COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH BY
The Ri Hon. W. MeMAHON, M. P.
Prime Minister
ON
Visit to the United States of America and
Great Britain
Ministerial Statement
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates', 23 November 1971]
MW McMAHON ( Lowe-Prime Minister)-
I seek leave to make a statement on
my recent visit to the United States of
America and Great Britain.
Mr SPEAKER-Is leave granted? There
being no objection leave is granted.
Mr McMAHON-The statement is in 3
parts-the United States, Britain and
general matters common to both countries.
I think most honourable members in this
House would agree that Australia stands
on the threshold of a transitional period in
its development as a nation. We are living
in a world in which relations with our
traditional allies and friends and with the
nations of the Asian and Pacific region are
changing significantly. And so, having
received invitations from ' both President
Nixon and Prime Minister Heath, I
believed it was wise to go to Washington
and London.
It was natural that as the head of a
recently formed government I should welcome
the opportunity for discussions with
the leaders of 2 major powers who are
traditionally close friends and allies of this
country. With the passage of time there is
inevitably a risk that changing circumstances
might erode the understandings and
contractual arrangements of long standing
between us and put under strain the com-
23253/ 71 mitments; embodied in them. Moreover,
changes are taking place in the world strategic
balance of power which are of fundamental
importance to us. As honourable
mem'bers know, I left Australia on 27th
October and returned last Thursday, 18th
November. 1 believe this visit was timely,
successful and to Australia's advantage.
A new -balance is emerging which
includes the United States, the Soviet
Union, the People's Republic of China,
Japan and the European comnmunity,
including Britain. In this situation the
voice and influence of a medium power
such as Australia is becoming increasingly
significant. On behalf of the Government
of this country, I wanted to establish close
personal contact with leaders in the United
States and Britain and -to explore their
thinking on major international issues,
their attitudes to which are of importance
to us. I also wanted to put at the highest
level our own views on some of these
bilateral and international questions.
My visit to America followed closely the
United Nations vote on the admission of
the People's Republic of China which
created a new situation in the world body
and in the Asian region. It followed Dr
Kissinger's return from his second visit to
Peking. And, as it happened, it occurred at
the same time as the defeat of the foreign
aid Bill in the United States Senate. It
came shortly before Mr Laird's visit to
Vietnam and President Nixon's planned
announcement of further American troop
withdrawals from that country. It also
preceded the President's planned visits to
Peking and Moscow. My visit to the
United Kingdom followed immediately
after the House of Commons had voted in
favour of British entry into the European
Economic Community. It also preceded Sir
Alec Douglas-Home's present attempt to
find a solution of the Rhodesian. problem.
In the international economic field the
world's currency arrangements are in
disorder and the stability and growth of
international trade are threatened.
In the United States, I had lengthy and
very frank discussions with President
Nixon, Secretary of State Rogers, Defence
Secretary Laird, Deputy Secretary Packard,
Dr Kissinger, Under Secretary of the
Treasury Volcker, Chairman of the Council
of Environmental Quality Russell Train,
and Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I also
had discussions with many others including
tthore SRceoptut; b ltihcaen SeLceraedtaerry inf orth eC oSmenma-eter, c eS, enMar-
Morris Stanq, who is to visit Australia
shortly; and the Managing-Director of the
International Monetary Fund and the
chairman of the Export-Import Bank. All
of these talks were very frank and
friendly. I have returned with the firm
impression that the American Administration
is well disposed towards Australia.
This reinforcement of our relationship at
the personal level is worthwhile in itself.
An important result of my visit was the
public reaffirmation by President Nixon of
the continuing strength and validity of the
AINZUS Treaty. President Nixon gave me
an unconditional and unqualified assurance
that ANZUS is as valid today as it -was
when it was signed, 20 years ago. The
ANZUS Treaty, as honourable members
will know, provides that in the event of an
armed attack on any one of them or on
their forces in the Pacific area, the United
States, Australia and New Zealand would
each act to meet the common danger in
accordance with its constitutional processes.
