of increase continue, there is every
likelihood that they will there will be a balanced trade
in 1983 or 1984 between ASEAN and Australia, and the unfavourable
ratio from their point of view has already been greatly
diminished. In areas that are sensitive footwear, textiles,,
and these things, we have lost in recent years maybe
40,000 jobs, directly as a result of imports since import
quotas were put on. In clothing and textiles we have had
further increases of 37% and 69% increases from these
particular countries. Just one other set of figures:
In total manufactures from these countries, Australia takes
in dollars a head $ 6.55; Japan $ 2.77; Ameria, somewhere in between;
Canada $ 1.97, so in terms of dollars a head we take far
more imports from them than other developed countries.
But take it into the most sensitive areas textile apparel
and footwear: Australia, $ 2.18 per head from these countries;
the United States $ 0.63; Japan, $ 0.25; and Canada $ 0.41;
the European Community $ 0.37.
WA Lf I1
Interjection -inaudible
PRIME MINISTER
Yes, but they arc also sensitive to the United States and to
Japan, but in the sensitive areas, their penetration of the
Australian market, they have got more access here than they do
in any other developed country.
WALSH But the point is, to use your own analogy, is there
are sensitive areas in Europe when they talk about Japanese
motorcars; their sensitive areas in the United States, they
talk about Japanese television sets. For Australia to have
sensitive areas all to its own is quite unreasonable if you
are going to talk in the international context of trade
which you do repeatedly. We preside at the OECD Ministeral
Meeting, and we signed a communique which extolled the
virtues of lowering protection, of not pursuing the very
policies which this government is pursuing.
PRIME MINISTER
I think you misunderstood me. Because, the figures that
I quoted showed that our imports from the ASEAN countries
of the goods that tend to disrupt local employment are far
higher than would be allowed in other developed countries.
Australia in this area has a much more open market thafi the
other countries I mentioned, much more open than Japan, the
United States, Canada or the European Community.
I don't think we would do our own cause much good when we
just ignore that fact, and imply that we are high protectionists
and don't allow trade their trade has been increasing
at 29% a year. That is a pretty hefty penetration into
our markets, and especially at a time, as you know, of
signficant unemployment in sectors of manufacturing industry.
WALSHBut, let's not argue about the whys and wherefores of it,
but just to look into another area. Do you feel that the
ASEAN countries are perhaps ganging up on us, that they
feel we should be more open, simply because we are closer,
and we are rich, and that they see us as having a particular
relationship with that area, which those other countries
you referred to do not?
PRIME MINISTER
They have, I think, got a particular relationship with us,
which is a much closer one than it would be with a number of
other countries geography, history, have certainly
led to that. But, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting there was time for quite considerable discussions
with* Prime Minister Hussein Onnt Prime Minister Lee, and I
started to recount-to them some of the facts and figures
of our trade. I think a lot of people have in fact accepted
what has been written that Australia is a closed market
and does not allow access for these goods into our markets.
If you look at' the particular goods, we have been allowing
access at a rate that has in fact been causing considerable
disruption to Australia's own industries. I think it is
quite plain that no country can go on with industries in a
static state, they have got to grow, they have got to change
4
as time passes. But I think also, people would realise that
there is a limit to the rate of change that can take place I
without unreasonable social and economic disruption. I l
believe that the rate of penetration'into our markets,
at a growth rate of 29% a year, is about as high a rate as
you can encompass, especially when most of that growth rate
is coining into areas that are sensitive from an employment
point of view in Australia. We have not said, no, there will
be no trade. If we had been behaving like the European
Economic Community in these areas, we would have just said
no trade at all. Let me just give you the figures again, or
put them in a different manner: the annual growth rate
since 1970-71, the annual growth rate, on the figures I have
been given by my Department is: clothing 134%, footwear 110%,
furniture 94%, electrical machinery 88%, other machinery 159%.
These have been annual growth rates, and I know they started
from a low base..
