FOR PRESS SEPTEMBER 1977
TRANSCRIPT OF AN
ADDRESS TO. THE AUSTRALIAN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
This association does serve a very real need to remind us all
of the strength of, and association between, the United States
and Australia.
I do not think there is really any need in this company to dwell
overlong on the importance of the relationship between America
and Australia.
The United States of course is important to every society but
maybe a little more important to those societies which have
basically the same philosophical perceptions, the same outlook
on the forms of government, and of the nature of individuals
and society.
But America as the world's richest, most powerful and technologically
most advanced society is obviously important to the whole world.
Its actions in every field of activity economic, political,
social and cultural have significant influence on all of us.
But the Australian-American relationship does go well beyond that.
Australia and the United States are both democracies sharing the
highest regard for individual freedom, opportunity and achievement.
We have a common heritage, a common frontier experience.
Indeed, that common heritage, common frontier experience is
sometimes closer than many of us might want to recognise.
Because if the war of independence had not led to the United
States ceasing to be a place that would receive enforced emigrants
from the United Kingdom, then the development of Australia and
Port Jackson would have been years later than in fact it was.
So we have a common origin.
We are both nations of immigrants. We are free peoples with
common philosophical perspectives.
We have co-operated in many regions, in the pursuit of common
goals. We have co-operated because our own independent perception and
assessment of our respective national interest have led us into
genuine agreement on the most effective ways we can contribute to
world peace, stability and economic processes. / For
For decades now the mantle of leading the democracies has fallen
to the United States. During my recent visit to that country it
was apparent that President Carter and his administration were
responding with confidence and vigour to the challenges of
America's role as leader of nations, and the seriousness of the
challenges posed by such problems as the world's energy situation,
nuclear non-proliferation, the economic position of the developing
countries and restrictions on human rights.
President Carter has shown a deep concern about these issues and
also a confidence that solutions can be found. He has shown a
willingness to resolve them, even a willingness to take risks to
resolve them. I believe also that the United States has underlined
strength and resolution in its Executive and its Congress. There
is a very real importance of the perception other countries have
of the United States.
All of us recognise that countries of Australia's size c an do many
things. But there are some things in this world that have to be
. done but which at the same time only the world's greatest power
can do. If the United States leaves them undone, they can-not
be done by any other country.
Sometimes in the past, democracies have been put on the defensive,
not only in respect to material matters but in respect of ideas.
I believe that democracies such as Australia and the United States
should never have to be on'the defensive.
No other system of government has offered so much to its own
people in terms of spiritual and real advantage. There are
times when democracies tend to forget that. There are
times when democracies allow themselves to be put on the
defensive when they should always be on the offensive for what
they have achieved, for what they have done for their own people,
and for what they have done to advance human dignity.
We can, and should, be proud of our democratic values and
institutions, of our record of protecting and enhancing the
integrity of people.
President Carter's vigour and confidence, his willingness to
speak out-about the values of democracy, signals I believe an
end' to defensiveness.
A resurgence of faith in the democratic system and of the ability
of free people to face up and surmount the challenges confronting
them, but acting effectively to meet common problems, requires
co-operation and consultation between democratic nations.
President Carter has made it clear this is the touchstone of
his approach. When I was in Washington recently, the President
made it perfectly plain that he wanted to hear Australia's views
on matters which we thought to be of major importance whether
they affected our own immediate part of the world, or events
which might be taking place further afield. / There
-3
There has been close and warm correspondence and communication
since that time, on a quite continuous basis. It is a communication
that I value and the Australian Government values very
greatly. Australia has an obligation to speak in the free
councils of the world particularly on matters of international
concern where Australia might have a particular expertise or a
special understanding because of history, geography, or past
experience. That is done, and will continue to be done.
There is one area of practical co-operation and one of great
importance for the future for Australia, America and the world
and that is the future of energy policy.
President Carter has taken the lead with his practical proposals
for meeting the ever-increasing needs in an energy-scarce world:
through energy conservation programmes and through broadening
the energy base; to encouraging the use of nuclear energy while
minimising the risks associated with it; and in particular taking
steps to slow the entry to a plutonium fuelled economy.
