TELEVISION ITflER VIEW GIVEN BY THE
PRIME MINISTER, SENATOR JOHN GORTON
FOR B. B. C. " PANORAMA" PROGRAMME 22ND JANUARY, 1968
Interviewer Mr Michael Charliton
Q. Hello, is that Prime Mlinister Gorton
PM: Yes, Mr Charlton
Q. Prime Minister, could I first of all congratulate you on
your appointment.
PM: Thank you very much.
Q. And ask you what you feel is going to be the lasting effect
of Britain's withdrawal from the Far East on the very special
0 relationship that has always existed between Australia and
B ritain?
PM: I doubt if there will be lasting effects on the relationship
between Australia and Great Britain. We are very disturbed at
the power vacuum that will be created In that area by Britain's
withdrawal. We do feel that a comparatively small number of
troops on the ground there could contribate more to world
security than they could In any other place In the world, say,
for example, in Germany, but that's a decision for the British
Government to make.
Q. Surely this decision has done no more than hasten a
trend which was already firmly established and generally
0 accepted by Australians.
FM: Well, it has done, I think more than that. It has
certainly hastened a trend and hastened it in a way which we
thought was not going to take place. But that's talking only of
the withdrawal of the ground troops. I think, possibly, It has
also gone this far that the provision of a quickly available
land and quickly available naval and air support which was
ear-marked for the area In case of need or which we thought
was going to be ear-marked for the area In case of need, it's
now doubtful whether that will be available.
Q. The feeling is that It will make you lean very much closer
to the United States?
PM: Well, I think that our own security Is perhaps bound up
now more with assistance from the United States but I'm not
sure that this actual move will contribute much to that. You see, we
don't see this withdrawal as necessarily putting Australia Itself
in danger', why we deprecate It Is because we see the opportunity
of small warE starting In this area, of Insurgency starting in
this area which might not start or which could quickly be stopped
if there were a relatively small number of troops there. ./ 2
2
Q. Could I suggest to you that many Australians would possibly
regard this in the same way as they regarded the shock of the
decision of Britain to join the Common Market some years ago.
As a spur towards understanding that It had an independent
nationhood to fulfil. Now, won't that accelerate this process,
make Australia more aware of Its own position as a power In
Asia and contributing itself to all this?
PM : Well, it wil I certainly strengthen what I think Australia
already believed and that is that it had to play an independent role
and it had to develop itself as far and as quickly as It can, but we
haven't got the capacity to be, ourselves, a power in Asia or
anywhere else. We are twelve million people. VWhat Is the
population of London?
Q. About that.
PM: Yes, well we're about the population of London. We can't
at this stage, whatever the future may hold and the future may well
show that at some stage we can, but at this stage we are not able
to be a power in our own right.
Q. What effect do you see it having on the future of tbe
Commonwealth, the idea of an evolving Commonwealth, a multi
racial Commonwealth with Britain at Its hub, at its centre?
PM: I think that that is probably something that I would have to
wait for time to tell.
Q. What are you prepared to do to strengthen Commonwealth
links yourself now?
PMt Well, we are already of course contributing quite a lot to
various Commonwealth activities. I haven't got any specific plans
to do anything more than we're doing.
Q. But do you fully support, for example, the British Government's
policy towards Rhodesia?
PM: I don't think you could expect me to comment on the British
Government's policy I think that would be wrong for me to
publicly comment on the British Government's policies.
Q. But you, yourself, are less of a traditionalist, aren't you,
than either of your predecessors, Sir Rob. art Menzies and Mr
Holt you're not as emotionally Involved In the Commonwealth
idea with Britain as Its head as they were?
PM: I think that would be a pretty accurate assessment. I'm
not as much a traditionalist.
Q. Well, how do you Irtend to be different from them?
PM: Well, I would like to think that I could be as efficient and
as good as they were in many ways perhaps I could put It this
way that the first and over-riding and paramount consideration
In my mind on all things would be Australia's Interests and that
-would come before anything else. / 3
-3
Q. choose Ib entowteiceen yAouu sstraaidli at hae nodH'fef Oitetdh aSt taytoeus, awnhde nB raitsakiend, tyoou
said you would be Australian to the boot-heels. It's only a couple
of years ago that Sir Robert Menzies was saying that Australians
were British to the boot-heels. Mbw, can you explain the difference
In those two statements?
