INTERVIEW WITH RADIO JOURNALISTS
QUESTION: You've been talking extensively overseas about
trade. Tonight you are addressing the Confederation of
Australian Industry. What news have you got for Australian
businessmen and industry?
PRIME MINISTER: I will be telling them the results as I see
it of the visit overseas. I will also be indicating the
importance of the trade negotiations to Australia. We are
a very significant trading nation with a higher proportion
of our national wealth dependent upon trade than most
countries and therefore what happens, our capacity to get
access to markets, is of enormous consequence to everyone
in this country. ' Our trade with many countries has of course
been expanding very greatly with Japan, with Korea, with
many countries in Asia. In these areas we are not up against
the sorts of non-tariff barriers and discriminatory trading
practices which we have seen in Europe and that's why Europe
I suppose, is taking so much attention. There you have
over 200 million of the most affluent, technologically advanced
people in one trading group that the world has ever seen and
they have been using discriminatory trading practices which
in many cases have damaged Australia's industries very
severely. My government is the first Australian government
to try to redress that situation and I believe it should have
been undertaken before.
QUESTION: Both Mr. Lynch and Mr. Robinson in recent speeches
have poited out the possibility of cutbacks in areas of
Government spending the coming Budget and Mr. Robinson noted
health, education and welfare. Today, at that Conference of
Australian industries, Sir Roderick Carnegie virtually said that
cutbacks in these areas were essential. Is this on the line?
PRIME MINISTER: I think you should know me better than to
get me to speculate on what is going to be or not
going to be in the Budget.
QUESTION: There has been-speculation, Prime Minister, with
respect sir, in today's press, that the Government will cut
public spending by at least $ 400 million in the Budget.
PRIME MINISTER: I've got no doubt there will be speculation
in the press and there will go on being speculation, but I
don't think you expect me to comment on the speculation about
particular areas of expenditure so far as the Budget is
concerned. The Treasurer will make a Budget speech at a certain
time.
QUESTION: Are we heading for a tough budget?.
PRIME MINISTER:. I thought this-interview was basically about
the visit overseas and what it meant and about trade and you
turn immediately to domestic matters. I think let's see if
there are other questions on trade matters which are of great
concern to many Australian industries,, including that
Confederation with whom I will be talking to tonight.
-2-
QUESTIO N: Prime Minister, could I put it this way? In
your tas overseas, did you get any emphasis which suggests
you should change your economic financial ( inaudible)
in other words, does Australia do you think Australia should
have to perhaps stimulate some sections of the domestic
economy to provide employment opportunities?
PRIME MINISTER: The strongest and healthiest economies
are probably Germany's and Japan's, of the major trading
countries. There are other smaller economies that are in
a healthy position with low rates of inflation and wherever
I went, I found respect, in the business and commercial world,
the policies of Germany and Japan. I also found a growing
respect for Australia's policies and maybe not far off
( break in tape) because you know it's very easy to spend
an extra few hundred million dollars on a particular program
within a particular country but if that is going to drive out
domestic investment, overseas investment, you know you could
spend $ 300. million or $ 400 million on particular programs
and -alter the perceptions of your own economy and by so doing
lose maybe $ 1000 million in domestic and overseas investment.
Now if that occurred it would be a very bad bargain, and it's
certainly not a course that my Government will embark upon.
QUESTION: So job creation schemes just aren't-on?
PRIME ; MINISTER: You know quite well that we spend great
sums in the job training schemes and re-training programs
through Tony Street's Department, but the broad thrust of
the Government's economic policies are going to be pursued.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, there's been considerable criticism
Tiere in Australia, and though I may say ' there is a lack-of hard news
stories from overseas from some of the reporters travelling
with you. Do you really think you can justify this trip to
the Australian, and to Australia generally?