We recognise that, as a country richly endowed with energy
resources, Australia has a special obligation to develop its
resources wisely in the interests of global peace and global
stability. It-is very often difficult for Australians to understand
that other countries are often very short of natural
resources. We have coal in great supply, iron ore and minerals,
including uranium, and great supplies of natural gas. In a
sense, Australia is indeed a lucky country.
But we might well find it difficult to understand the problems
and attitudes of countries whose major resources are the energy
ancl the capacity of their own people.
If a country of great natural resources such as Australia were
to say ' O no, the rest of the world cannot share in the benefits
of those resources we are going to lock them up in Australia
and deny them to the world' then that would be taking a very
serious course of action. It would be saying to other countries
that we are prepared to deny you the energy-to keep your factories
operating; we are prepared to deny to you the right to have your
homes heated in winter, and to be able to put on the light after
sunset. Nuclear energy is the only viable and practical option many
countries have to close the gap in their increasing energy needs
for factories, for jobs, for homes, to meet the diminishing supply
and increasing cost of oil and natural gas. Uranium is clearly a
key resource of which Australia has an abundance.
And we have a responsibility to be a continuing and stable
source of supply of energy and raw materials to other countries,
and particularly to our major trading partners. In meeting
those responsibilities, we need also to protect our economic
and social environments.
The use of nuclear technology however brings with it attendant
risk, risks of which we are all aware. / We have
we have welcomed the fresh impetus President Carter has given to
discussion of the question of nuclear non-proliferation, one of
the most crucial problems in international affairs. The Fox
Report basically said, and I think it is correct,. that-Australia's
attitude to the export of u. ranium should be determined by the most
efficient way in which Australia can argue against nuclear weapon
proliferation. In this area there are two points. We can pretend that our uranium
does not exist. We can pretend that Australia is somewhere on the
moon, not in this world. We can pretend the world around us does
not exist, and ignore the fact that people are going to use uranium
for peaceful purposes and pretend that it was not going to affect us.
If we did that, we would have no influence on the International
Atomic Energy Agency, or on President Carter's evaluation and
study of nuclear supplies, all of which are designed to try and
make sure that nuclear fuel is used for peaceful purposes, and is
used as safely as possible under the most strict and absolute
safeguards. Do Australians really want the people of this country to turn their
backs on this great issue? Or do they want a vigorous Australian
Government to get out into the world and use its influence?
Because our natural resources give us the possibility of doing
just that for the peace and stability of the world.
I really believe that pe ople in Australia could feel safer if
they knew that an Australian Government with proper objectives
in mind was out in the world forum arguing for proper purposes
and for proper objectives. I do not know a single'Australian who
opposes those particular objectives.
The choi ce is clear. Australia will either turn its back on the
great province of the world which might well'in history be the
greatest-of-the last part of this century. Or Australia will
take its place in the world and will use its influence for a
better and safer world.
Every Australian would have a right, and I believe would feel
a capacity to sleep safer at night if they knew that an Australian
Government with that in mind was taking its part in the world
rath~ r than Pretending that the world does not exist.
But President Carter's efforts to foster dialogue and discussion
and international effort in these matters is to be applauded.
Australia is proud to stand with the United States in the general
objective of seeking a better and safer world.
Australia may never be short of electrical energy because of
massive coal reserves. One energy area which does pose problems
for us is that of liquid fuel. And unless new discoveries are
soon made, Australia will have to rely increasingly on costly
imported crude oils. / By
By firm pricing policies through a wide range of incentives,
the Government hopes to encourage conservation on the one hand
but further exploration and development on the other. We can
no longer afford the continued extravagance and wasteful
consumption of this vital and scarce resource which has been
caused in the past by exceptionally low prices for oil and
oil-derived products.
The Australian Government is also acutely aware of the need to
develop and harness new technology to meet out energy requirements.
Solar energy and coal research are areas that this Government
will be pursuing. We are already involved in co-operative
measures with Germany in relation to coal research. We are
investigating the possibility of forming co-operative researches
with the United Kingdom and with the United States and a special
levy is being introduced to help pay for that research.