PM: Oh, perhaps we've changed our shoes.
Q. Now, as far as the withdrawal goes, you've said that it
needn't necessarily imply danger for Australl a but the Foreign
Secretary has said here recently that Britain will maintain a
capability to come to your aid. Now are you reassured by that?
PM: Not really no. I'd like to know a lot more about It, what
It consists of, what Its avaiJ, 4ility is, how It is going to get here
and a whole lot of wusioshich at the moment I don't know the
answer.
Q. It sounds as if you feel that may be Impractical in view of the
withdrawal from bases.
PM: Oh no, It's just that I don't know the answers to a lot of
questions
Q. You, yourself, Sir, have departed from the tradition of
sharing the burden with Britain of defence. I mean, when you were
the Minister of the Navy, you were buying American ships in
preference to British ships. Do you not feel that Australia may be
paying some of the price of not helping to share the burdens of
defence in the Far East to your North
PM: Well, I don't think you're entirely accurate in what you
say. I did, when I was Minister for the Navy yes, I bought some
guided missile destroyers from the United States, that is trite.
At the same time, I bought some Oberon submarines from the
United Kingdom and re -equipped the fleet air arm with large
helicopters from the United Kingdom. It seems that you were putting
only part of the question.
Q. Yes, more generally, though, Australia's defence Budget
was running only at 3 per cent for a very long period after the
Second World War.
PM: Yes.
Q. And, of course, Britain's was three times its size. A., ustralia
has only just lifted its defence Budget to 5 per cent, I think, hasn't
It Britain's is still greater. Now, do you agree that you could
have eased the burden in the past from Britain?
PM: I don't thin k so. I don't. Wha. t Is more, I think that there
is a different situation In the United Kingdom and here. We have
a continent to develop and a nation to build. New things have got
to be done calling for more people, calling for more capital, for
effort, and in the long run, the buildi ng up of a nation with greater
numbers, greater industrial muscles, greater capacity would, I
think, be a greater contribution than subordinating that at the present
time to the purchase of military hardware. ./ 4
" 4
Q. Well, do you say, therefore, that Britain's ability to
participate in this, In development, has been impaired by her
decision to withdraw?
PM: No, not at all. There may be we haven't seen it happen
yet and I hope we won't there may be some Impediment in the
flow of British capital out here to help In this development and to
participate in this development, but if that happened, it wouldn't
be as a result of anything we did. It could only be as a result of
something that England did.
Q. I was wondering whether you felt that psydidogical
factors in Australia's disappointment that Britain has withdrawn
might do some injury to the prospects of British imports to Australia?
PM: I don't believe so, for one moment. I think this could get out
of perspective a little. We understand Britain's problem. We had
talks In which there was no rancour, no recrimination and I think
that the nation has no rancour and no recrimination at all about this.
But we do feel if overseas exchange were to be saved, then a greater
contnbution could be made to general peace-keeping in that area.
Singapore, Malaysia, than by keeping battalions In German y, but
that Is Britain's decision.
Q. But In view of what has happened, would Australia, faced
for example with having to make a choice between American capital,
Japanese capital and British capital, in a hypothetical situation Is
it more likely to reject British capital now, in favour of the other
two, bearing in mind the reality of what has happened?
PM: We would not reject capital from Great Britain for one minute,
nor indeed would we reject capital from the United States or Japan.
We need capital there Is in this country argument and discussion
as to whether it should be debenture capital, of how much Australian
capital should be required to be invested In some particular
development project. But that really has nothing to do with the
subject you are opening up. Wle need capital, we would hope to
continue to get it.
Q. And lastly, Prime Ministe; r, can I ask you about whether
devaluation in this country, which cost you, I think, something In
the region of Z130 million plus the withdrawal East of Suez.. is
likely to encourage you to diversify your holdings of Sterling here
in London? Are you likely to try and spread this more evenly in
other parts of the world?
PM: I haven't considered this. It's not something on which I
could make any comment at all because anything I said could have
something read into it and really, nothing should be read into
arything I say, so I'll say nothing.
Q. Thank you very much indeed, Prime Minister. Good night.
PM: Good night.