PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT 25 MAY 1978 -761/ Lt1
INTERVIEW WITH FRENCH JOURNALISTS % Ntc
QUESTION: Australia, in the past, has often been described
as exporti--* ng too much raw materials, importing too much equipment
and being dependent upon a small number of customers. What
do you i-ntend to do over the coming years to correct that?
PRIME MINISTER:., I'm not sure that it was for a long time
that that accurate description of Australia. It might have
been a diss,-nblanc6-. of truth in the years up to 1939 but
there has been a very significant change in Australia and a
very great expansion of Australian industry, manufacturing
industry, in the years since 1945. At the same time, we've
done a very great deal to access markets of the Pacific, trade
with Japan. It's not always realized that our trade with
Japan is greater than the combined trade between Japan, Germany
and Britain and when you look at our population and realize
that our two-way trade is greater than the two-way trade between
Japan, Britain and Germany combined, it indicates the extent
to which we are now trading in the Pacific theatre. Markets
in China are growing very significantly. We'de always had
traditional markets in Europe of course, especially in Britain.
and markets in the United States. The United States markets
have been maintained but the European markets, largely because
of Commuinity policies have been to a significant extent
destroyed because of the policy decisions and framework of
Community common agriculture policies. In the years the
last twenty years in particular the nature of our exports
has diversified very greatly. It used to be primarily
significantly agricultural commodities to that added very
significant mineral exports. We would like to see greater
processing in mineral exports; greater processing in some of
our traditional exports such as wool. Here we often find
again the tarrif policies of European countries, of other
countries make that very difficult because raw wool, for example,
goes to Europe duty free but as soon as it goes through any
part of the processing stage there start to be very substantial
duties on it which mean processes in this country have to
compete in a difficult environment. Its not generally realized
that some parts of Australian manufacturing industry are in
fact very efficient and especially having regard to the small
size of our domestic market. They have achieved a great deal.
I think we are the only country, apart from Japan, that is
exporting colour television sets to Hong Kong and they are
being sold without any subsidies and profitably. In the home
appliance area Australian concerns which used to import from
Europe or Japan are now producing the same lines or modified
changed lines in Australia because they can do it more effectively
and more profitably. Instead of importing from their overseas
companies they are producing in their Australian branch. So
the Australian economy is very much diversified compared to the
days before 1939 its much diversified compared to the late
140s or early ' 50s. The process has been a continual one since
the World War. In addition to this of course, our political
interests ~-eexpanded and changed. The days are very long gone
./ 2
-2
when the British representative in a country used to
represent Australia. Our interests are different. That
doesn't stop us having close links of many kinds but it would
be unthinkable for Australia to be represented overseas by
anyone other than Australia Australian missions except in
the most strange and unusual circumstances. In particular,
we've expanded our diplomacy in the Asian/ Pacific theatre;
Japan, China, the Indian Subcontinent, in the region in which
we live. In February there was a meeting of twelve Heads of
Government, some very very small island states of the Pacific,
but also India and Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore all
the Commonwealth countries in the region; and that was an
Australian initiative indicating the concern for our region
and believing that countries need to identify common interests,
to cooperate together to the maximum extent. So we are seeking
to play a part%-constructively, reasonably, in world affairs
because I think that is the obligation of all governments
and at the same time to see how they can advance a wider cause.
QUESTION: Do you feel that Australia is perfectly safe if
she is, or should some greater rc be given to
improving her defences, increasing her defence force?
PRIME MINISTER : We are expanding our defence forces greater
real resources are going into defence. Modern equipment is,
as you would know, vastly expensive. We seek to deal with
minimum manpower so that of the funds we do spend in defence,
a maximum amount can be spent on modern, sophisticated equipment.
You will know at the moment that our defence forces are examining
a short list of a fighter replacement. The objective is to
obtain the air superiority fighter with some ground capability.
The Air Force will be making, the defence people, their own
technical evaluation of a number of aircraft and that will be
a very very substantial purchase cc'\.
is the most expensive single purchase that we ever would have
made. We need to look to our defences, as many countries do
I think. I would much preferto have a world in which we cou: ld
devote our total attention to economic well-being and economic
advancement but we don't live in that ideal world yet.
