1?
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION, DIETMEMBERS
ASSOCIATION BREAKFAST, ANA HOTEL, TOKYO
19 SEPTEMBER 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
QUESTION: We are very glad to receive Prime Minister
Hawke. You are most welcome to Japan. I recently came
back from the US. I met the people from the Department
of State and the Pentagon. When I talked about Japanese
self-defence forces with them, I heard Australia agreed
the sending of Japanese self-defence forces. I don't
know who said what kind of things about that...
Japanese constitution that it is very difficult for us to
send self-defence forces that Australia has
particular statement. But if Prime minister Hawke could
tell us who particularly made the statement that
Australia agreed to the sending of the Japanese selfdefence
forces, if you would be kind enough to explain to
US.
PM: Thank you very much. It's important that you
understand precisely what was said on this matter. In
Australia I was asked about this situation and I was
asked about it in a context where there had been
observations in the press within Australia and
internationally some speculation that Japan may
contemplate sending mine sweepers. I went out of my way
to say that what Japan does in regard to the Gulf is a
matter for Japan. I want all of you to understand that
it is not appropriate for Australia or for any other
nation to tell Japan what it should do. I understand
very clearly the sensitivities within Japan on this
issue. And anyone who doesn't understand those
sensitivities doesn't understand very much about your
country. I do understand that. So I want to make it
quite clear that there's no attempt on my part or on the
part of the Government or the people of Australia to seek
in any way to tell Japan what it should do. This is a
matter which you must decide according to your own
counsels and your own deliberations. What I was seeking
to say and which I take this opportunity of saying to
you, is if Japan, if Japan out of its own processes were
to come to a conclusion that it wanted to make some such
contribution, some such involvement, I want Japan to know
that from the point of view of Australia such a decision
would be acceptable. I hope that you clearly understand
therefore the nature of what I'm saying. I repeat,
succinctly I hope, these things are a matter f or Japan.
It is understood that they are matters and issues of
sensitivities within Japan. But simply, having said
that, if you are going to come to that decision, you
should know that within our environment in Australia, we
would understand and accept such a decision.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Hawke in a very healthy,
good condition. And indeed we are very happy to see you
once again. When I was the Minister for Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry I had the opportunity of having
various discussions with Minister Kerin. I was recalling
what the discussions opening of the beef market to
Australia.. Australia was very happy. So I have been
expecting that perhaps my statue would be built in
Australia because I have contributed much to the market.
But in Japan I was somehow given the role of the villain.
I have been having a very hard time. When I think about
the present situation as Prime Minister Hawke rightly
pointed out. We have to make great efforts, must make a
great effort to make the Uruguay Round of GATT
negotiations a success. But we have to of course place
importance on our own resources. We have to think of our
own country. The cultures of deficient nations. We
have to think of what problems they have, human rights.
All those things must be firmly asserted on the occasions
of negotiations and based upon such discussion our
own sovereignty and rights. We have to assert our own
position. Australia assert her own sovereignty,
her rights and we have been able to successfully maintain
and out relationship. But I think we follow that
example, learn from that relationship. I myself
feel that trade issues, trade related issues. Of
course we have to think of the logic and rationale of the
** And then I think we should think in the
country's population much problem, serious problem.
** issue of food. So how can we strike a balance
amongst all these different issues, three different
* areas difficult Australia have no for
its own population a helping hand aid
population a great issue. We have most respect for that
pay tribute to that. I do hope Prime Minister
send my best regards to your Minister Kerin, my good
friend............ continue the political leadership in
ycoounrg ractouunltartye, yowuh icPhr imies Main niesntoerrm. o us Antads ki. n thIe last
election you had a victory, the Australian Labor Party
had a victory. You are continuing on with your political
leadership. I would like to pay my deepest tribute and
respect to your leadership. one of the campaign issues
in the election was the so-called Multi-function Polis.
The problem associated with the Multi-function Polis came
up especially raised by the Leader of the opposition
Party. During the election campaign many discussions took
place. At least I was informed of that. Many things
were argued. So on one hand there is a concept of MFP
between Japan and Australia and that could become an
election issue. That means that in Australia Japanese
entry into Australia in economic affairs is met with some
resistance by the Australian people. Am I correct in
interpreting that there is some of resistance amongst
the Australia public regarding the economic entry of
Japan into your country. of course during the election
campaign Prime Minister Hawke defended the Multi-function
Polis. But could you explain the situation.. When we
think of the future of economic relations between Japan
and Australia, this point is very important. So I wanted
to raise this point.