WALSH I was going to say You can quote these figures, you
have got an advantage on us
PRIME MINISTER
. but wait a minute, it is obvious that I would analyse this
situation because I read what The Financial Review says,
on these particular matters, and I have been reading it for mnonths.-.
MOORE But I suppose the question has to be asked, Prime Minister,
that allowing for that high level of penetration in footwear
and clothing in particular, surely soon it is going to
become politically impossible for an Australian Government
to allow that rate to continue. So from a Malaysian point of
vie, it is all very well, but what they are worried about
I imagine is, that where does the ceiling come, and it must
in political terms, be soon in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER
Even since quotas have come on, imports from these countries
in a number of areas have continued to rise, even where there
are import quotas. L
WALJSHI But not the totality of imports, couldn't have, I mean the
very nature of
PRIMIE MINISTER
No, but from ASEAN countries. That is what You were originally
talkimng aboult.
IVA L. S! I
Th ait is right, because they can mark those goods tip further, I mr
it is one of the problems of their quotas quite obviously
as you are going to bring in the cheapest and sell at the
highest prices. If you have got a quota you can'do
whatever you want with it.
PRIME MINISTER
I don't think anyone likes quotas, but at the same time
it gets back to the rate of economic and social change,
and there is a rate beyond which it can't be allowed to occur
in any country. I believe that the ASEAN countries will
well understand this, I am looking forward to discussions
with them when that next occurs, so that we can go through
these things in detail. The discussions with Hussein. Onn and
with Prime Minister Le'e were the most cordial and friendly
discussions between neighbours and between friends.
There is nothing but a wish between both of them, and I am
sure the rest * of the ASEAN countries and Australia,. to advance
the totality of the relationship, not just trade, but the
totality of the relationship, and I believe we are doing that.
WALSH Don't you get the impression, I am only asking this
as to whether you do get the impression, that within the
ASEAN group there is a younger echelon of people coming through
who have started to coordinate their economic aims, and they
are taking aim at Australia to begin with, and that the
kindly references made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia
and by the Prime Minister of Singapore aren't really representative
of that changing mood within the ASEAN structure, because l
we do, in the Financial Review, quote these peoplewe
don't invent them it does exist, and there have been
-retaliatory moves, in statements made by the Philippines and
by Malaysia,
PRIME MINISTER
I think there is some equivocation about recent events
in Malaysia but I am not sure that it is a good thing
to pursue individual..
WALSH You don't feel there is any change of mood there about Australia,
you feel L
PRIME MINISTER
No I don't. But one of the things I do think we need to do is
make sure that the" facts and figures of the trade are properly
understood. Let me say it with all the kindliness in the world:'
when a journal like'the'Financial Review writes that we are
being unfair in our trading relationships 4with Malaysia
or Singapore, that gets reprinted in the newspapers
and naturally they believe it, they believe it you see.
And then if it's Australians saying that Australians are
not behaving in a fair and proper way*, they must think there
is something wrong that needs altering.
WALSH I think it is disgraceful what you have to pay for shoes
here and what you have to pay elsewhere. I think the consumers
of Australia are being had a lend of
PRIME MINISTER
. what you have to spend for a car here, what you would have
to spend for a car in the United States.
W~ ALSH
Well it is and you run the motor plan
PRIME MINISTER
But the base market for reasonably sophisticated indus try
is 14 million people, compared to 260 million
in Europe. There is no way you can run your manufacturing
industry on the same general levels of protection and
survive. No way, but we still allow significant market
penetration. WA L SH
Isn't it surely, when you admit that, that you have to
look towards ways of changing your industrial structure, you
are putting the very argument forward that you should allow
change you should allow specilisation, you should allow
the market place to work. All you are doing is halting the
process, and meaning that we are going to hold those prices
forever. / 11
11
PRIME MINISTER
Things are being overstated. You say ' halting the process'. I
said a few moments ago that there has to be change. Things are
7not static; but that the rate of change has to be reasonable
otherwiise the economic and social disruption become much too
great. But the argument that you are putting could be related
in these terms.. Let goods come in without any duties at all and
then see what happens in Australia. Well, you would have unemployment
at quite intolerable levels. It is much too high now. What would
happen to unemployment under those circumstances would be grie vious
indeed. There is another element in this which also needs to be
understood. I made the point about a market of 14 million people
and with that as a base you do need in my view higher levels of
protection than if you have a base market of 260 million as the
wealthy countries of Europe have. But what we can do in relation
to ASEAN or developing countries generally is also limited by other
factors, and one of those is the access we get to other markets
around the world. If we are cut out of markets in Europe for
significant goods, if therefore large sectors of Australia, as
they now are, are very much depressed all the beef areas are
utterly depressed -that does limit what we can do in other areas
of trade. It weakens our total economy. Therefore relationships
in trade between ASEAN and Australia are not just you cannot
look at that in isolation.