In all of this, there is great scope and co-operation between
Australia and the United States and in practical fields I think
we will knit closer together as the years pass.
This in part leads me to a question I would like to touch on
briefly foreign investment. The Government's policy is clear.
We welcome foreign investment. We recognise the contribution it
can, has, does, and will continue to make, to the development
of the Australian economy.
We have established clear guidelines which give foreign investors
fair treatment and Australian nationals fair treatment. In this
area it is obviously a question of balancing interests. But
those guidelines are also sufficiently flexible to allow
important new ventures to proceed when there might not be
Ade4uate Australian capital to meet the guidelines.
There are two factors which have slowed the rate of foreign
investment and development in Australia.
one is the problem of inflation. The other is an industrial
relations problem.
In both areas, however, I think there has been a marked
improvement, although not yet enough. In our economic policies
there has been considerable success in reducing inflation. How
many people remember that in the last half of 1974 inflation was
running at a fraction under 20%, and when we came to office,
was at 16% and 17%. As measured by the CPI in June this year,
inflation was running at 10.4% -obviously with Medibank excluded.
But you can take other indices when that particular aberration
did not operate, because they recognised that health care was a
reality, that in fact it had a cost, that it suddenly did not
disappear because you paid for it in a different way. The
implicit price deflator for gross domestic product which takes
into account all expenditures, brought inflation downfror. 16%
or 17% to 9.2% in the June quarter. / I have
I have a friendly objective with the United States, in that
the Governor-of the United States Reserve Bank, Mr. Arthur
Btirns, said that next time I have lunch with him out objective
is to have the Australian inflation rate under that of the
United States. Inflation has only to increase a . little bit
more in the US, and ours to reduce a little bit more, as ours
will, and I will be able to go to the United States and win
that bet.
In the other area of industrial disputes, there has also been
a significant improvement, but again not enough. To give
examples from figures and then I will say how the figures
4 mislead in the'first six months of 1974, 2 .4 million man days
were lost in industrial disputes. I do not need to emphasise
that my administration was not in power in the first six months
of 1974. In the first six months of this year, 718,000 days were
lost a reduction of 83% from the position three years ago.
But there is still considerable improvement needed. Some
extreme union leaders have fewer and fewer people who go out
on a strike, and cause this disruption and regular disruption;
whereas before there might have been more people to cause that
disruption. Therefore, while statistics indicate considerable
improvement, the improvement is not as great as the figures allow.
In the seamen's dispute which held up Norwich Park venture on
behalf of Utah and the seamen' s dispute is running the risk
of closing down the Utah operations because they are demanding
certain conditions which are quite unreasonable in relation to
the export of some commodities jobs are being lost.
In the case of the builders labourers federation, thousands
I of jobs throughout Australia are being piit at risk as a result
of guerilla tactics. This must not be allowed to continue.
Australia must not continue to be prejudiced as a result of
the act-ions of minorities.
lie have now established the Industrial Relations Bureau and the
very able Director of that Bureau will be taking up office
within a few days time. We have introduced secret p) ostal
ballots for the election of officials of trade unions registered
under Commonwealth legislation. It is likely that there will
be amendments to that legislation because of activities of at
least one union designed to upset the processes of the secret
ballot. Srecondary boycotts have been brought within the ambit of
rcst~ rictLed. trade practices legislation. That is a significant
advance. Following our actions during the air traffic controllers
ezis; pute and the postal employees dispute at Redfern, people can
understand that the Government is not prepared to accept nonsense
4 and allow the Australian people to be held to ransom.
But much remains to be done. Tony Street has done a
magnificent job in a very difficult area. Further legislation
will be introduced in relation to industrial legislation within
the next four or five weeks. / We would
-7-
We would much prefer to be able to solve problems in this
area by consultation, and it is worth noting that the first
thing we tried to do was to establish a tripartite consultative
process between Government, employees and employers. But
Mr. Hawk said he would have none of it. It was only in May
of this year that the union movement came to the view that
that kind of consultation would be worth while and that it
might have merit. It was not the Government that rejected
the consultation from the beginning. We argued for it, and
the proposal was rejected.