VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND
Recorded 30/ 3/ 6ur Telecast 313/ 68
AUJCKLAND SES C,'
INTERVIEW ON NEW ZEALAND TELEVISION 9 A m
GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR JOHN __ RAGORTON
Interviewer Mr David Beatson 31ST MARCH, 1968
( Beginning not recorded)
PM: it is hard tosay what the out. omewould be,
but as far as we are concerned, we are predisposed to do what we
can to help In relation to what we are asked to do to help by the
countries there.
Q. You have expressed a desire to help your good friends
and neighbours, I believe as you put It, and you also said there was
a limit to what you could spend on defence because of your needs
for internal development. Do you think Australia can make a
greater contribution to the stability of the area by stimulating
economic assistance and through trade ties than it can by supplying
troops and military equipment to overseas bases?
PM:. No, I don't think so, but I think both those avenues of help
are necessary, We are trying through trade ties, and indeed
we would like to see, through traide ties, assistance and stability,
not only for Malaya and Singapore, but for Malaya, Indonesia and
Singapore because these, in our view with Australia and New
Zealand would form a package. If we can increase the whole of
the living standards in fti area, the trading possibilities In the
area, we think this would be good. But there Is also a need for a
military presence or so we were told by those in the area to
provide conditions of stability against subversion, against terrorism,
against the sort of thing that happened In Malaya In the 1950' s.
So I think both those requirements are there. But It Is true, as far
as Australia Is concerned, we have so many requl rements to
improve development, to help progress, to look after the aged and
the ill, so many requirements that we can't sort of push everything
Into just military commitments.
Q. Do you feel that the date that Britain has set for her
withdrawal puts the pressure on Australia and New Zealand to
make decisions about military involvement In South-East Asia?
PM: Yes. I think the latest date, If I might put it that way,
which Britain has set for her withdrawal, which Is quite different
from the dates set for her withdrawal previously, and the doubt
which previously wasn't a doubt that there would be a British naval
and air contingent there, able to come to the area when they were
asked for, with some real significant military capacity, which now
we don't know whether will be there or not; It looks as if It won't,
but the withdrawal of that Idea, coupled with the acceleration of
total withdrawal of grctund forces, does provide not only Britain
and Australia, but Britain, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia with
problems which obviously weren't there when 1975 was the date
for final withdrawal of ground troops and when It was, as we
understood It, part of the plans of withdrawal that there would be
a naval and air contingent from Britain available for the area. / 2
-2
Q. Australia enjoys trade ties with the People's Republic
of China to a degree, and also with Japan, another major force in the
area. Do you think that these strings can be draWfitogether through
your Influence throughout the S'outh-East Asian area to form some sort
of mutual assistance or non-aggression agreement which will guarantee
the security and stability of the area?
PM: Well, I think our trade ties with Japan, which are quite
strong, indeed very strong, and Increasing Japan Is one of our best
buyers of wool, for example will draw us closer towards Japan, but
I don't know that this will contribute terrifically to the stability of the
region because Japan Is no threat to the stability of the region but
rather Japan Is one of the factors which helps towards the stability
of the region. Japan Is investing heavily In the region, Japan is helping
the economies to grow And so, yes, we will be Increasingly
trading with Japan. I think Japan will be a stabilising force in the
area, but this is just in the course of the things that are likely to
happen. Cur trade ties with China are mainly that we sell them a
great deal of goods, particularly wheat, mainly wheat. Vle don't buy
a great deal from them. I would like to think that China would be
a stabilising influence In the area, but I don't think It will. I hope It
will, but I doubt It.
Q. This week, Mr Gorton, the LSouth-East Asia Treaty
Organisation is meeting In New Zealand. Partnership In SEATO* has
been a controversial point with many South-East Asian countries.
Do you think that in view of the need for new regional defence arrangements
that we are going to have to look for something new to replace
or supersede SEATO?
PM: For what particular purpose? For the purpose of the
security of Australia and New Zealand?
Q. Of the whole South-East region.
PM: I see. Well, I don't think I foresee an alternative to
SEATO, though it has some difficulties about It, particularly the
participation of some countries that are out of the region. But as far
as Australia is concerned and New Zealand is concerned, I think the
ANZUS pact is the one which provides the greatest security for us.