PRIME MINISTER: I have not the slighest doubt at all. If
you got to the stage when the Prime Minister goes overseas
he's got to bring back a basketfull of goodies to Australia,
well then that's a very odd circumstance and its not something
that often, if ever, happens. But we are in a situation, where
1978 is a year of very very great importance for Australia
as a trading nation. This is the year in which the Multilateral
Trade Negotiations will come to a conclusion. Many Australian's
mightn't understand it, but this total year of trade talks
began five years ago. It's been going on and nations are
now on the home strait. What happens at Geneva over the next
few weeks will determine the pattern of world trade maybe for
the rest of this century. It will determine whether there will
be an opening up of the closed markets to agricultural products.
A little later in the year there will be decisions determining
whether or not there's better access, better trade conditions
for commodities in the developing world and so the pattern for
years ahead is being set in this year, 1978, and we are very
close to final decisions. It's terribly important that
Australia's view, be known, that Australia's view be understood
and I think that there's an obligation on the Australian / 3
INTERVIEW WITH RADIO JOURNALISTS 1 UE17
3-
PRIME MINISTER: ( continued) government to press its view
in th~ e strongest possible way. Now I've used this analogy before
but you never know when extra weight, put on the side of
reason and common sense, in a particular argument, will make
all the difference between success and failure. We know quite
well the limitations of Australia's power and the limitations
of Australia's influence but if an argument is evenly balanced
a bit of extra weight on the right side, on the side of reason
and commonsense,, can make all the difference between success
and failure. And believe me, the difference between success
and failure at these trade talks in Geneva will affect the
livelihood, the well-being of every Australian for many years
to come and therefore its not only desirable, I think its
a positive duty to express Australia's view as strongly and
as forcefully as possible.
QUESTION: ( Inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER: I think there are some signs, yes. Some signs
that are good, one or two signs that concern me greatly. The
Unite States has said, again, that they will walk away from
these negotiations unless agriculture is part of it. Now that's
a good thing and they've said it with a great force. In addition,
the discussion I had with Mr. Jenkins as President of the
Commission was more constructive that I thought it might have
been. He made it perfectly plain that while he's saying, and
the Commission has said to us, that Australia's problems can
be resolved, should be resolved, in the Multilateral Trade
Negotiations, he also said that it will not be realistic so
far as we are concerned unless it opens up the possibility and
the reality of trade in beef, for example to take that
as one of matter of pre-eminent concern into the European
community market. That is virtually saying that we know for
there to be a reasonable result, there's got to be a market
for Australian beef in Europe. Now it finally comes out, it's
too early to judge and I will believe it when I see it on the
ink, as it were, on the final document. But that seemed to me
to be a recognition that there had to be concessions, that there
had to be movement and I haven't seen that kind of recognition
coming out of the European-Commission before. So those two
things are on the plus side. In addition of course, the United
Kingdom, the Germans and the Italians, have all taken the view
that is inherently in support of the kind of views that we've
been putting and indicated that they are prepared to support
and will support us. Herr ,1the German Foreign
Minister, will be Chairman of the Council of Ministers of
the European Community over the next six months and he said
during his period as Chairman, he wants to work particularly
closely with Australia and again, try and achieve the circumstances
in which there will be success. Again, that's on the plus side.
On the debit side, there is a bid by European countries to break
down the most-favoured nation principle which I believe has been
of the utmost importance to middle-ranking, smaller nations,
developing nations and you will understand that the most-favoured
nation principle is one that means you've got to treat all your
trading partners equally. That if you have quotas on imports,
it's got to be global quota, that you are not allowed to aiim
at one particular country and say we don't want any more of your
goods. .1
19 JUNE 1978
INTERVIEW WITH RADIO JOURNALISTS 1 UE17
-4-
PRIME MINISTER: ( continued) They are now talking about
selective, a better word would be discriminatory, safeguards
which would give the national governments the power to be
selective, to be discriminatory in what they do; give them
the power to point to a particular nation and say your goods
are damaging our trade, you've got to stop exporting to us,
you've got to reduce exports to us. That power in the hands
of a national government I think is one that will be
extraordinarily dangerous. It would be going back to the
trading policies of the 1930' s and the most favoured nation
principle is one which is of enormous consequence to countries
such as Australia and one which we intend to fight to try and
keep through those trade forums, even though we know that there
is very significant weight on the other side of the argument
with major. European countries wanting to break down the principle.