QUESTION: Can you see any threat
PRIME MINISTER: That's a question that's always asked and
without being critical of it, its a question that can never be
answered in precise terms because by the time you start to
nominate a perceived or a real threat and 60Co\ k
arises, then you haven't been doing what you ought to do in
terms of the defence of your own country. In assessing the
strategic situation in which any country lives, you've got to
look at the total communities of strategic environment
around you and know that you can be affected by events on the
other side, as Australia has been twice, as you know, in
two world war-s. Australia was very much affected and involved,
-3
embroiled, in both because we believe we ought to be and
that it was in our own national interest. So you have to
look at the total world scene, make an assessment of those
factors which could lead to unsettling, disturbing and
dangerous threatening situations and see what we should do
to protect yourself and to play a part again, as a responsible
citizen in the world. I think, some people judge defence
policy and say if you don't name a threat you don't need to
spend any money on defence and no threats have arisen so you
have wasted the funds you have spent on defence. I don't look
at it that way. If you have a policy of having adequate
defence forces and you don't get to the stage of nominating
a perceived or real threat, then I think that's an example of
a defence policy that's been successful, of a total foreign
policy that's been successful because you've been able to
conduct yourself in a way which has avoided the dangers and
in > coa) negative sense the art of forei gn policy is to
avoid dangers; to have within your own strategic council
some idea of the dangers, the concerns, that could arise and
then pursue your integrated foreign and defence policy in a way
which would make sure those perceived dangers, or possible dangers,
did not arise. I don't really think that it serves any useful
purpose to point to this country or that country or the potential
of East/ West differences, or problems between the Soviet Union
or China, between NATO WARSAW Pact, to say that dangers
could arise out of these things, they are part of the strategic
environment that we must assess when we make our own decisions
about our foreign policies and about our defence preparedness.
QUESTION: Are you at all worried and concerned with the
increasing Soviet naval presence in ( inaudible).
PRIME MINI-STER: Anyone must be concerned with a nation
that spends 14 percent of its gross national product, allegedly,
on defence. Can anyone-really believe that that's necessary
for defensive purposes? Is there any need to say more?
our view, my view, which I expressed shortly after coming into
Government, was very much the same and that which has been
expressed on repeated occasions by the NATO powers the
NATO Council of Ministers, the NATO foreign ministers and
defence ministers when they pointed to the Soviet build-up
in conventional arms and in other arms which they believe are
just not necessary for the defence of the Soviet Union's own
territory. They have pointed to the offensive capacity, the
global reach, which the Soviet Union's defence preparation have
given it and they were just as concerned about that well,
concern that one can express * in relation to the Indian Oceant,
but a part of that total global concern.
QUESTION: would you like to have the present immigration
' laws amended -into Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: I would like better economic circumstances
and less unemployment so we could have a larger immigration program.
We will in fact be reviewing the nature of the program very
shortly. If people want to come and live here and can contribute
to Australia n life in material terms and at the same time bring
partof hez own tradition and culture and background with them,
I would li*:-a to see the circumstances in which we could accept
more people from other countries. / 14
-4
QUESTION: That would include Asian countries?
PRIME MINISTER: Quite a significant number do come from
Asia. There is no distinction on the grounds of race, colour,
religion. QUESTION: Do you think that proportion could be increased?
PRIM[ E MINISTER: It has been in recent times.
QUESTION: When do you expect the transportation of uranium
in the North(~\ oe will begin?
PRIME MINISTER: There have been many hurdles to overcome,
as I think you know. Our political opponents have a policy
opposed to the mining, there are questions relating to unions,
we had a very long drawn out environmental study and survey
which really recommended a complex framework for the
development of uranium. Having in mind the nature of the
recommendations I think faster progress has been made than one
might have anticipated and the opposition to the mining and
export of uranium has faded, receded, into the background.
There is one last matter and that is negotiations with the
Northern Land Council over terms and conditions. As you know
it is an aboriginal community, and aboriginal land. I hope
the negotiations will proceed that will enable some site work
to take place this dry season. I will be disappointed if it
doesn't and that's our objective. There is no doubt that it
is going to proceed. There is no doubt that we will be
exporting and supplying uranium. Again, basically, I think
for two reasons, leaving the financial gain to Australia
aside for a moment. Australia is an energy rich country in
an energy short world and that gives us an obligation to
countries that are short of energy. But at the same time
we have I think a higher obligation to do what we can to
prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms, to prevent or to
establish the safest possible system of trade in uranium and
we therefore for those reasons have a strict safeguard policy
which involves bilateral treaties private and quite apart
from the international C~~ X) safeguards and
being in the business of selling uranium; but at the same
time seeking to maintain very strict safeguards which is, as we
believe, are quite reasonable for any well intentioned customers.
It is again a part of an international obligation.. I have
whether they are starting this year.
QUESTION: Can you see any obstacle at all in the way of
possible sales of Australian uranium to France, or has that now
all been cleared up?
PRIME MINISTER: I think a large part of it has been cleared up
but there is the question of the negotiation of bilateral
safeguards, as you know, and France would know what our
bilateral safeguard requirements are. We have already negotiated
previously with one or two countries, negotiating with others.
I understand France wants to diversify her source of supply.
I would ho-, e conditions would be established in which there
are no problems that would prevent that happening between us.
