PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENT BY
THE PRIME MINISTERel
VISITS TO NEW CALEDONIA, 7
THE SOUTH PACIFIC FORUM,
PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND JAPAN,
TUESDAY 9 OCTOBER 1gg91
Mr Speaker
I seek leave t~ o report to the House on f our important visits
I have undertaken recently within the Asia-Pacific region:
to New Caledonia between 27 and 29 July; to the South
Pacific Forum held in Port Vila, Vanuatu from 30 July to 1
August; to Papua New Guinea between 2 and 6 September; and
to Japan between 16 and 20 September.
The South Pacific Forum is the pre-eminent regional body
which brings together each year leaders from Australia, New
Zealand and the Pacific Island countries. New Caledonia
lies within our immediate region, while Papua New Guinea is
not only Australia's closest neighbour, but is a country
with which we share important historical, economic and
strategic interests. Japan is, of course, one of the
world's great economic powers and our relationship with it
is one of Australia's most vital.
While each visit raised important issues of its own, a
number of recurring and complementary themes emerged from
this intensive: period of regional contact.
For instance, in Tokyo I pursued with Prime Minister Kaifu
and his Ministers Australia's concern to see decisive
movement in the Uruguay Round negotiations, which are about
to enter their final stage. I urged Japan to show true
leadership, and thus exert pressure on the other majors
the EC and the United States by further liberalising
import controls on agricultural products, especially rice
not because Australia itself is a significant rice producer
on a world scale, but because such a step would have
far-reaching symbolic importance at this vital stage of the
Uruguay Round negotiations.
These negotiations are of real importance to all countries
around the world, especially to those of our South Pacific
and South East. Asian neighbours belonging to the Cairns
Group. Japan acknowledges the fact that the Uruguay Round
negotiations will fail unless vital matters relating to
agriculture are sensibly addressed.
Similarly, leaders at the South Pacific Forum expressed
satisfaction with the progress made over the past twelve
months in mobilising support against the obnoxious practice
of drift-net fishing and urged other countries to become
party to the Wellington Convention. I was able to take that
message personally to Japan, which has suspended drift-net
fishing operations in the South Pacific. I told Japan's
leaders that the suspension was welcome in the region but
that our goal remained and rightly so a world-wide ban.
Also against the background of my attendance at the South
Pacific Forum and of my visit to Papua New Guinea, I was
able to urge Japan to expand its constructive investment and
development assistance in the region; the Island economies
are in need of it, and it is important that major donors
such as Australia and Japan maintain close and continuing
dialogue. Let me now report in turn on each of my visits.
NewCaledonia The visit to New Caledonia at the invitation of Prime
Minister Rocard was the first to the territory by an
Australian Prime Minister since Mr Robert Menzies in 1941.
My program included meetings with Mr Louis Le Pensec, the
French Minister for Overseas Departments and Territories,
and with New Caledonian political leaders, including the
President of the Territorial Congress, and leaders of the
Southern, Northern and Loyalty Islands provinces. I also
had discussions with the Mayor of Noumea, with the President
of the FLNKS, Mr Neaoutyine, and the widow of the
assassinated former President of the FLNKS, Madam Tjibaou.
I was thus able to have discussions with a very wide range
of New Caledonian leaders, representative of the political
spectrum. I was greatly impressed by the positive and constructive
change in New Caledonia that has followed the signing of the
Matignon Accords. All those involved in the Matignon
process President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Rocard,
the independentist groups, and those who want a continuing
constitutional link with France deserve great credit for
the way in which they have set aside old animosities and are
working together to broaden New Caledonia's economic and
political base. This will allow a genuine act of self
determination to be made in 1998, leading to a viable longterm
political status for the territory.
I offered Australia's continuing help in this process,
including assistance in training young New Caledonians,
broadening our economic links and encouraging, where we can,
New Caledonia's links with the wider Pacific community.
I made it clear that, notwithstanding differences of policy
over French nuclear testing and over the EC's agricultural
policies differences which I restated and whatever the
outcome in New Caledonia, Australia believes that France has
a constructive and welcome political, cultural and economic
role to play in this part of the world.