WALSH I accept that.
MOORE I would like to move back in time to the beginning of the
Commonwealth Conference. For those of us at home the big
issue was the question of apartheid in sport and your alleged
spat with Prime Minister Muldoon. There seems to be, as far as
I can make out, some confusion as to the precise meaning of the
statement on apartheid in sport some question as to whether it
Gapplies to only teams from South Africa, or individual sportsmen
as well. How do you see it?
PRIME MINISTER
There is a complete understanding that our policy as it is
fits the Commonwealth statement. The Commonwealth statement
was a long statement. It was accommodating a number of points
of view, and I think a number of people changed their attitudes
in relation to it. I think it is very important to note that
from the African point of view the significant word is " discourage'
and not ' Prohibit'. Many African countries or Caribbean countries
were earlier tending to demand the word ' prohibit'. The communique
or the document ended up with the word ' discourage'. So it was
really around that that agreement was built. If somebody, or a
team is representinfg South Africa, under our policy as it was,
under our policy as it is, if they are coming representing South
Africa they would not' get a visa. That is to some extent a firmer
/ pol icy
12
policy than one that some other countries pursue. But if
there is an individual coming, just being an individual
MOORE I am sorry Prime Minister the statement does refer to ' national'-
that is the word it uses ' sporting contacts between their nationa,-->
and the nationals of countries practising apartheid'.
PRIME MINISTER
Yes, I know that, but it also says ' sporting contacts of
significance' and I had long discussions with Prime minister
Manley about these particular matters. Our policy is understood.
Our policy was not in question. Our policy was not under
challenge, and it is not under challenge now. I again
described our policy and I said that it fits that particular__
document. MOORE So you read no significance into the word ' nationals'?
PRIME MINISTER
You have to look at ' sporting contacts of significance'. But
you also have to look at the word I'icorg bcuewhen
you use a visa power you are going way beyond discouraging.
You are prohibiting, and the policy in fact does not aequire
prohibition. BEEBY Prime minister, the whole wrangle over the sports/ apartheid
issue centred on New Zealand, and within minutes of the relase
of the Gleneagles statement Mr. Muldoon was saying that his
policy fitted the statement. How can this be and-what prospect fl
does that have of saving the Commonwealth Games next year?
PRIM4E MINISTER
I believe the Commonwealth Games will take place. Pierre
Trudeau believes they will take place,. and I believe most of
the countries of Africa believe they will take place.
This was the general feeling of the meeting. There was
a general wish that those Edmonton-Games would continue.
I am here to answer for Australia's policy but I think it
is fair enough if you restrict me to that.
WALSHL Bcyond spoit Mr. Fraser it seems to me that you underwent
something of an appalling conversion en route to London, as
before you got there I had never heard you use the expression
Zimbabwe, and I do not think I havc! ever heard you speak of*
Namibia. During the course of your tour you raised the subjects
use~ d these words not only in London actually at the Commonwealt],
Conference where it was of some interest, but even at the 1 hite
House, whereas your previous preoccupation with foreign policy
had been far removed from Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia. When
did this conversion take place, or don't you think it has?
