PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT
Prime Minister's Press Conference at Port Moresby
October 1978
Prime Minister:
This is principally an opportunity to give you a chance ask any
questions related to what I said last night and this morning at
the handing over of the Library. I think the Library is a
particularly fitting gift as an Independence gift, and I hope
very much that there will be an on-going link, and I'm sure there
will be, between the Australian National Library and this
Library, and between other Australian insititutions and this
Library. As I also indicated in the speech this morning, I believe
that.. in the National Library and in.-our own Archives we ought to
look through documents and see which documents of a historical
nature would more appropriately find their final home in Papua-
New Guinea, and I will be very surprised if there aren't such
documents in our care at the moment. We would want to hand them
over to Papua-New Guinea on a future occasion. I had very useful
discussions with the Prime Minister Michael Somare earlier-this
morning, and as you know there are on-going consultations on a
numiber of issues. Over the last several months there have been
very successful negotiations between Papua-New Guinea and Australia
on what at different times seemed to be a very vexed border issue
in the Torres Strait. I think you know Ian Viner and the Foreign
Minister, Andrew Peacock and Mr Petersen are visiting Torres Strait
shortly to go through that with Torres Strait Islanders. In 1976
we entered a five-year aid agreement with Papua-New Guinea, and
the basis of that aid agreement was to provide $ 900 m. in annual
instalments of $ 180 m. The agreement also provided for topping-up
in each year, and the first years have been $ 10 in., $ 20 in., and
m. over and above the $ 180 mn., and we need to have a topping
up arrangement for the last two years of the current five-year
arrangement, and Sir John Crawford will be over here shortly to
advise us on the best means of pursuing that. Papua-New Guinea
has put the point of view that rather than having annual discussions
about it, it would be better if it could be related to an
appropriate formula. We have no objection to that in principal
if such . a formula can be found, and Sir John Crawford will be here
and part of his task is to recommend in relation to that. This
morning, of course, the Prime Minister rose with me what might
happen beyond 1981, and quite clearly an Australian commitment
does continue and obviously it has been a substantial commitment
and will continue to be a substantial commitment, althou~ h in
accordance with Papua-New Guinea's own efforts and wishes they
want the Australian grant component to become smaller part of their
total national effort, and a smaller part of their total Budgetary
circumstances, and it's obviously part of their drive towards
independence and being independent or less dependent on
the very substantial aid that ha's come from Australia. All I
can say is do you have any questions:
Question: Prime Minister, the point you made about Papua-New Guinea asking
if they would like the content of their Budget to be of increasingly
less importance in depending on Australian aid, I wonder could we
/ 2
-2
ask you does this envisage an actual drop in the amount of money
involved in Australian aid?
Prime Minister:
I think it's too early to indicate that at the moment. It is
worth noting that the topping-up provisions in the first three
years of the current five-year aid program have increased each
year, so that would be going contrary to the thrust of the question.
Question:
Would that mean that they are aiming at a bigger budget of their
own? Prime Minister:
Their own Budget has been growing, yes.
Question: So do we diminish in terms of relationships?
Prime Minister:
Well it's open at the moment. I think it would be wrong to draw
conclusions as to what would happen beyond the five-year program.
But obviously there will need to be discussions, and Papua-New
Guinea will need to know the basis of provision from Australia,
and the whole purpose of the five-year program which I think
is a unique one is a supplement to the Budget and not tied to
project aid, leaving it entirely to Papua-New Guinea to determine
how the funds should be spent. I think that principal has been
much appreciated in Papua-New Guinea, and the Prime Minister has
mentioned it to me and the former Treasurer on. a number of
occasions. That will give us plenty of time over the next two
years to work out appropriate arrangements to go beyond 1981.
Question: New Guinea is being very successful in containing inflation.
Is there anything Australia might learn out of this.
Prime minister:
Oh yes indeed. I think indeed you relate your aspirations to
your resources. I think we are learning that slowly in Australia.
But Papua-New Guinea never had the circumstance I think in which
the Government expenditures went up by 4.6% in one year and wage
rates went up by over 50% over a three year period. We are well
aware of developping nation aspirations and resources must march
hand in hand.
Question: Mr Fraser, Papua-New Guinea's Foreign Minister last week indicated
he was seeking support from other members of the South Pacific
Forum, including Australia, to pressure metropolitan powers: / 3
-3
the United Kingdom and the U. S. and France and the Pacific to
accelerate the decolonisation process. In particular you seem
to be referring to France and New Caledonia. What attitude would
Australia take in such a campaign?
Prime Minister:
Well this matter hasn't been raised with me during this visit,
but any point of view thrusting in that direction is one that
we clearly want to discuss and assess upon its merits. I think
it's worth noting the remarks I made last night, which weren't
in the printed text of the speech. The process of independence
is much better a bit sooner rather than later rather than too
late, and so-it's better to err on the side of the process being
completed earlier rather than later.
