NEW UiALA'TC TOUR 1967
TELEVISION INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THlE PRIE MINISTER.
MU. HAROLL HOLT~, AT WVELLINGTON, NEVJ ZEALAND 3RD PEBRUARY, 1967
Prime Minister, I woul. like to begin by referring to a
statement you made yesterday and then repeated today. You said
a visit to New Zealand was the first of your priorities for
this New Year. Now, among Australia's foreign policy commitments,
how high does the relationship with New Zealand rank as a
priority?
PM: Very high, because we are linked as partners and allies in such
agreements as ANZUS and SEATO, which bear on the security of
both our countries in this area of the world. We work together
in such schemes as the Colombo Plan. We are in the Asian
and South Pacific Association of Countries, and the Asian
Development Bank. We are working together on the Commission in
the South Pacific. In so m~ any directions we have common interests,
common purposes to serve. At gatherings of Prime Ministers,
Australia and New Zealand usually have rather similar attitudes
in fact, very similar attitudes to the issues which arise there,
so it becomes very desirable that with so much to be served in
common we should work as closely together as we can.
Does this working closely together go as far as seeking the
advice of one country or another before you make a major foreigni
policy decision?
PM: It does on matters which concern us both. We keep in very close
touch with this country.
To perpetuate the following up of these common purposes to which
you refer, do you see any value in setting up some sort of
permanent consultative machinery, like a Secretariat?
PM: There was thought given to that, as you will recall.. Back in
1944 there was a suggestion for a regular process of
consultation. I think, though, that the subsequent developments
have largely nullified the need for this, because we do cone
together for so many of the other purposes that I have mentionedat
various levels of Government, Ministers, Prime Ministers, and
Officials for such matters as those I have mentioned, and I
think what we need is not so much the formal machinery for
consultation but a desire and expression of that desire to be in
closer consultation, regular consultation with each other. I
may say that so far as the Prime Minister and myself are concerned
we met last year on three sets of meetings, and we developed a
process of telephone consultation which I think was useful for
both of us.
This does raise a point, doesn't it the personality issue.
If, for example, you did not get on well with Mjr Holyoake,
cooperation between Australia and New Zealand might not be as
great as would be desirable for both countries, and that is why,
surely, there is one reason for setting up some sort of permanent
machinery so that the consultation is always there and not / 2
dependent on personalities.
PMll First of all, I think it highly unlikely there would not be a
friendly feeling between the leaders of our two countries and
this is irrespective of politics, I might say. Australians get
on well with New Zealanders, and vice versa. But there would be
consultation of an official kind at the various levels involved
in all these activities Colombo Plan, Development Bank, ASPAC,
and whatever else is in discussion at the time.
In the past and now, of course, as you have just outlined,
Australia and New Zealand have often forged general policies and,
going back to 19) 4g again, for example, in the Canberra Pact there
was a definite attempt then to get a joint policy so that both
countries could hope to exercise some sort of influence on the
great powers. Now, I wonder if you would agree with the argument
that both countries to a certain extent have lost some independence
in foreign policy-making because of their wish to shelter
under the American Nuclear Umbrella?
PM: Well, any less independence now than we used to have in the days
when the Rritish Navy protected us both? I can remember a charge
being levelled against a Government I supported that we were
clinging to the skirts of Domning Street, and now people are
saying that we are going American: as I said the other day at an
Australia Day gathering, we are not going American we are going
Australian. Any country which is not able to protect itself from
its own resources, I suppose, could be said to have sacrificed
some degree of its independence, but isn't that true of every
country which goes into the United Nations? It is influenced
very considerably by the discussions and the decisions which come
iron the United Nations. It is a little old-fashioned now, I
think, to speak in terms or think in teims of complete independence
in what is becoming an increasingly interdependent world.
On the other hand, I am quite certain that both Australia and
New Zealand are able to exert an influence out of all proportion
to our numbers on the great powers, certainly on the United
Kingdom and the United States.
Because they agree with the United States or the United Kingdom
and tend to participate in the policies that both of these powers
are enunciating for example, the presence of Australian and
New Zealand f'orces in Viet Nam?
PlhI: No, I think it is becalise of the special position we occupy in
this region of the world the fact that we can form a bridge
of cooperation and understanding, sometimes in situations where
the great powers cannot. I could illustrate this by our
situation with Cambodia. Wie represent the United States in
Cambodia, and we represent Cambodia in South Viet Nam. Now, no
great power would have been as welcome to Cambodia for this
purpose as we have proved to be. There is a feeling amongst
several of the countries of this region that we do not possess
the legacy of a colonial power past, that each of our countries
is striving to develop resources and thereby set some sort of an
example to others who have their uevelopment ahead of them.
It is known that we are on good terms with such powers as the
United Kingctoim and the United States. All of these things help
to build our influence on the other countries, and that influence
on them makes us a valuable ally for the United States and the
United Kingdom.
3.
Over the last two or three years especially there has been a
marked increase, it seemed to us here, in Australian activity
in Asia, and this too has coincided with greater American
interest in that area, and it would appear at least it has
coincided with a declining British influence in the area. Do
you think these three factors are all intertwined together2
PM: I would not regard our interest as being so much a product of
American interest. I would claim that American interest has
increased in Asia because of the discussions and influences that
we have been able to bring to the United States. I had a very
good illustration of that last year when in the space of a
fortnight I had two visits to Washington, and in between those
visits, I having stressed the value that the other countries on
the periphery of Asia were deriving from the American
participation in Viet Nam, the President invited me back, and
just before I returned he made a very significant speech which
I think took the United States further into Asia than any American
President previously had done, not only in a military sense, but
a virtual assurance that in the positive tasks of peace America
would be giving constructive and substantial assistance.
Finally, Prime M. inister, do you see Australia as taking over the
role in Asia that Britain seems to be abandoning?
PM: I doubt whether Australia has the resources to do this. We are
trying to do a great deal, but after all we are a developing
country ourselves: we are a capital importing country. We see a
growing involvement for ourselves in Asia and would expect to be
making a growing contribution, preferably in circimstances of
peace but if necessary towards the security of the area. But
after all, wie are only a people of less than 12,000,000 at the
present time, and while I said, talking at the lunch at Parliament
House, that because of our productivity we do rate very much
higher than n..-mbers would suggest, still we do not class ourselves
as a major power.
Interviewer Prime Minister, thank you very much.