QUESTION: Are negotiations going on at the moment on this
sub je c t7
PRIMEZ MINISTER: I don't think, I can this, we haven't met
safeguards negotiating team and I don't think any negotiations
have so far taken place with France.
( David will you get the list of the countries with whom
negotiations have taken place and somebody who can say how
far the negotiations have gone and what's going to happen
on the
QUESTION: You will be travelling to Europe next week;
can you tell us how much you would expect from E rope on
the more immediate issue of economic
tariff concessions.. in amore general way, how much would you
expect from Europe in
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not going to Europe to negotiate on the
bilateral matters between the Commission and ourselves. Last
year in discussions with the European Commission and with
other national leaders, including the Prime Minister of France
and the President, the door was open to the framework of
bilateral discussions which were taking place with the
Community. I can't say that those discussions have always
gone smoothly as we would have liked there have been one or
two delays which we think that should not have been there.
But the discussions are now scheduled and they will be taking
place early in June and Mr. Garland will be handling those
discussions keeping in close touch with me in relation to
them. But the purpose in terms of our bilateral relations
and in terms of the well-being of Australia, they are vastly
important and I think a number of people in Europe don't really
understand the position that has developed. Because many
industries in Australia have been established to supply
Europe, supply Britain, and it wasn't over three or five or
ten years time, it might have been over half a century or
longer and industries like the meat industry, the cattle
industry, the dairy industry, for example; in many parts of
Australia you can only grow beef and then the Common Market
comes along looking to join us and I am one of the very few
people in Australian parliament who on political grounds
supported Britain joining9 us, and I still support it, and yet
I think the concept of r. e
with a degree of political unification playing a constructive
and outward looking-role in world affairs is quite critical
for the peace and well-being of the world and I don't detract
from that or alter it all. And I also don't criticize the
objective of protecting European farmers. I think its an
obligation on the Government of France to protect French
farmers or the British Government, and the German and the
Irish-but'it is possible to pursue protection and I put
this to the Prime Minister of France and I think he
responded not unsympathetically to it when I made the point. I said
we don't challenge the Common Agriculture Policy. We don't
challenge your right to protect the European farmers. You'd
be expected to and we know quite in any case it would be
political.. T nonsense to think that any other course was possible.
But we bDelieve that it should be possible to do that and
./ 6
-6
to achieve changes at the margin to these policies which
would allow the prospects of some trade and that has been
the basis of our approach, the basis of our argument. We're
not seeking any revolutionary overthrow of existing arrangements
of current policies but levy systems that allow the prospect
of some trade. We don't unreasonably encourage the expansion
of European surpluses which are then sold with great subsidies
in the traditional markets of other countries. We, for example,
used to supply the Sri Lanka market for flour, on a commercial
basis. That's now supplied from Europe. On a restitution
basis export subsidies and the market we have developed over
many years therefore disappears because we are not in the
business of competing with export subsidies. C~ c'e
in terms of 14 million can't compete with the capacity of
260 million to provide that kind of support to capture a market
so you don't even start. We are arguing that the levy
system, the common agricultural policy system, ought to be
capable of operating in a way that does not unduly encourage
surpluses in Europe but does allow the prospect of some trade
from thosecountries that can produce well, effectively and
efficiently; and then an export subsidy resistution policy
is managed in such a way that doesn't damage the markets of
third countries, the traditional markets that have been built
up over tire and I don't believe either of those requests are
unreasonable. I think in terms of high principle the ones
that (\ o\\) should be supported. But however important
these matters are to Australia, and they are very important
because the well-being of our industries has been and therefore
large parts of Australia and many country towns and cities of
Australia have been living in a state of very real depression
for many years and they will until we can get access to
markets to some extent. And however important that is, the
reason for my visiting Europe on this occasion is not to argue
the bilateral case, that's in Mr. Garland's hands, is to discuss
the general world economic situation, the MTN discussions,
the UNCTAD discussions that will be taking place over the next
few weeks. The major nations will be meeting in Bonn at the
economic summit conference in July. President Carter said he
hopes that the main lines of UNCTAD, of MTN, will be completed
in July. Looking at it from this distance and the motivation
that we see from this distance, I am not overly optimistic
that the right decisions will be made. If the wrong decisions
are made we do run the risk that Congress will become very
protectionist, President Carter has held it back the
discussions are coming up in July, with the discussions coming
up in July you can't go protectionist. There are protectionist
tendencies in Europe also, not just in agriculture in steel.
in other goods in matters affecting Japan and if -the wrong
decisions are made at MTN the dangers of the world falling
back to " beggar-thy-neighbour" policies I think is very real
and I think that will be tragic for the well-being of Frenchmans,
of Germans, of Englishmen, of Australians and of all of us.