At the South Pacific Forum I was able to brief other leaders
about my visit to New Caledonia. This was very much
welcomed because, as Honourable Members will know, it
remains an issue of great interest throughout the region.
South Pac-ific-Forum
As is my practice at Forum meetings, I was able to have
valuable bilateral discussions with a range of South Pacific
leaders, including with Prime Minister Lini of Vanuatu and
Ratu Mara of Fiji.
The Forum demonstrated again its practical relevance to the
needs and concerns of the Pacific states. A wide range of
regional issues was discussed in the usual frank and
informal way, Including matters relating to the environment,
fisheries and regional multilateral organisations.
In particular, the United States Government's plans to
dispose of chemical weapons stocks at the facility it has
constructed on Johnston Atoll was the subject of
understandably lively debate. Some Island leaders expressed
concern for the safety aspects of the project. Others were
concerned that the Pacific was coming to be seen as a
dumping ground for the industrial waste of developed
countries. I put to my colleagues Australia's view that the Johnston
facility would help to resolve a serious existing
environmental problem the deterioration of the stock of
chemical weapons on Johnston Atoll and would also help rid
the world of these devastating weapons by making more
possible the comprehensive global ban on their construction
and use, for which Australia has worked so hard.
Let me say that I reject totally the absurd notion being
peddled by some that the destruction of chemical. weapons on
Johnston Atoll is somehow akin to the ñ nsññ ng of nuclear
devices at Mururoa.
I agreed fully with all Forum leaders that the Pacific
should not become a waste dump, and that once the weapons at
present on the island, those that may be found elsewhere in
the region, and those being transhipped from Europe, were
destroyed, the facility should be closed down. We welcomed,
therefore, the United States Government assurance that it
had no plans to extend the life of the facility beyond its
current programo. We also welcomed the United States' offer
to discuss the facility in detail with Forum leaders and a
delegation has since held useful talks in Washington.
Papua New Guinea
The visit, which included discussions with Prime Minister
Namaliu and his Ministers, Opposition Leader Wingti and with
a range of Provincial and business leaders, was the most
extensive undertaken to Papua New Guinea by an Australian
Prime Minister since 1976. As well as Port Moresby, I
visited Mount Hagen, Madang and Rabaul. The welcome at each
of those provincial centres was nothing short of
overwhelming, and symbolised in the most dramatic and
colourful of ways the great depth of the relationship
between our two countries.
The relationship with Papua New Guinea remains one of our
most important. Papua New Guinea is the largest recipient
of Australia's bilateral aid; it is the fourth largest
export market for Australia's manufactured products; it is
our sixth largest overseas investment destination, with
total net investments of about $ 1.8 billion, a figure which
could exceed well in excess of $ 4 billion if major resource
projects in Papua New Guinea proceed as planned. Over
11,000 Australians reside in Papua New Guinea and, over the
past decade, some 2,000 Papua New Guineans have studied here
under Australian Government scholarships and training
awards. Since 1983 my Government has worked hard to develop
constructively and positively the relationship with our
nearest neighbour. In December 1987 I signed with then
Prime Minister Wingti the landmark Joint Declaration of
Principles. In May last year I signed with Prime Minister
Namaliu a Five Year Development Assistance Agreement.
During my visit to Port Moresby an Agreement for the
Protection and Promotion of Investment was signed.
The Joint Declaration of Principles spelled out that the
relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea is one
between two independent nations each responsible for its own
destiny. A fundamental purpose of my visit to Papua New
Guinea at this time was to underline this simple but vital
fact, the significance of which is still sometimes not fully
grasped and understood in parts of Papua New Guinea,
Australia and elsewhere.
Throughout my visit, I stressed that Australia had no wish
to intervene in solving Papua New Guinea's problems. If
effective solutions are to be found, they must be solutions
which emerge from within Papua New Guinea and are
implemented by Papua New Guineans. It is neither possible
nor desirable to turn the clock back. I also said it was
important that the relationship between the two countries be
taken forward very much within the context of the economic
dynamism of the Asia-Pacific region and that Australia
looked forward to the time when Papua New Guinea could
itself become a member of APEC.