Q. Do you think our security really depends on the total
security of the whole South-E-ast Asia region?
PM: " Depends" Is a strong word. I think our security Is
affected by what happens in the South-East Asia region here. But
assuming that the worst happened in the whole South-East Asian
region, then I think our security would depend on the alliance with
the United 2tates through the ANZUS pact. Now it would be much
better, of course, If the worst didn't happen In the South East Asian
area, and we did not have to depend on the ANZUS pact. But I think
the SEATO Treaty Organisation Y. ill help to see that the worst
doesn't happen in the South-7-ast Asian region. / 3
-3-
Q. At the moment the ANZUS partners, although perhaps not as
such, are involved in Viet Nam and you have said you feel the
cost of the Vic: operation to Australia must be held to
about the c. a~ as last year. In view of this, does this
really mcc-n, zecritics suggest, that you are less
enamoured of 1ted States and more sceptical about the
commitment to Viet Nam than Mr Holt your predecessor?
PM: I don't think it does. You said we kept it at the
level of last year. Well, this is not quite true, though I
understand how it could be said. It was, I think, October or
November of last year that we increased our commitment to
Viet Nam by some one-third, so that now we have got somewhere
between 8, 000 and 9, 000 fighting men there, which we mn,, only
provide but supply with arms and ammunition, aeroplanes,
ships, food, logistics look after completely. And this is
quite a significant contribution from a country of our own size.
Now, we are keeping it at a recently-expanded level. I think
that it is a significant contribution and one which is worthy of
an ally to be given, and I would want to think long and hard
before any addition to that was made because of the requirements
for Australia itself to develop into a significant power as quickly
as possible, to meet all its other requirements. I don't believe.
this means that we are less enamoured with the United States.
I don't believe it means any indication of diminution of our belief
that it was right to go in there to try and give the South Vietnamese
the right of self-determination, It is just a sort of look at what
we are providing, of all the other things we need to do, and
whether what we are providing in relation to all the other things
we need to do is a reasonable contribution. I think it is.
Q'i This is an independent attitude, in other words, a
specifically Australian attitude towards the involvement
PM: Well, it is, but on the other hand, of course, we
haven't been asked to increase the contribution, but that would be
the approach I would have to the situation which, I suppose, you
could call an Australian attitude.
Q. Since the military situation in Viet Nam does appear
to have deteriorated quite considerably in the latter part of last
year and early this year, do you think the time has now come for
the Allies to press more firmly for thorough investigations to
open up peace negotiations?
PM: Well, we would certainly want to support any peace
negotiations that led to a genuine peace. We wouldn't be
interested ourselves for pressing for so-called peace negotiations
which, in fact, were not designed to secure the sort of peace
in which the South Vietnamese could run their own affairs, but
were designed for a disguised surrender to the North. We'vye
seen countries I think Laos is an example where peace
negotiations led to a composite government and agreement
that it would be run by a composite government, and we have
seen what has happened as a result of that, If we can do
anything to achieve talks about a peace which will provide the
South Vietnamese without North Viet, namese intereference
with the right of selecting their own government, and living
under that government without fear, then we would be in favour
of that ind of arrangement. We are not interested in 9 / 4
-4
PM. ( Contd. thing,; s which are called peace talks but which in fact are surrender
talks.
Q. Moving on now to questions on the relationship between
Australia and New Zealand, Mr Gorton. New Zealand is one of
Australia's major markets. Have you been concerned about the
economic conditions here?
PM: Well, the economic conditions no, I ca't say
I've been concerned about the economic conditions. Indeed I don't
know a great deal. I can't discuss a great deal about the
economic conditions, but you are quite right, New Zealand is a
significant market for Australia, and I would hope Australia
would grow into being a significant market for New Zealand.
Q: The point that I make here is that certain measures have
been taken, First of all, the devaluation of the New Zealand
dollar which makes imports to New Zealand look more expensive
and our exports look more attractive, and certain other measures
which have been to dampen down the demand for imported goods
must have reflected themselves on the marketing trends or rather,
the exporting trends in Australiab Has there been any concern
about these measures?