What we have to try and achieve is an expansion of markets
and through that an expansion of world trade.* If we are all
just going to argue about the set-up of existing markets there
isn't going,-, to be enough work for our factories, for our farms
and for our mines and how therefore do you achieve an expansion
of markets, an expansion of trade. The MTN proposal on
industrial goods sounds fine, a 40%~ tariff cut across the line,
but when you analyse it, it doesn't really mean all that much.
/ 7
7
It comes down on a starting date, going back several years,
you've got to exclude any' prior European trade because that's
not effective it's free anyway. You find that tariff cut
will be operating on less than 20%~ of world trade. It doesn't
start until 19 80. Since tariffs are about 10%~ anyway it means
that the proposal is for a half percent cut a year; of: five
years compulsory, three years optional, depending upon the
econo-mic circumstances of the time. Currency movements have
more rthan pushed that sort of change aside in a matter of a
day or a week and therefore that tariff proposal n. A~~
affecting industrial goods can' t give you the forw7ard looki'-ng
step into a better trading world that everyone wants. it's
just not possible. The substance isn't there and in any case,
there are many qualifications that surround it. In addition
to that, ofL course, it's a proposal that falls very uniquely
in different countries. ForEurope, North American and Japan
about 40%~ of their exports would be covered, for Australia
about for many developing countries less than so
to the extent that there are benefits, the benefits are very
unequal between the trading nations of the world. That all
gets back to the proposition that if there ends up by being
agreement between Europe and the United States as there was
in the Kennedy c0C) ' XW N
agriculture is too hard an area commodity is too hard an
area in which to make progress, therefore leaves
us with industrial good alone then I would suggest that the
MTN can achieve itself will achieve nothing it can't be
successful. If it is to be successful its got to be broad
based. Its got to involve something for countries that
aren't major industrial exporters and traders. Its got to
be a , its got to embrace the
third world they feel very much pushed aside when other
people meet together and make decisions which affect their
livelihood. We don't hold me to the figures but the
terms of trade and commodities is worse than they have been
for 15 years and I think would have had
to expand by three or more times more than it has even to
make up in the fall in the terms of trade to developing
countries. Is it any wonder that they feel frustrated, distraught,
wondering what's going to happen. At the last Commonwealth
Conference, one of the African delegations said that when they
first went to the Commonwealth Conference it felt so many
people working so long, exporting so much tœ oc%,% A'c\ e)
to pay for the delegation and now with so many more people
working so much longer producing about 10 times more
to pay for the delegation because of the terms of trade. We
believe that trade in commodities is very different from
trade in manufacturers its often a long-term basis, you
can't change your supply base, you can't suddenly say well.
we will produce less cars, or we will produce less television
sets or less refrigerators or whatever it is and organize
it that way*, cropping into long-term business, producing meat
is a long-term business and you need to get stability built
into it. Not at unreasonable levels, at reasonable ways
and I think we've shown through international wheat agreements,
through t-he International Sugar Agreement which I regret
Europe hasni't joined, through our own operations of more
marketing =~ ganization. We've shown them there on one case
on a n mzral basis through wool and arrangement that has
8-
benefited consumers and producers;. through the other
international arrangements matters that have introduced
stability into the trade in the way that's helped many
countries and consumers as well and there needs to be
more of that, a greater understanding of the problems
in the Third World. I think " so these are the real
reasons why I want to visit Britain, France and Germany,
to speak to the leaders of those countries. It is before
the summit meeting will be held in Bonn, it's before the
final decisions will be made at MTN and I believe that
this year the world will set the trading pattern for the
rest of this century. We are either going to make up
our minds to go forward with confidence and common sense
and decency, or we are going to end up scrabbling around
like a lot of selfish nations damaging the world trading
system and damaging the economic well-being of all our
people. And I don't think we can assume yet that we are
going to take a sensible path. Alright, Australia is just
one of those middle-ranking countries and we live a long
way from Europe, but I think you have an obligation to do
whatever we can to join with others to try and achieve a
sensible and a proper result.
we had technical talks with a technical mission from
( inaudible) there will be further talks. But the British
asked( inaudible) for safeguards on supply that's
( inaudible). We have had discussions with the Phillipines
which is well advanced. We have talked with the Italians,
we will talk with the European community next month. ( Indaudible)
discussions with Japan on safeguards very shortly. With
Finland, discussions on safeguards are advancing well. We
are going to have several negotiating teams so it is a question
of negotiating with countries ( inaudible).
discuss these matters with all the countries of Europe. We
know Europe's need for power, need for energy. We recognize
obligations to do what we can as a resource rich nation to
fulfill that. As I indicated that also recognize our
obligations to see that trade in uranium is undertaken in a way
that does not lead to suspicion, promote suspicion, because
its when you promote suspicion in the world that you achieve
. more suspicion... ( end of tape). 000---