/ PRIME MINISTER
-13-
PRIME MINISTER
I think that you should -maybe you have -read a speech I made
when Mrs. Suzrnan was out here from South Africa Dr. Helen
Suzman and one I made in New Guinea at a dinner that Prime
Minister Somare gave, where many similar views were expressed,
and also there was an IPU meeting where somewhat similar views
were also expressed. So, altogether those events go back over a
considerable period, certainly to the period
WALSH That is not that long.
PRIME MINISTER
Over eighteen months, two years. Two years because the first
instance I mentioned was when we were still in opposition.
C WALSH I do not want to press it but it seems to me that you have shifted
your ground -or you may have matured if you want to use that
expression -in the period of the last decade. You had no
interest in..
PRIME MINISTER
Good heavens I would hope so, in the period of the last decade.
That is a long time, ten years, and if somebody is going to be
a politician and at the end of one ten year period end upwith
precisely the same views as he had at the beginning of the period,
not modified, changed or adapted at all as a result of changing
circumstances you are going to be a fairly sterile politician.
WALSH How about the last eighteen months, when you first came in?
When you first went abroad you were preoccupied and concerned
with Russian influences in the Indian Ocean, and you went to
great lengths to quote from NATO reports to demonstrate the reason
we should be concerned about this. Do you still regard that as a
major preoccupation of your foreign.. policy, as it evidently was
then; and when you went to NATO, when you went, to Europe, did you
have any fears about the continuation of NATO itself and the
possibilities of a socialist/ communist government in France and
the impact that that would have upon NATO?
PRIME MINISTER
I would like to back-track for a moment or two. I do not think
there was a preoccupation with the Indian Ocean. I think there
has been a preoccupation in some aspects ' of Australian thought in
relation to it, and maybe I did not explain myself as well as I
should have., But th'e words used in the 1 June speech of a year
ago when the subject was I think probably first introduced, I
believe were moderate, and low-key, as they were meant to be.
our policy for a long while has been balance at the lowest possible
level. The Indian Ocean to me has always been a symptom of the
Soviet Union's build up in arms and capacity to reach out anywhere
in the world. It is not an event in itself. It is a symptom
of a global Soviet power. Now in NATO headquarters I found the
very same concerns expressed to me in verbal terms by both civilian'-
personnel and military personnel, and indeed the Soviet Union is,.
-14-
spendin. g between 13% and 15% of gross domestic product on arms
every year. Now that is an enormous amount. It must be of
concern. It is of concern to the countries of Europe. It is
of concern to us. But in the global context, and the Indian Ocean
is part of that, it is not a specific and isolated instance,-
I would have no real concern about the future of-NATO..-Or, put
it another way around, I found no evidence-to suggest that NATO
will not continue as a vigorous force, and as a quite vital entity.
oI now pthte prolblehms witah eEuro-cocmmrunism ein Italy sor France. or in
WALSH Did you discuss that with President Carter, the state of Europe,
and NATO?
PRIME MINISTER.*
Not so much, but the br6ad global issues were discussed. I had
already discussed NATO and the state of Europe while I was in
Europe, and there were close exchanges. I do not think there was
much difference in view in relation to it.. President Carter had
discussed more the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean because
I think he wanted to assure us about consultations. We know
precise details of the present approaches with the Soviet Union,
-and
j I have every confidence that Australian interests and concerns
will be fully considered in the process of further discussions with
the Soviets.
IMOORE
Prime Minister could I take us back to Zimbabwe sorry just to
back-track
PRIME MINISTER
I wanted to get back to that because there is one point that I
want to make and I have not, and maybe your question will
MOORE To me the crunch issue-is what your attitude is towards the
C' guerilla movement, the liberation front, or whatever. Where
do we stand on, if you like, violence? Do we acknowledge it,
condone it, support it?