Question:. Prime Minister, I wonder if you discussed the Fisheries Agency
with Mr Somare this morning, and whether as he was suggesting
last night Australia might take the view more in mind what
Papua-New Guinea is doing.
Prime Minister:
Well I don't think we've got a view out of line with Papua-
New Guinea' s in relation to this. We did discuss this matter
this morning, and there will be discussions between our officials
about the form of the Agency and what it will do, and we always
envisaged that that would happen. I think it is worth noting that
the resolution adopted by the Forum countries was one which I
proposed and was adopted unanimously. There had been quite sharp
differences of view expressed in the Forum by some of the island
nations, and the resolution that I proposed was one which people
on all sides were able to accept, and accept very willingly.
As you know, Australia doesn't have a commercial or a material
interest in what happens in relation to these matters, but we
had thought that because of the present American law in relation
to tuna fishing that an involvement with the United States could
be beneficial to Pacific nations. That would enable them to
override their present law, and in a sense bring tuna fishing under
regulation. The Pacific States are taking the view that at this
stage they don't want a relationship with the United States they
want to sort out their own arrangements first. Since this is a
matter that affects them, I think that is what is important, and
Australia will provide every assistance it can to see that the
Forum Fisheries Agency is launched as speedily as possible, and
launched with a useful and constructive charter and in a sensible
way. Then again in the terms of the agreement and resolution
that were passed at the last Forum meeting, at a later point the
wider issues will again be discussed. I think that was a sensible
resolution of contrary points of view. Australia put a point of
view at the Forum meeting, but having put it as far as we are
concerned it is the majority view of the Pacific nations that
ought to prevail, because they are the nations that are affected
by whatever arrangements might be made. It would be quite wrong
for Australia to seek to argue further her own view or seek to
/ 4
-4
have that view imposed. I wouldn't be a party to that for one
minute. I don't think there is any difference between ourselves
and Papua-New Guinea on this issue, because the Prime Minister
indicated to me this morning that he is not adverse to re-examining
the wider question at a later point. Australia is completely
relaxed about the issue. We want arrangements that suit the
national aspirations of Pacific nations, and I think that's what
we ' ye got.
Question: Prime Minister, is your government considering giving political
asylum to the Papuan Freedom Fighters?
Prime Minister:
I haven't heard of that question raised. We've certainly got no
plans in that direction at all.
Question: Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition ( remainder of
question inaudible).
Prime Minister:
If any part of the aid that we did provide each year was directly
to the Parliament building, that would be for Papua-New Guinea
to decide. The whole purpose of the grant that we do provide to
Papua-New Guinea is that it is in grant form, and it is spent as
Papua-New Guinea's chooses. So, within that sum, it is for
Papua-New Guinea to determine their priorities. I thought the
Leader of the Opposition was making the point that he rather
thought Papua-New Guinea would have a permanent Parliament House
before Australia, so maybe Papua-New Guinea should help us with
ours. Question: On the subject of ( inaudible), the Papua-New Guinean government
has requested the United Nations ( remainder inaudible).
Prime Minister:
I'm not advised on this point. Obviously if a request was put
to us by Papua-New Guinea we would consider it seriously, as we
would any communication from Papua-New Guinea, official
communication. I'm not advised of the totality of the consequences
of such a matter at the moment, and before giving a definitive
response I'd certainly want to liook at it closely.
Question: You can't see any particular problem with it though?
Prime Minister:
I don't think I want to add to what I've already said.
Question: ( Totally inaudible)
Prime Minister:
I'd hope that we could have a ceremony in Australia before
Christmas, and I would hope it might be a ceremony in which
both Torres Strait Islanders and people from Daru and others
as necessary will amongst themselves be involved. Rather than
just the Prime Ministers getting together in a room and signing
it, I think it is an historic agreement. I don't know any other
agreement of the same time of that nature. There has been a
great deal of good will on both sides, and so much of it has
been motivated by which to protect the traditional way of life
of Torres Strait Islanders and people of Daru and the coastal
regions, and therefore the final ceremony is thought appropriate.
I think it would be good if figures from these people could also
be present during the occasion.
Question: Are you suggesting that it might be signed in the islands
themselves? Prime Minister:
No I don't think so. It will probably be signed in Canberra.
That's the present intention.
Question: Mr Edwards did mention certain events in Victoria at the weekend.
I was wondering if you would care to add to the comments you
made last night.
Prime Minister:
We all know that there have been a number of State issues
involved that have run furiously in Victorian newspapers and
other newspapers in Australia over many many months. Indeed
one particular issue was running for years, and quite clearly
that issue had an impact on events within Victoria. I think it's
rather naive to suggest that the result of that election was not
influenced by State events.
Question: Trees in St. Kilda road is another long-standing issue in Melbourne. / 6
-6
Prime Minister:
That has always been an issue I think.