The reaffirmation is important for 3
reasons: Firstly, it was described by the
President as one of the fundamental pillars of American Policy in the Pacific, giving it
a special emphasis at a time when a new
balance of forces is emerging throughout
the world; secondly, it was a most positive
public affirmation of the Treaty following
the announcement of the Nixon Doctrine
which outlined new American attitudes in
the Asian and Pacific region; and thirdly,
it came at a time when a minority in Australia
was doubting its worth and others
were downgrading its importance. I should
add that, in all my discussions on this subject,
it was clear that we shared the view
that ANZUS is more than a Treaty. It is
the symbol of the close co-operation which
exists between Australia, the United States
and New Zealand. But more than that, in
addition to providing for the annual meeting
of Ministers, it furnishes a framework
of practical co-operation under which there
is constant exchange of information and
views of the greatest importance to Australia.
Senator Fulbright, who has been
critical of many of America's involvements
beyond its shores, also said-to use his
own words-' ANZUS was different' and
was a commitment of indefinite duration.
None of this must suggest any easing off in
our determination to strengthen and
enlarge our defence capacity. We are a
nation of increasing influence in the world
with a fundamental responsibility for our
internal and external affairs. This responsibility
is ours and ours alone. But if circumstances
beyond our capability arise, we
know we have reliable allies.
On my way home I discussed defence
strategy in the Pacific with the United
States Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, in
Honolulu. We spoke of the continuing
danger of Communist subversive and
insurgent activities throughout the region. I
also remind the House of the uncompromising
speech by the Chinese delegate to
the United Nations on his first appearance
at that for-um earlier this month. We have
no hostility to the great Chinese people
who have contributed so much to the culture
and history of mankind and we
favour an accommodation with them.
Mr SPEAKER-Order! I remind those
honourable members who are interjecting
that there is a great deal of interest in this
statement both inside and outside the
House. The Leader of the Opposition is to
follow the Prime Minister and I hope that
he will be accorded the same kind of
reception as is given to the Prime Minister.
So I suggest that honourable members contain
themselves.
Mr McMAHON-But we should not
forget that this great revolutionary power
in Asia still holds fast publicly to its policies,
including its support of National Liberation
movements. We will seek to
advance our own dialogue with China but,
as I have said before, we will proceed with
caution. In my talks with the Secretary for
Defence and Deputy Secretary Packard,
who has recently visited this country, I
raised the question of the security of the
Indian Ocean. It was agreed that the
increased Soviet naval presence does not
constitute a serious threat at present to the
vital sea lanes across the Southern Indian
Ocean, but it was also agreed that the situation
needs to be watched with care, particularly
in view of the fact that the Soviet
presence, of course, can be built up
quickly and sustained, especially if the
Suez Canal were to be re-opened. I am
satisfied the United States is fully aware of
the political and strategic importance of
the Indian Ocean and agrees that a careful
watch should be continued in this area.
The United States will continue visits and
transits by its naval ships and naval exercises
in the Indian Ocean. They have welcomed
the possibility of using facilities at
Cockburn Sound and are, with the United
Kingdom, maintaining a communication
station at Diego Garcia.
During my talks with President Nixon
and Mr Laird we exchanged assessments
on the situation and the future in Indo-
China. The view, which I questioned
closely, was put forward that Vietnamization
in both the military and the economic
sense was making very good progress and
that the situation in South Vietnam was
much more stable and promising than
seemed likely 9 months ago. I was also
informed of American intentions regarding
troops to remain after the withdrawal of
American combat forces and on the maintenance
of air and naval support for the
Vietnamese forces for some time to come.
I informed the President of our decision in
principle to assist in the training of Cambodian
troops in South Vietnam after our
own combat forces are withdrawn if practicable
arrangements can be made in conjunction
with the other countries concerned. The President and other members
of the Administration expressed their
appreciation in the warmest terms of our
constant support and help in Indo-China.