QUESTION: You said that unless agricultural products are
taken into consideration at the MTN then Am~ erica is prepared to
withdraw. If Australia feels that it should withdraw, would
you expect America to support Australia and therefore withdraw
at the same time?
PRIME MINISTER: I can't guarantee that the circumstances that
would require our withdrawal are precisely the same as those
that would involve the United State's withdrawal. We both have
an interest in agriculture. The United States has a particular
interest in some matters which are of concern to important
areas of Congress. They have at the same time said that they'll
support the Australian viewpoint but while there is great
similarity of view, I can't say down to the last point it is
absolutely identical. 1
_ QUESTION: ( Inaudible)... . hope that they would?
PRIME MINIS TER: Of course we would hope that they would, but
what can be said with complete accuracy -and great strength, is
that the United States have indicated that they will give
great support and weight to the Australian point of view.
9UUESTION: Prime Minister, if I could briefly bring you again
back oe you are back now, the Premier's Conference is coming
up what sort of offer will the Federal Government be making
to the Premiers or will in fact the Federal Government be telling
the Premiers to tighten their belts and look after themselves?
PRIME MINISTER: We will be coming to this Thursday and Friday
of thiis week and I've got no doubt there will be a-good deal
said about during those days by the Commonwealth and by the
Premiers. I think it would be I hate to spoil it by entering
the debate today.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, one other domestic subject beef.
Just how urgent do you think the PJT Inquiry should be?
19 JUNE 1978
INTERVIEW WITH RADIO JOURNALISTS. 19 JUNE 1978
PRIME MINISTER: I have asked for a report on these matters;
i4hat stage it's got to, what technical matters are holding it
up and until I've had that report I'm not in a position really
to give you a substantive reply. I had a brief discussion
with Ian Sinclair about this morning but I've noted with
concern the reports of a -a sort of a-profit rip-off down
the chain and we had some time ago determined that there ought
to be an inquiry into meat prices, into beef pricing policies
and what I've seen over recent days makes me all the more
convinced that that's necessary. I hope that we can get the
matter launched as quickly as possible but I can't make a
judgement about when that will be until I have been fully
a dvi se d.
QUESTION: Just 6ne final point on the Premier's Conference,
if I col ( inaudible)..
PRIME MINISTER: Well, there is no harm in persistence but I
can't guarantee that my answer will change.
QUESTION: Should the Premiers expect a fairly, if you like,
non-reply from the Federal Government?
PRIME MINISTER: The Premiers can expect a stance from the
Australian Government that is completely atuned to Australia's
economic needs. That is completely atuned the requirements
of 1978 and to our determination to capitalise on the hard-won
gains in the Australian economy over the last two and a half
years. We've got inf'lation . down, the underlying trend is
down. We don't intLend that that will be reversed. People
overseas are starting to look upon the Australian economy with
great favour. A number of countries are saying we wish-we
could have done as well in overcoming economic ills and getting
inflation down. They obviously don't say that privately,
but they do say it they don't say it publicly but they do
say it privately in conversation and there is respect for the
determination and steadfastness that we have had in the
pursuit of policies. Now this is meaning that countries are
starting to look to Austra-lia as a favoured one for investment
once again. People from Britain have for the first time in
years invested in Commonwealth Securities. Now that says
something about the Australian economy and the way it is
being managed and it would be foolish in the extreme if we
were to upset this by a change of course, by undue relaxation
in policy because, I've made the point before and I made it
overseas,, it's very easy for a Government to spend a few
hundred million dollars listing out a budget in an effort to
try and provide greater government employment but if in doing
that, you alter the perceptions of your own economy, you cast
or cause some doubts about the way in which people see your
own economy and thereby lose say many times more than that
three or four hundred million in a desperate from your own
people, or from overseas then that's a very bad bargain for
the country concerned it would be a bad bargain for Australia
and while you might have more people on a government payroll,
you'd have less people employed overall. That's not the sort
of bargain that my government intends to undertake and I hope
you wouldn't want us to. / 6