The totality, of my message was well understood and, indeed,
welcomed by Papua New Guinea's leadership. For his part,
Prime Minister Namaliu said that his Government wanted to
speed up the: shift in the balance of our aid program away
from budget support and towards the more usual project
support, with a view to the former being phased out by the
end of this decade. I welcomed that goal and officials from
the two countries will be taking the matter forward in the
lead-up to the scheduled 1992 review of the current
Development Assistance Agreement.
None of this means that Australia is walking away from Papua
New Guinea. Both countries are too important to each other
for that to be allowed to happen, and it is clear from my
Government's actions over the past seven years that is not
our policy. Australia and Papua New Guinea remain enduring
friends and committed partners.
Honourable Members will be aware of the enormous problems
faced by Papua New Guinea over the past 18 months, the most
significant of which have, of course, been those on
Bougainville and the subsequent closure of the BCL Mine at
Panguna. That closure led, in one blow, to Papua New Guinea losing
37% of its export income and 17% of its budget revenue. The
requirement for fundamental adjustment on the part of the
Papua New Guinean Government and its people was obvious.
Throughout my visit I was struck by the realistic
appreciation and acceptance of the challenge. There was no
attempt to turn away from it or to pretend that it was not
there. And, to date, this attitude has been reflected in
the implementation by the Papua New Guinean Government of
the Structural Adjustment Program agreed with the World Bank
and the IMF, and in which Australia has played a significant
role. Prime Minister Namaliu and his Ministers and the
people of Papua New Guinea are to be congratulated for this
realistic commitment.
The problem of Bougainville does, of course, remain. In my
discussions iLn Port Moresby, I reiterated the Australian
Government's position that Bougainville should remain an
integral part of Papua New Guinea and that we fully support
the Papua New Guinean Government's commitment to a political
solution. I also reiterated our willingness to assist in
the rehabilit~ ation of Bougainville once an agreement has
been worked out.
I raised agai~ n the Australian Government's concern about
reported human rights abuses, both by the Papua New Guinean
authorities and the Bougainville Revolutionary Army. In
this context, I am disappointed that Bougainville leaders
have, to date-, declined the offer by the Papua New Guinean
Government to invite an outside body to investigate
allegations involving both sides.
Prime Minister Namaliu and his Ministers outlined frankly
the problem confronting Papua New Guinea in law and order, a
problem impinging on Australians themselves living in Papua
New Guinea and a problem which, if left unchecked, would
complicate the task of attracting much needed foreign
investment. We agreed to examine the challenges confronting
Papua New Guinea in the 1990s, with a view to determining
how best the authorities there might meet the challenges and
how Australia might best assist. It is planned that both
sides will be in a position to pursue discussions further
once the initial studies have been completed by the end of
October. Lastly, I discussed with Prime Minister Naxnaliu the
heartening progress which has been made on the vital work of
reforming Papua New Guinea's Constitution to allow the
maintenance of more stable parliamentary majorities between
elections. Mr Speaker, we should not forget that, while Papua New
Guinea faces a complicated mix of problems, it is also a
country rich in resources, both material and human. My
visit to the Porgera gold mine and my talks with many Papua
New Guineans from all walks of life around the provinces,
gave me ample evidence of that. With determined leadership
and with continued assistance, from Australia and its other
friends, there is no reason to believe that Papua New Guinea
cannot realise its significant potential.
Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympics occupied the first two
days of my visit to Japan. Honourable Members are, of
course, aware of the outcome of that bid. Atlanta is to be
congratulated and I am sure its people will stage a most
successful Games to mark the centenary of the modern
Olympics. At the same time, all Australians should feel
immensely proud with the effort made on their behalf by the
Melbourne Olympic Committee and by the many people,
including the Leader of the Opposition, who put in so much
effort to secure the Games. That the bid was not successful
was not, in any way, a reflection on their effort and
dedication or on the excellence of the bid itself.