PM: Thank you very much for that question. Could I just
briefly make an observation in response to the previous
observation and then come to your question. I thank you
very much for your references to your discussions with Mr
Kerin and let me say quite directly, and in the spirit of
I think, frankness and directness which we in Australia
and Japan can talk with one another, we have been
critical in the past of Japan, North America and Europe
in regard to agricultural protectionism. But I hope that
you will understand and recall the way in which we have
spoken very affirmatively of the liberalisation steps
that have been taken by Japan. We are conscious of them
and to some considerable extent in the area of beef and
of manufactured products we are the beneficiaries of the
liberalisation that has occurred. But equally we are
going to say that we always think that further steps can
be taken. We trust that that will happen because we do
seriously believe that the freeing up of the
internatioial trading system is not merely something to
be perceived in terms of what does it mean for each
other. But I think if history does teach us one thing,
it does teach us that a resort to economic autarky of
increasing protectionism can be the precursor not only to
economic problems but to political conflict. So we, all
of us, have a vested interest in doing what we can. We
in Australia are reviewing the whole of our positions.
0 We will be moving to further liberalisation and we hope
that that sort of thing is going to be reflected here and
elsewhere. But now if I can come to your question. I
appreciate the directness and the frankness of the
question and it's a proper question to put to the Prime
MAinister of Australia visiting Japan. I will be
absolutely direct and honest in my reply with you. It
was an issue that arose in the election. You mentioned
the Leader of the Opposition. It was not a matter which
was really raised by the Leader of the opposition, who I
don't believe he, the then Leader of the Opposition was
personally responsible for it. There was a weakness of
leadership in the opposition. It arose as a perception
by some people in the opposition that there may be some
political mileage to be obtained through fanning some
attitudes of racist intolerance. The failure of
leadership was not in raising it. The failure of
leadership was in not squashing it. It is unfortunately
true that in some sectors of Australia there are these
sentiments of opposition to foreign involvement in
Australia in general and in some areas particularly to
Japan. But I hope that you will be aware that I in
particular, but my Government in general, has been
steadfast in accepting the responsibilities of
leadership. I have said in Australia and I take this
opportunity of saying here in Japan, that if any
Australian wanted to be short-sighted in the extreme in a
proper assessment of their own self-interests and the
self-interests of their children into the future, it
would be for them to pursue an attitude of resentment and
opposition to co-operation with Japan and of opposition
to Japanese investment and involvement in the development
of the Australian economy. Because not only for this
generation but moreso for our next generations, their
welfare and indeed their standards of living and quality
of life is-going to depend upon the way in which together
we can co-operate, how we can marry not merely our
material resources but increasingly our very significant
fundamental scientific and research capacity with your
magnificent record and capacity for applying science and
technology, commercialising it. Australia's future
depends very much upon the way in which we can co-operate
together. So there are moral considerations in this. We
live in an interconnected and interdependent world and it
is morally right that we should recognise that it's a
world in which any concepts of division or discrimination
based upon race, colour or creed are abhorrent. There
are those moral considerations. But overwhelmingly as
well there are simple economic considerations of selfinterest.
I can assure you that the overwhelming
majority of Australians have responded to the leadership
that we have given on this issue and which we will
continue to give. I want you to know and I want all
Japanese leaders and the people of Japan to know that as
far as we are concerned we understand the fundamental
importance of the relationship between our two countries.
We recognise that our growth has been interconnected.
That our opportunities for the future are interconnected.
We welcome Japanese investment in Australia. The MFP has
been mentioned. It was the peg upon which you hung your
question. But it's not only in regard to the MFP that we
want to see this co-operation and development. But we
want to see that in a sense as merely one manifestation
. of an increasing inter-relationship between our
countries. If I could say this in conclusion, as you
would appreciate overwhelmingly, Japanese investment in
my country has been in the area of real estate and of
tourism. In fact if you look at the last year, in an
investment of just over $ 9 billion, 92% was in those
areas. Now I'm not complaining about that, let me make
it clear. But what I am saying is that I think it's
going to be in both our interests that there be a
diversification and an increase of Japanese investment
particularly in our manufacturing industries. And in
particular within that area I would like to see the
existing co-operation that is developing between us in
regard to science and technology research being reflected
more in the applied area so that there can be co-
operation between us with . your great experience and
expertise, our own resources, our own research. Because
I'm sure that if we do that, that that's going to be to
the benefit of Australia and Japan. That's going to be
good for each of us and it will be good for the region.
QUESTION: Since Australia is a friendly nation I'd
better talk frankly. There is only one thing which I'd
like to say. So I'd like to talk about the issue of the
rice market. When I think about self-sufficiency of the
other countries of the world, most of them are 100%.
Thirty years ago Japan's self-sufficiency was 83% but now
it's nearly lower than 30%. So when we think about this
it's very natural that we think we have to try to keep
the percentage at least more than one third. This demand
is very natural for other sovereign nations. You should
understand that. There are some differences between
industry and agriculture of course but if foreign produce
began to occupy the market at the percentage of 20-30%,
most countries impose Now Japan imports 70% of food.