If I might digress for a moment, our hope
in Vietnam and indeed in Cambodia and
Laos is simply that these countries will
have the opportunity to live in peace and
to determine their own futures, rather than
have imposed upon them, by force,
unwanted communist regimes. Can anyone
in this House seriously contest the sense
and propriety of this objective? In essence
our policy towards Cambodia, which
attracted so much public interest while I
was overseas, is to play a modest part
through aid and training programmes in
helping to give that country a chance to
survive as an independent non-communist
state. As I have emphasised before, there is
no question of sending Australian military
advisers or instructors to Cambodia. During
my discussions I invited President
Nixon to visit Australia at a time when it
would be possible for him to do so.
The Australian Government has been
giving much thought to the question of the
environment. I took the opportunity while
in Washington to have discussions with Mr
Russell Train and other members of the
council on environmental quality. From
these discussions I gained valuable insights
into American experience of the problems
of dealing wi'h pollution and environmental
protection measures, especially in
the context of a federal-state relationship.
They are willing to assist and advise in this
field where they have already made some
notable advances. In Washington, I took
advantage of the presence of the Prime
Minister of India, Mrs Gandhi, to have a
full discussion wi'h her on the situation in
the east of the sub-continent. After this
meeting I sent another message to President
Yahya Khan urging upon him once
again the need to deal with the elected
representatives of East Pakistan and with
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. During the discussion,
Mrs Ghanii said she would
welcome a visit by Australian members of
Parliament to see for themselves conditions
in the refugee areas.
I turn now to * my visit to Britain. In
London I had detailed discussions with the
Prime Minister, Mr Heath; the Foreign
Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home; the
Minister for Defence, Lord Carrington; the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Barber;
the Minister responsible for the British
relations with the European Economic
Community, Mr Rippon; and the Governor
of the Bank of England. I also addressed
the Cook Society, the Confederation of
British Industries and the Australia-British
Tiade Association. Naturally, I spent a
great deal of time discussing the British
entry into the European Economic Community.
I started from the point that,
while we had been disappointed at the
terms agreed upon for British entry, those
terms were now a fact and we should look
towards the best arrangements we could
make for the future.
Generally, I expressed the hope that Britain,
having made its decision, would now
use its influence to ensure that the community
was outward-looking and international
in its approach, that it should be flexible in
its approach to world trade, rather than
regionally exclusive in its attitude. I also
pressed strongly for assurances that during
the transitional period the British would
adopt as helpful an attitude as possible to
Australian commodities affected by the
British entry. I was assured by Mr Heath,
Sir Alex Douglas-Home and Mr Rippon
that Britain would use its influence to see
that the European Economic Community
adopted an outward-looking policy. The
point was made to me that Britain
depended heavily on its trade and, consequently,
the widest area of multi-lateral
trade and payments was a source of
strength. The point was made to me also
that a weak Britain would be of little use
to its old Commonwealth friends. A
strong Britain within the EEC woruld be of
value to countries like Australia. Mr
Rippon also explained fully the inclusion
of a clause in the entry agreement that if
imports of an agricultural commodity subject
to import levies were seriously affected
or likely to be affected by British entry,
either Australia or Britain would have the
right to raise the matter before the
commission. Assurances-the value of which
admittedly can only be fully tested in
time-that Britain would, during the transitional
period, be ready to discuss on a
commodity basis those commodities likely
to be affected by British entry into the
Common Market, were reaffirmed to me.
The point was also made to me that it would be desirable for the industries concerned
to be active in presenting their
cases themselves. I urged upon British
Ministers the need for the EEC to adopt
measures to ensure that the exports of
tropical produce from. Papua New Guinea
are in a no less favorurable position than
those from other developing countries
which are to receive special treatment.
Notwithstanding that Papua New Guinea
is still a trust territory, the British are
hopeful for early progress towards agreement
on this matter. I should tell the
House that I questioned repeated assertions
that although the United Kingdom is to
enter the Common Market its bilateral
relationship with Australia would not
change. I can report that I was assured by
Britain's Ministers that there was a pervasive
desire to maintain the closest possible
co-operation with Australia.