PM: No, not particularly. You seg, even though there wa's
devaluation in the New Zealand currency, it only brought it down
to a par, or roughly to a par with the Australian currency whitch
had previously been devalued and the New Zealand currency
hadn't, and so in some ways, I suppose, that didn't make it
much more difficult for us. Our trade has been growing well,
perhaps it hasn't been growing but at least it's been fairly
constant over the last two years with New Zealand, and if it
hasn't been growing, I think it is possibly partly because of
import restrictions which need to be put on in any country when
the balance of payments gets out of kilter.
Q. The other question, of course, relating to New Zealand
exports to Aistralia is that we are a dairy efficient country, and
Australia is now engaged on a reform of the dairy industry. In
view of the fact that it is obviously going to cost a great deal of
money to bring about the reform you envisage eventually,
wouldn't it be cheaper really to let New Zealand products in on
the Australian market?
PM: I don't think it would for these reasons. Yes, we want
to reform the dairying industry in Australa because we have got
a lot of I won't call them inefficient but uneconomic:
dairy farmers, and we would like to get them into some other
form of production or to get a lot of unecanomic dairy farmers
combined into one economic area. But even if all the uneconom-ic
dairy farmers went out of production, if all northern production
of dairy products in Australia stopped, the southern areas could
produce not only all the butter that Australia required, and:
probably at a competitive price with the butter from any other
country in the world, but would also produce surpluses which
would need to be sold abroad. I don't see, in my forecast for the
future, a market opening up in Australia for New Zealand dairy a, 4 h
PM ( Contd) produce. I see Australia and New Zealand working together to
try and keep prices reasonable overseas for dairy produce from
our joint countries, but the areas where I think the greatest hope
lies are in forest products being available in greater quantities
to be sent to Australia and an increase in New Zealand secondary
industry, and a market for that secondary industry in Australia
and vice versa. These are, I think, where the real hopes or
expanded trade lie.
Q. Can you see really significant opportunities in terms of
this belief of yours that we should be restricted to these two
areas for New Zealand's exporting future in Australia when most
of our exports are, in fact, primary produce?
PM: Yes, I think I can because I think that the Australian
market will grow all right it's what, 12 million people now,
which is not very large. It will be 25 million before very long,
aad that will be twice as big a market. New Zealand will have,
as it has now, an advantage in that market under the Free Trade
Agreement, and I expect New Zealand will diversify. I expect
New Zealand will build up its secondary industries in conjunction
with Australia or by itself, and have more of those kind of things
to export. Indeed, I think they will follow the same path that
Australia has followed. Once we were entirely dependent on.
primary industry, ' r almost entirely dependent. Now we have
so diversified, built up so many secondary industries that even
the sort of terrific drought we are suffering from now doesn~ t
have the economic effect on us that it would have had. I know
Now Zealand will always be dependent to a great extent on*
primary production and the export of primary production, bu t I
believe that it will certainly greatly expand in secondary
industries, want a market for those secondary industries where
it has preference and will get that in Australia. I think that
New Zealand and Australian firms will tend to come together
in joint enterprises and that this is the area which will expand
for the future for the good of both of us.
Q. Talking about joint enterprises, there has been a
great deal of talk about union between the two countries. Do
you think the time has now come, as some people suggest, that
some form of joint secretariat or organisation common to both
countries should begin to plan for closer relationship and closer
ties between the development and overall efforts of Australi4
and New Zealand to penetrate markets elsewhere?
PM: Well, I hadn't thought about a joint secretariat but
I do believe that our defence chiefs in New Zealand and Australia
are planning together more than they used to do, that your Prime
Minister and my Prime Minister, your Ministers and our
Ministers are planning together more than they used to do not
in the sense of a political union but in the sense of a joint
effort. I think this is happening more than it used to happen.
I think perhaps it could happen even more in the future. I have
read about this proposal for political union betweL.. n the two
countries. If and when that ever becomes a possibility, it will
only become a possiliity if the people of New Zealand say " This
is what we want to have at some particular time" and the people
-6-
PM ( Contd) of Australia say, " This is fine. We will agree to it at some
particular time". But at the moment, what is far more significant
than that is that we should plan together in defence, plan together
in foreign affairs, plan together to expand our joint trade, plan together
to work together in the region in which we live.
Q. Mr Gorton, thank you very much.