So we'd like to produce another 30% at least. Our hope
is very natural. Concerning this point that percentage
may go down to 20% so we'd like to produce at least rice
by ourselves. That's a very strong hope of the Japanese.
Since there is not much time, you don't have to answer it
now, but I hope you discuss it while you are in Japan.
That's my frank opinion.
PM: I don't like delayed replies so I would rather make
an observation now. Let me say this. That from the
perspective of Australia we see certainly a difference in
the position of Japan as compared with Europe on this
issue. Because in the case of Europe and of the United
States of America, we could understand in the post-war
period with Europe, after their experience, that they
wanted to reduce to some extent the dependency that they
felt they'd had on the rest of the world and have a
capacity to feed themselves. It would have been churlish
in those circumstances for us to deny the legitimacy of
that objective. What of course we have found
particularly unacceptable in the case of the common
agricultural policy of Europe and also of the Export
Enhancement Program of the United States, is how they've
transferred and transformed what in that early post-war
period was a legitimate aspiration to self-sufficiency
into practices and procedures which have manifestly
distorted the international trading system in
agriculture. That has not of course been our attitude
towards Japan. It's a different category of concern.
But could I make these conceptual, and in the end I
believe political and economic points in regard to what
you've said. The world of the last decade of the
Century is an infinitely different world from those first
decades of the post-war period. It was perfectly proper
for nations, including Japan, in those first decades
after the Second World War, to take into their thinking
about the world in which they lived, the assumptions, the
suspicions, the prejudices if you like, about the
international behaviour of their partners in the global
international relationship of which they were part. You
were entitled to be suspicious. You were entitled to
take the view that really the world was not very adult
and that the world could punish you if you exposed
yourself in a sense of non self-sufficiency. It was
perfectly understandable. But the world today is
different. I don't think it is so adult to have the view
now at the end of the 20th Century that you need to have
the same suspicions, the same attitudes that the world is
not going to behave rationally and decently in terms of
making available to you in Japan those things with which
nature has not so readily endowed you. Because we have
all matured. We are entitled as citizens of the world to
say that we do behave more intelligently at the end of
the 20th Century than we did in the middle of it. Now if
that is true, and I deeply believe that it is, then I
think it makes the mathematics of self-sufficiency
something that needs to be re-examined. There is no
logic in my mind now to apply to the world at the end of
the 20th Century the same rigorous mathematical
perceptions of self-sufficiency that you were entitled to
have in you mind in the middle of the 20th century. Now
that may sound the counsel of a man by nature too
optimistic. But I think we are entitled to examine the
evidence by which we are surrounded. The world has shown
a determination in the way we, for instance, not with
perfection, but the way in which we now co-operate in
international economic terms. We have been able to see
much more prolonged periods of economic growth and that's
been a ref lection of the application of intelligence and
of co-operation between nations. So if we're going to
maximise what are still proper economic precepts of the
advantages of the international division of labour, there
is nothing that's changed the correctness of the theory
of the international division of labour. Nothing has
changed the correctness of that theory. What we've
always had, and properly, are the perceptions and the
reservations about the political division of
responsibility. But none of ever questioned the
validity of the economic international division of labour
now. As we have matured politically, we ought to be the
more ready to take the advantage in my judgement of the
benefits of the international division of labour. If you
can trust us for instance in the area of supply we have
been a consistently reliable supplier of the raw
materials that Japan has needed for its growth. You've
known that the coal that you needed would be supplied and
that the iron ore that you needed would be supplied. We
happen, in the way in which this world was created, we
happen to live in a land which has the capacity to supply
you with food. And we will. We're not going to play, if
I can say, funny buggers. We're not going to play funny
buggers. Because it's too important. So I would say
that if these truths can be understood, that we should
not be, in my judgement, worried by the mathematics of
self-sufficiency and we should be honest enough to say,
as I've had to be honest in my country, that we often try
7 7
and cover up political difficulties by nostrums about
self-sufficiency. I'm a politician, I'm a practising
politician and I know how easy it is to cover up a
political difficulty with some economic nostrum. But at
least I'm in this position, that when I come and sort of
attempt to preach these truths to you I come with clean
hands. Because I come as a leader of a Government which
in seven and a half years has massively reduced our
protective apparatus. We will be doing it further this
year and we'll be going on doing it through the years
ahead. So we'll be practising in Australia what we
preach. And we'll be doing it on the basis of a
realisation that there is truth in the concept of the
international division of labour. It's something that's
good for us. It's something that's good for you. And in
the end it depends upon trusting one another. I'm saying
to you you can trust us.
ends