Question: Does that by-election nevertheless on that issue you were alluding
to prompt you into any sort of Federal action? It runs over a
little bit into Canberra.
Prime Minister:
Not really I don't think, no. What people I think fail to
understand, and maybe not enought are yet seeing, is that our
policies in many ways are now starting to work in a very real
way. Having said interest rates were coming down they are,
the Reserve Bank has been operating in the markets on the bond
rates over the last month since the indigestion caused by the
special method of financing Commonwealth formal loans has been
completed, and the rates have moved down again. Now that's going
to flow into other areas. But one of the very pleasing things
that I've seen over the last two to three months, and it's only
in that time that it has emerged, is the number of industries
that are saying to me that their costs are competitive, they
are getting a better share of the local market, and they can
get into exports. All sorts of things, it might very often be
in small industries employing a hundred people, 150 people.
Womens underwear, foundation garments, are being made in Victoria
and exported to Japan. I have used colour television sets to
Hong Kong on many occasions. Furniture made in Brisbane going
to Sweden. A number of these are in labour intensive areas,
where Australians if they produce something well can compete.
I don't want it to be a commercial, but the latest automobile
to hit the Australian market I think is a very, very good vehicle
indeed, and I hope its competitor that comes on the market early
next year will be equally good. But the more pleasing thing
about that is that General Motors have told me that they believe
their costs are competitive with Germany and with the United States;
they are rebuilding an export organisation; budgeting for a larger
number of exports; and control is slowly getting back in the area
of activity that had been lost for a long while. That is good news,
they have put on a lot of people over the last six or eight months,
and they intend to put on more over the next few months. This is
happening on a number of areas throughout activity in Australia.
We alway knew that our policies were going to take some time to
w ork, but they are starting to work, and I think that should be a
cause for great satisfaction for all people in Australia, and
especially for the working men and women of Australia.
Question: Prime Minister, did you raise with Mr Somare the question of
( inaudible) sugar from the EEC countries?
Prime Minister:
No I didn't. No. But you know that there has been GATT action
in relation to that, and I think that's on track. / 7
-7
Question: Mr Garland indicated that there was a large amount of support
for Australia in GATT. Do you think that will be effective in
stopping the EEC from doing this in other areas, particularly in
the Pacific region where they seem to be increasingly interested?
Prime Minister:
Well, I would certainly hope so. Everyone one speaks to the
Germans have recognised that this kind of activity is damaging
to relationships with other countries, such as Australia they
believe it is not a good activity, that it ought to stop. But
I haven't got the slightest doubt, I can't put any kind of ( inaudible)
on it, but I haven't got the slightest doubt that at some stage
there will be a change in the common agricultural policies, and
I'm not talking of revolution in relation to it, because we know
that European farmers are going to continue to be protected, but
we are talking about changes at the margin and changes in the
policies of export subsidies, because the weight the total
weight and the burden of the subsidies on the taxpayers of
Europe, there will be a shift and change for that factor alone.
Now if our advocacy can help to bring a change sooner rather than
later that's obviously to our advantage. Something like $ 12,000 m.
a year is spent on subsidies. That, in Australian terms and in
Papua-New Guinean terms is a reasonable amount of money. It's
worth noting that their subsidies in this area are twice what the
developping world asked for by way of a foundation fund, the
Common Fund. That tends to put that into perspective too.
Question: Prime Minister, there was a report earlier from Canberra this
morning that said you had been invited to economic summfti in
Tokyo next June. Can you confirm that, and if so what is its
significance?
Prime Minister:
I'd like to have a look at that report. I wouldn't normally
expect Australia to be involved in an economic summit, and I
have said that in the Parliament on other occasions and given
specific reasons for it. But there have been some discussions
in relation to this -not of Australia's initiative I might add.
But I'd like to have a look at that report before commenting.
Question: on Japan's initiative?
Prime Minister:
Well let me just say not on Australia's initiative. / 8
8
Prime Minister ( continued):
I wouldn't want that reported back as an off-hand answer to an
invitation. I think the point's to be made that on the basis
of the size of the Parliament, Australia would not expect to be
present at that kind of meeting. But views have been expressed
about the forthcoming summit because of its geographic location.
Question: ( inaudible)
Prime Minister:
I think there needs to be co-operation in this area, because
the 200 mile economic zones of both countries obviously impinge,
and as you know, we both don't have a clear 200 miles between
Australia and Papua-New Guinea, so policies affecting these areas
of reconcentration and co-operation are well worth pursuing, and
I'm sure that this will take place.
Question: Prime Minister, one last point, is Mr Whitlam going to be a
constant travelling companion?
Prime Minister:
Well I think that's up to him. Of course he is welcome. I was
very surprised to see some comments in the Media before I came
that he might not be, or surprise that he was coming up on the
same aircraft.