Interview with Laurie Power, 0/ 10 Network ' dApril 1978
QUESTION: Mr Fraser, are you satisfied with the response you
have had from the Japanese Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: I think there's a remarkable degree of commonality
in the general approach Japan and Australia have to the
current economic situations in the world. I think we both
know that what happens to Japan, what happens to Australia,
very much depends on the general economic situation, and I've
said before the purpose in coming here was to probe what
countries, individually or collectively, might be able to
do to achieve an expansion of markets. If we don't achieve
that we're going to be lef t-at the end of this year with
developed coutries arguing about the cut-off of existing
markets, and increased tensions also between developed and
developing countries.
QUESTION: Can you tell us now what plan you put to Mr Fukuda?
PRIME MINISTER: The discussions are continuing, and as I
think you know they've also been extended to take into account
additional talks with Mr Ushiba, which will be taking place in
almost a few moments time. I'm not really I think in a position
to say what's going to reveal the nature of those disucssions
before they take place. Australia does have views about what
ought to happen at MTN, about what ought to happen in the North/
South dialogue, the Common Fund. We've already taken actions,
and publically announced those actions, to try and break the
deadlocked that had occurred between what is called the " B Gop
countries, largely the developed countries, and the group of
77, the developing countries. About 10 days ago the Ministerial
Meeting of all Commonwealth countries, over 30 countries wererepresented,
broadly endoresed the view that Australia put.
That included the developed countries of the Commonwealth and
obviously the developing countries. I think in a sense that's
an encouraging sign, because other developed countries in
the Commonwealth moved, as I believe is a consequence of
Australia's actions, but at the same time the developing
countries didn't stick rigidly on their position. Because
there has to be movement from both groups if there is to be
agreement. We believe these matters need to be pushed with
vigour. I'm also of course pointing out that at the MTN we
must have agreements in relation to agriculture, and not just
in relation to industrial goods. I think that's of vital
importance to Australia, because industrial goods would cover
about 40% of Japan, North America and Europe's exports, but
only about 5% of our exports.
QUESTION: Is there any chance of Mr Fukuda taking to Washington
your plan, for discussion with President Carter?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr Fukuda will take his own views to Washington,
aindif Australia needs to communicate with the United States
we'd do it directly. So, I think it would be quite wrong if
anyone got the view that I'm suggesting that Mr Fukuda should
act as a go-between between ourselves and the United States.
Also, in that context, the Vice-President will be in Australia
very s hortl, and we'lX be putting whatever views we have
very irectl to the Vice-President. I.%
Jr; 71X,_ r.
2.
QUESTION: Did bilateral trade creep into the discussions at all?
PRIME MINISTER: No it did not, no.
QUESTION: And what was Japan's attitude generally to freeing
trade. One of their situations is to tighten exports at the
moment, going in reverse.
PRIME MINISTER: Well they're trying demonstrate voluntary
restraint on exports, because they know the pressure that
their exports have put other countries under. They're also
trying to expand their imports in a very substantial way,
hoping to reduce their trade surplus. I believe on the basis
of what I've been told that Japan takes international responsibilities
very seriously indeed, but the point needs to be made that
there are responsibilities on all countries in this international
environment, not just on the stronger countries such as Japan.
There are also responsibilities on the weaker countries, and
on the United States. But there are many things that nations
can only do for themselves, and maybe in the past there has
been too much emphasis on what the stronger can do, and not
enough emphasis on what others should do.