My two days of discussions in Tokyo encompassed talks with
Prime Minister Kaifu and, separately, his Ministers for
Foreign Affairs, Finance, International Trade and Industry,
and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. I also met with
former Prime Minister Takeshita and with the Chairperson of
the Japan Socialist Party, Ms Doi. I addressed a meeting of
the Australia-Japan Dietmembers' League, and 600 senior
Japanese businessmen who were attending the annual All Japan
Chambers of Commerce. I met separately with a dozen or so
of Japan's foremost business leaders.
Mr Speaker, 1: he relationship with Japan is of the highest
priority for Australia. Not only is Japan's economy of
global importance but, during the course of this decade we
will see Japan assume an increasingly important political
role in world affairs, something which my Government
welcomes and to which I shall return to later.
But over and above our many shared global and regional
interests, the bilateral relationship with Japan stands in
its own right:
Two-way trade with Japan is now worth over $ 23 billion
a year, with Japan being Australia's largest trading
partner and Australia being Japan's sixth largest
trading partner
Japanese investment in Australia is worth over
$ 36 billion or about 15% of total foreign investment in
Australia and has increased by over 70% since 1986/ 87
Japan is an important source of tourism for Australia,
with visitors numbering about 350,000 in 1989
Impressive as these figures are, we aspire to an even more
diversified and rich relationship with Japan. For instance,
as I pointed out in Japan, of the $ 9 billion currently
invested by Japan in Australia, some 92% is invested in
tourism and real estate. Tourism is a major growth industry
for us. But we do not see ourselves solely as a purveyor of
leisure services; nor do we see particular economic
advantage in selling real estate as an end in itself.
It is time, in short, for Japan to be more creative in its
approach to investment in Australia and to joint ventures
with us.
The bilateral relationship is well managed within the
framework of the Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee and
my visit proviLded an opportunity to promote a further
broadening andI deepening. Mr Kaifu shared this objective,
and it has been agreed that the existing Science and
Technology Agreement will be revised so that cooperation
under it can encompass not only pure research but also
important areas of applied science. It was also agreed that
officials would explore areas of further cooperation in
clean coal technologies the Brown Coal Liquefaction
Project at Mor well in Victoria being a good example of what
is possible.
Against the background of the fundamental changes made to
the Australian economy since 1983, I discussed with Mr
Kaifu, his economic Ministers and with Japanese business
leaders, the mutual benefits to be gained through increased
investment in the Australian manufacturing sector. In this
context, I am pleased to be able to report that the Japanese
Government and, business leaders continue to take a very
positive approach to the further development of the Multi-
Function Polis or MFP, as made clear through their:
Welcoming of Adelaide as the location for the MFP;
Agreement to nominate, as Co-Chairman of the
International Advisory Group to report to
Senator Button, its foremost business leader,
Mr Eishiro Saito, Chairman of Japan's private sector
umbrella group, Keidanren; and
Agreement to send an investment mission to Australia in
connection with the MFP
I assured both the Japanese Government and business leaders
that the prejudices within Australia which, at one point,
put the MFP at needless risk, represented very much minority
views. Mr Speaker, as I suggested earlier, I told Mr Kaifu and I
stated clearly in public speeches that Australia wanted to
give positive encouragement to Japan to play a wider role in
global affairs, more commensurate with its economic
standing. I want to state clearly here and now that I
believe such a trend is inevitable and that it is in our
interests. It is self-evident that the world today, as it embarks upon
its post-Cold War era, is very different to the world of the
1940s, when post-war global institutions were put in place.
The time has clearly come for thought to be given about how
those institutions, including the United Nations, might
accommodate Japan's new role. Within the United Nations,
for instance, there is obviously a range of possibilities,
up to and including permanent membership of the Security
Council. The question is a delicate one and involves a
range of complex issues in which many countries have a
legitimate interest. For that reason, I did not in any way
seek to be prescriptive, but sought to highlight an
important question which needs to be addressed.