PRIME MINISTER
It is acknowledged that it is there. It is acknowledged that it
is one of the pressures on Ian Smith's regime, but we do not
condone it, and we do not support the use of violence, and I
think that view is basically the same as Britain's and Canada's
and also New Zealand's. But it is a fact of life. It is also
a fact of life that if majority rule does not come in Zimbabwe
there will be more violence. For twelve or thirteen years people
have been negotiating.' Britain has been saying ' we will get to
majority rule through negotiations'. At the Conference, Prime
Minister Callaghan said that Zimbabwe will be seated at the next
Commonwealth Conference. What is that in a bit less than two
year's time. If it is not, I believe that the confidence people
have in negotiations will be shattered. There are a number of
Africans now who say, ' all right, we accept what you say about
/ negotiations
15
negotiations, but it is up to you to make them work; we do
not really believe that you can'. The African countries as
you know support, as they call it, the Freedom Fighters.
MOORE Supposing Rhodesia does not become Zimbabwe in fact by the
next Commonwealth Conference, and it, looks as if Ian Smith
is absolutely recalcitrant will do nothing to ease the wayand
the African members of the Commonwealth do call on Australia
and other countries for moral, absolutely open moral supportperhaps
military support. What would you think of that?
PRIME MINISTER
That is a long way down the track, and before then'T think people
have to do everything they can to see that there is majority rule.
One of the things that will help, even if only marginally, but
marginal pressures ultimately end up in being successful is
that if that minority government comes to realise that there is
no sympathy amongst governments anywhere in the world, then that
itself is another pressure. That is one of the reasons why I
believe it is important for Australia to have spoken with a
clear voice. One of the things which I think has led to the
continuing acceptance of the object of getting to a result by
negotiation is President Carter's support for human rights, much
greater support for what Britain is doing in Africa, than the
United States has ever given before; and therefore there is a
renewed belief on the part of African leaders who want a moderate
solution, who would like to get to the result by negotiation,
that maybe this road will be successful after all. But I
do believe that there is a limited time left for this particular
track to be successful. Because if negotiations are continually
put off there is no doubt that more and more people will embrace
violence, and violence alone, as a solution to the problem.
If that happens it would leave Africa open to all kinds of
influences that basically are not there. Or if they are
there at the moment, only on the margin.
BEEBY Prime Minister, at the end of the Commonwealth Conference, the
communique came out, and you dissociated Australia from two
points.. one you just mentioned was support for guerilla action
in Zimbabwe. The other was for a zone of peace in the Indian
Ocean. Could you explain why you dissociated us from that
concept in the Indian Ocean?
PRIME MINISTER
I dissociated us from some words which might have been an implied
criticism of the United States developing the base at Diego Garcia.
Because we had supported that in the past and believed then, and
believe now, that that facility is necessary in the pursuit of
balance in the Indian Ocean. It is worth nothing I think that
President Carter's approach to the Soviets is based on stabilising
the situation as it is, as a first step. If there can be
agreement about that, they would then see what could happen / beyond
-16-
beyond that. I felt it would be quite wrong to-go along with
words that might be construed as being critical of that United
States activity. I explained that to the Conference at the time.
I think that our view was well known. It was understood in the
Conference. There was a friendly exchange of vi ews and attitudes
between ourselves and one or two others who pursued a different
view, but it was all done in very good humour.
BEEBY In Washington you discussed this again with President Carter, and
were given an assurance that you would be consulted about what
develops in these talks between Russia and America on the future
of the Indian Ocean. Will these discussions take place before
America and Russia come to a decision.?
PRIME MINISTER
They already had. I think the first talks with the Soviet Union
were virtually taking place about the time I was in Washington.
There had already been free exchanges of views between our own
officials. We had put our own views down on paper, and we knew
the sort of view that was being put by the United States to the
Soviet Union. That consultation will be a continuing process.
WALS H
Could I just take you into another area of your visit altogether
which might lead us into the domestic affairs side. Prior to
your departure there was considerable publicity given to the
statements by some of your Ministerial colleagues. One of the
reasons investment was not flowing into Australia was some concern
with our industrial climate. Did you find this reflected
overseas?