During my talk with the Chancellor, I
raised with him my concern that the voluntary
restraint on the movement of British
capital to Australia should not be
maintained, while, at the same time, movements
of capital were liberalised in respect
of the EEC countries with consequent
disadvantage to the traditional flow to Australia.
Members will be glad to learn that I
received an assurance of the fullest consultation
and co-operation before any decisions
are made. When Britain enters the
EEC she will be creating a situation in
which her longstanding trading preferences
in the Australian market will come to an
end. These foregone preferences will be
available to us for bargaining purposes.
our policy in any negotiation of new
arrangements will be based on recognition
of the principle that trade, to be successful
in the world of today, needs to be multilateral.
In my discussions with persons
involved in commerce and industry, I
repeatedly emphasised the point that,
despite some problems, our economy was
fundamentally sound and that we could
look to a long-term annual growth rate of
around 5 per cent or more. These views
were generally well received and British
interests with whom I discussed the matter
continue to regard Australia as a country
of promise and a suitable place for British
investment. Mr Health and I agreed-and
this was followed up later in my talks with
the Minister for Defence and the Foreign
Secretary-that even closer consultation and
communication should be effected between
the two Governments. This included strong
confirmation of the policy that the British
and Australian High Commissioners should
have, when needed, immediate direct
access to the respective Prime Ministers.
At the same time, we would take the
opportunity to step up our direct contact
with other EEC members and strengthen
our representation -in Brussels.
I had useful and wide-ranging discussions
on defence matters with the British
Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence
and the Foreign Secretary. I was assured
that the Heath Government in-tends to
maintain its political interests and defence
commitments in South East Asia. We
reviewed the five-power defence arrangements
for assistance in the defence of Singapore
and Malaysia. The signature of the
new arrangements on 1st November
reflects the readiness of the Heath Government
to make a contribution to the security
and stability of our region which is both
welcome and timely. I am aware that the
British Government is actively considering,
with other Governments in the five power
arrangement, further areas of co-operation
in the defence field. There was also -a close
identity of views on the security of the
Indian Ocean. I was left in no doubt about
British concern for the implications of the
Soviet naval influence in the area.
Mr Heath indicated to me that his Government
intends to maintain a naval presence
in the Indian Ocean. This reaffirms
his statement to the conference of Comnmonwealth
Heads of Government in Singapore
last January. We also had useful
opening discussion directed to increasing
defence co-operation in the Indian Ocean
area and work is proceeding on proposals
about improved procedures for co-ordinating
resources and surveillance. I ws given
a survey of the situation in Western
Europe, includng NATO and was informed
that Britain would maintain -its commitments
to SEATO, in which it still sees, to
use their own words, itself as a ' full
partner'. I want to turn now to some of the mattens
which are common to my visits to
America and Britain. As a result of my
visit, the Australian Government now has
a deeper appreciation of American and
British thinking on a wide range of international
issues of importance to us, such
23253t71-2 as: The British entry in the EEC; the
future of China and Taiwan; the future for
Vietnam and Cambodia; the Soviet presence
in the Indian Ocean; overseas trade;
President Nixon's forthcoming visits to
Moscow and Peking-, the international
monetary situation; and the Rhodesian situation.
For our part, I was able to give
American and British Leaders a clearer
picture of our Government's thinking on
the role we expect to play in the Asian and
Pacific region. And to emphasise that,
while we are a dependable friend, we shall
make our own independent judgments
based upon our own national interests.
I also took the opportunities available to
me in my discussions to emphasise our
changing role in a changing world. I
emphasised the need to take full account
of Japan in the emerging balance between
the United States, China and the Soviet
Union in North Asia. I emphasised the
role we were seeking to play in regional
economic co-operation and regional
defence co-operation in South-East Asia. I
also emphasised the importance of a stable
and peaceful Indonesia in South East Asia
and the weight we give to our relations
with that country. I believe the administration
in the United States, the Government
in Britain and leading representatives of
the media in both countries now have a
greater awareness of Australia-as a
country of stability and increasing
influence in the South East Asian region. I
believe, too, that they may now be more
conscious of the importance and vitality of
Japan and Indonesia in the Asian region.