Mr Kaifu was appreciative of my comments and said he felt
honoured that I had chosen to raise the issue. It was
emphasised to me that while Japan wished to play a greater
political role in world affairs, the terms of Japan's
Constitution do not permit the deployment of Japan's armed
forces abroad for combat operations. Japan is not
contemplating any change to its Constitution, but this is,
of course, a different matter from the foreshadowed change
to Japanese legislation which will enable Japan to play a
fuller and more active role within the framework of United
Nations peacekeeping operations. My Government would
welcome that.
Amongst the global issues discussed with Mr Kaifu and his
Ministers, the most significant was the situation in the
Gulf and its implications, both politically and
economically. We confirmed our respective support for the
relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. Mr Kaifu outlined
Japan's contribution to the multi-national effort in the
Gulf and said that, within the framework of its
Constitution, Japan was examining what else it might be able
to do. He applauded Australia's resolute and quick action
in meeting the crisis by despatching naval vessels.
I expressed appreciation for Japan's contribution and said
that, while it was clearly a matter for Japan itself to
determine, any decision to do more would be understood by
Australia. In exchanging views about developments in the Soviet Union,
both Mr Kaifu and Foreign Minister Nakayama outlined the
current state of Japan-Soviet relations, including the
outstanding question of the Northern Territories. I
expressed my Government's hope that the issue would be
resolved in a way acceptable to Japan, as Japan-Soviet
relations were a matter of importance to all countries in
the Asia-Pacific region.
Other issues covered in my discussions included Antarctica,
APEC, China, the Korean Peninsula and Cambodia:
I outlined to Mr Kaifu the Australian-French initiative
to preserve the unique Antarctic environment and the
importance of the forthcoming Santiago Conference. Mr
Kaifu expressed his hope for a satisfactory outcome at
Santiago and agreed that our officials should continue
to consult in the lead-up to the Conference
Mr Kaifu and his Ministers were especially supportive
of the APEC initiative which I launched early last
year. Ii= was agreed that the two countries would
continue to work together closely on this and other
regional issues such as Cambodia
On the Korean Peninsula, we both expressed concern
about the failure, to date, of the DPRK to enter into
its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic
Energy Agency, a matter of great importance in the
context of proliferation.
Mr Speaker,
As is obvious from this report, my visits have, in each
case, advanced concrete Australian interests and have, once
again, demonstrated Australia's continued high standing in
the region.
It' is therefore a matter for regret that while I was in
Japan, the Opposition Leader, Dr Hewson, delivered an
address on foreign policy in which he made clear his belief
that Australian influence in the region had become, in his
word, " marginalised", and that Australia's foreign policy
was, again in his words, " in disarray".
" Let me put this point quite bluntly, Dr Hewson said. " We
are no longer the diplomatic and economic force we were in
the Asia-Pacific region, because our relative economic
situation has declined considerably
Mr Speaker, everything that emerged from the regional visits
that are the subject of this report reveals this statement
for what it is: the uninformed and opportunistic posturing
of this apprentice.
Quite simply, Australia now stands at a high point of its
constructive regional influence, and you need look no
further than Cambodia on the political side and APEC on the
economic, for proof of that.
Dr Hewson implies there was a lost golden era when Australia
enjoyed areater positive influence in the region.
Is this successor to the Liberal Leaders who sent Australian
troops into Vietnam referring to that sort of regional
influence? Is he talking about the wasted years of hypocrisy on trade
under Malcolm Fraser, when this country preached reform but
practiced inflexible self-centred protectionism?
Does he suggest that Australia's influence was greater
before this Government took the internationally recognised
and applauded lead in the establishment of
the Cairns Group?
the new forum for Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation? the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone?
the framework embraced by the UN Security Council
for advancing the restoration of peace in
Cambodia?
11.
Mr Speaker, Australia is a nation that has spoken for a long
time about being part of the Asia-Pacific region. But it is
only under this Government that real effect has been given
to those words; it is only this Government which has defined
economic enmeshment with the region as a key objective for
this country for the coming decade; it is only this
Government, and this party, that has never wavered in its
unequivocal commitment to non-racial principles of
immigration; and it is only under this Government that
Australia's potential as an active, respected and positive
partner in the region has started to be fulfilled.