PRIME MINISTER
There is a concern about industrial relations in Australia. I
was able to point out to people that in the first few months of
this year industrial disputes were much less than they had been
for seven or eight years. Obviously that was a short time frame
in which to make any permanent judgements. I pointed out that.
there had been significant changes to industrial law some already
operating maybe more changes to come. But people are well aware
of the fact that a good deal of industrial disputation has come in
areas that affect export trade the Pilbara, coal industry or
shipping. '! hat the maritime unions are I think demanding at
the moment~ or may be going to demand in relation to the export of
coal carried in Australian-manned ships, could have dramatic and
far reaching effects on Australian trade overseas. This is being
examined very closely by Commonwealth departments at the moment.
I may well have to be in touch with the Premiers about it,
because at least three states are very significantly affectednot
only Queensland, but New South Wales and Western Australia.
I do not believe anf of those Premiers would welcome a situation
in which the cost advantage of contracts of Australia were outweighed
by shipping costs, that no new contracts were written; and
people ought to look very closely at the Utah decision to suspend
operations in Norwich Park pending resolution of this issue. It is
a very serious matter. AVALS11
t!. ALSI!
But what could be done at the State Premier level? Just
make political noises?
PRIME MINISTER
No, I do not think so. Because the states are very much involved
and if there were a common view with Mr. Wran and ourselves and
others in relation to it then I think it is possible to talk
with people, and hopefully to get a sensible result. This
matter was raised briefly at the Premiers Conference. I put
people on notice that I might have to be in touch with them
about it, because potentially it is a very serious issue indeed.
I have no doubt that some investments into Austra'lia have been
delayed while people look at these particular matters. When I
was in the United States a year ago people said what is the
question of industrial relations? They certainly said it again
on this occasion.
WALSH But has it been a serious impediment to what you put forward
as your economic strategy at the last election of an investmentled
recovery, or is it a bit of a marginal impact?
PRIME MINISTER
I think it has probably had quite a significant effect, but I
am-not f or one moment seeking to.-I would not want that to be
regarded as trying to make an excuse. I think it has had a
significant effect. But I also need to say that while those
words ' investment-led recovery' were used in one document on one
occasion, there are many facets to a recovery, and that is just
taking one part of it.
WALSH It was a very important element of it.
PRIME MINISTER
An important element of it. But I do not think you can look at
it and say recovery is going to come from investment alone, or
something else alone, or consumer spending alone
WALSHIl Where do you think it is going to come from?
PRIME MINISTER
It will come from the totality
WALSH W~ here will it come from now? Of course it is going to come
from various impacts, but at this stage, half-way through the
first Fraser Government, we have as the Labor Government was
at pains to point out today higher unemployment than we had.
when Fraser came to power. We have inflation still in double
digit figures.
PRIME MINISTER
I do not believe we have for one minute. / AS
-18-
WALSH What? Inflation into double digit figures?
PRIME MINISTERNo.
I do not.
WALSH well, the last figures that we had from the CPI were 10.9%
after we fiddle around with Medibank, and I do not think you
have any better knowledge than I do on that. You are saying
that the June figures are going to take you down there.
That may be true, but they are just not available yet.
PRIME MINISTIER
If you look at the March quarter figures, and I know that is
only one quarter, but many experts had said it would-be a very
bad quarter and obviously I was delighted to be able to find that
the experts were wrong on that occasion. Inflation is coming
down. I think we can agree on that point. And coming down
very significantly. There is no point in arguing about one
percentage point one way or another.
WALSH Unemployment is the sticky problem..
PRIME MINISTER
The unemployment problem is serious, and as you know there are
a number of training programmes and special programmes designed
to help young people. These programmes will be continuing.
Tony Street had discussions in Britain to see if we can learn
from their experience because they have to a significant extent
the same problem. They have a number of programmes and I would
not want to get into the details of them here.
WALSH But you think
PRIME MINISTER
No dQ not go drawing out conclusions. All we were saying
was that he was looking at United Kingdom experience, and
European experience to that matter, to see if there is anything
we can learn f rom them. I think his view tended to be thatL
Australia has done better when many countries may be better than L
Britain in this particular area. But while he was over there,
it was obviously something that he ought to look at.