, Before I left I had been concerned for
some time to find that, perhaps because we
are so far from North America and Europe,
ignorance about Australia and misunderstanding
of some of our policies are still
quite widespread in these areas. For these
reasons, I talked in New York over 2
special lunches to the editorial writers and
correspondents specialising in Foreign
Affairs of ' The New York Times' and of
the Time Life Incorporated. A member of
my party did a similar briefing on Australia's
role in South East Asia for The
Washingyton Post. In London, at a similar
lunch I was able to speak to the editors of
nearly all the main newspapers published
in England. I believe this was worth while
in focusing the interest of leading opinion
formers in the media in the United States
and in Britain on Australia and its prospects
and policies. My mission also
received considerable public notice in the
media of both countries, particularly in the
responsible Press. And I think this, too,
served to project Australia effectively to
the man-in-the-street.
I turn now, Sir, to the international currency
situation, a difficult, unresolved
problem for us all. I discussed the situation
with the President and members of the
Administration in Washington-with the
Prime Minister. and senior Ministers in
London-and with high officials and trading
and financial interests in both
countries. In both Washington and London
I emphasised that Australia wants an early
resolution of the present impasse as being a
matter of the greatest importance for the
whole trading world.
I pointed out the impact which the
United States import surcharge and the
uncertainty about exchange rates has had
on the market for some of our products,
including wool. I mentioned the charges
that temporary expedients could harden
into dogmas and that a widespread slowdown
in economic activity could result.
Unless there is an early, sensible and adequate
readjustment in trade and currency
arrangements, competitive devaluation
could occur, and increasing protectionism
in trade develop, with a consequent threat
to economic stability and growth around
the world. I stressed, particularly in the
United States, the indirect implication for
Australia of any sharp check to economic
growth and trade in third countries, such
as Japan, as a result of the United States'
measures. There were dangers in isolating
Japan, which has to be seen as a country
finding a new role in the world, and particularly
a role in the economic development
of South East Asia. I have made it
clear that, in relation to currency matters,
Australia reserves its position. We will take
our decision when any realignment is settled.
Our decision will be based on the
interests of the Australian economy and
the Australian people. way of world trade in agricultural commodities,
and raised at the highest level the
problems we face in our attempt to export
Australian wool and meat to the United
States. These discussions were followed up
at other levels. There are good grounds for
believing that the United States is seeking
ways of being helpful to us in respect of
both wool and meat.
Sir, in concluding this outline, I think it
would be appropriate to say something
about Australia and where we stand today.
I believe that my visits to New York,
Washington and London did something to
project Australia to a Britain, which is
becoming increasingly involved in Europe,
and an America which is subject to varying
degrees of pressure to withdraw from
its overseas involvement, and to remind
them that they have in the southern hemisphere:
A vigorous, like-minded but independent
friend; a country of great prospect,
of influence and stability in the South
East Asian region; a country willing and
able to make its contribution to a secure
and stable Asian and Pacific area increasing
in economic strength.
I pointed out that we have our problems-
such as inflation and the state of
some of the rural industries-which we
must solve but, at the same time, our
friends should not lose sight of the fundamental
soundness of the economy and the
great promise of this country. For our part
we should concentrate on representing
Australia to the world as a tolerant, stable,
healthy member of the international community-
increasing in size and strength as
it develops, but threatening no-one. I
attempted to do this during my tour.
In short I emphasised that we in the
Government will direct our energies to
building a greater Australia based on selfconfidence,
determination, co-operation,
and a vision of an unlimited future. Mr
Speaker, I recommend that this statement
be studied by members of the Opposition. I
lay on the table the following paper:
In America I urged on the Administra-Visit to the United States and Britain-Ministion
the need to remove barriers in the terial Statement, 23 November 1971.
W. G. MURRAY, Government Printer, Canberra