I just want to make one important point about unemployment. FW
We have got into a situation in which there has been very
considerable increase in wages in Australia in recent years.
Lower paid people are more highly paid relatively I think than
they have been in previous times in Australia's history. There
are-strong indications that people are moving into the period
where, instead of employing unskilled people, they are buying
new machines, better machines, and therefore employing less
people. Even though companies are in a better profit position / they are
19
they are still probably pursuing this particular process at
the present time. With the rate of escalation in wages, especially
at the lower wage levels, you have a situation I think that is
going to make it very difficult to get unemployment down in the
way all Australians would want. This is a new factor. It has not
been adequately recognised in Australia as one of the major causes
of continuing high unemployment. But I think it is something that
is going to be with us, and it might-be the reason, or one of the
reasons, why unemployment in the United States has for many years
been higher than Australia was used to. Because they had moved
into the higher wage situation with their lower skilled people.
BEEBY In West Germany Prime Minister at a meeting with German investors
and businessmen I think I have the quotes right -' you said that
they need not fear the unreasonable demands of Australian
nationalism and that Australians are not chauvanists when it
comes to foreign investment. What were you promising them?
was it a relaxation in some way of the guidelines?
PRIME MINISTER
No, I was not promising them anything. But I was explaining
our foreign investment policy to them. I think that was understood.
I was explaining that their investment would be welcomed, because
you are probably not aware of the history of our relations with
Germany in this particular area, but they were starting to show
an interest in Australian development, investment, minerals
two or three years ago; and certain meetings took place in
Europe that turned them off completely. one of the reasons
for that meeting with German industrialists, businessmen,
bankers, was to try and undo the damage that had then been done.
BEEBY Did you get any assurances..
WALSH Who was that with? Was that with Whitlam
PRIME MINISTER
It was on an earlier occasion. I d6 not want to go into the
details. WALSH It is a very serious charge to say Was it by the former
Prime minister Whitlam or was it by his Ministers, or by
public servants or
PRIME MINISTER
It was on a tour when Mr. Whitlam was there and a number of
other people-were also there. But the minutes of certain
meetings were made available at thetime. I had seen them,
and I was not surprised that German interest diminished as a
result of that. it was not only a political exercise in that
sense, it was not only involving politicians. / BEEBY
BEEBY
How did they respond to this statement that you made? Did
t. hey show any signs of.?
PRIME MINISTER
Chancellor Schmidt, when I told him of our attitude, welcomed
it very greatly, and I think the German industrialists were
showing an interest. Some of them have got concerns out here.
They said they would like to have further discussions with
me when they were visiting Australia later this year or next
year, and I think it was the view of our Ambassador that the
meeting went well from his judgement of their attitudes.
WALSH Prime Minister, in the section of the Commonwealth Conference
communique dealing with the Middle East, the Heads of Government
say, and I quote they refer to, and I quote " the right of the
Palestinian people to their own homeland". Was there any
suggestion where that homeland should be'?
PRIME MINISTER
No. WALSH It did not get down to that degree of detail?
PRIME MINISTER
No. That is not an all-embracing phrase is it? It says
I think, most..
WALSH No the next one says " Heads of Government recognise that the
PLO is the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian
people". Were you one of the most of Heads of Government'?
PRIME MINISTER
Australia has taken the view that the PLO should first recognise
Israel's right to survive. That remains our view, and that
also wzs made plain in -the meeting. In these areas where
Austral'ia might have been in a minority view in the conference
there was no attempt to hide that or diminish that. They knew
our views in these matters.
MOORE Prime minister, if you will forgive the phrase it is time,
or almost time. Incidentally, how did you get on with
Mr. Muldoon? I forgot to ask.
PRIME MINISTER
I thought very well. / MOORE
21
MOORE It was not such a fierce battle as we were led to believe?
PRIME MINISTER
I do not think so.
MOORE Prime Minister, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Maximillian Wa]. sh, Warren Beeby, thank you too.
2N"
qp r.