PRM MINISTER' COFREC S'
Following-is the transcrip~ t of the Prim-Miister's pr-s
conference held in. Kingston oni 4 May 1975,
Prime Minister's Press Conference, Jamaica Sunday May 1975-
Ques tion: Is it true that you o proposed a Conow.] th Aid
scheme for Vietnam, as was reported in the local press here?
Prime Minister: No. I haventt been able to read the local press
over the weekend. 1 suppose the story would flow from the [ icet
that on Friday just before we broke up For the wecken-cv!
suggested that there should be a refference in the cOf. nuij.
the end of the conference, to int[-ernational siLuce r
reconcilialLon and reconstruction in Vietnam. It-Lwas abcutL
brief as that, I suggested that there ShOUl'J be somk e r~ e
Question: What is you reactionC esi Lion Prim(,! n sc~
Burnham of Guyana, which is; that if aCIL t. tk'f to-get. a.
redistribution of wealth towards the developing couin!. ry a* nd the
developing countries will be justified in setting ppo,-~'
only organisations to secure that change in the disrribution
world's wealth?
Prime Minister: Well son--. ofi you k now mfe and some of yon don, t.
Therefore for the former I will1 rcpeat For the ot. her-I wi. ll
state, that I do nor-answer questions wh-ich are prediLearted onl
somebody else's sumary of what somrre colleague miight. ha-ae said.
When we were discussing the general economic trade mnatters, the
discussion was started by Prime Minister Wilson and the second
speaker was Prime Minister Burnham. Prime Minister Buirnham suggte
that there should be an expert group set up to examine all features
of trade with the objective of sharing the world's wealth more~ / 2
-2-
equitably. Over the weekend the officials advising the various
Heads of Government have got together and they have produced the
terms of reference for the group of wise men. And I suppose that
those terms of reference and maybe, the personnel in the group,
wil]. be announced before we disperse from Kingston. But Prime
Minister Burnham's basic suggestion was that there should be an
expert committee appointed by the Conference to advise the
Commonwealth Finance Ministers and also delegates from the
Commonwealth to the United Nations General Assembly later in . the
year. And that suggestion has been acted on.
Question: Can you give me your version of the reported friction
between. Australia and New Zealand over the question of nuclear
free zones for the South Pacific?
Prime Minister: The question of nuclear free zones has not been
mentioned in the Conference or, as far as I know, outside it.
I was told there was some reference to friction: there is no
basis for any such report.
Q,' estion: Can I ask your reaction to producer associations per
se, as against producer-consumer associations?
Prime Minister: Well the best thing would be to have producerconsumer
associations. Australia has been a member of such
associations for many years in the past in respect to
primary products. There have in recent years been several
produc. er associations in mineral resources. Australia is a member
of one, she is an observer at another and she is helping to found
a third. The best thing is to have both producers and consumers
in such associations. If, however, consumers will not join s.. ch
associations, producers should go ahead and form their own. It
is certainly one of the trends at the moment that there should be
such associations. One arose from the discussion at the last
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Ottawa the
International Bauxite Association.
Question: Prime Minister what would you reaction be to a
request by white Rhodesians to come to Australia, when they
finally realise that they had to leave their own country or the
country that they are in now?
-3-
Prime Minister: This is entirely speculative. Australia like
all other members of the United Nations are bound by certain
resolutions of the United Nations. Australia has followed those,
and particularly since my Government came to office, it has followed
them very strictly.
Question: Would you tell us whether your view of world trade is
closer to that of Mr Burnham or Mr Wilson?
Prime Minister: This is far too simplistic a question. Mr Wilson
supported at the end of the debate on this subject Mr Burnham's
proposal that there should be an expert group. And from what I'm
told the British officials, as well as the other officials,
have co-operated in the terms of reference which ha. ve been drawn
up over this weekend. I know it's a fascinating thing to have a
confrontation between Britain and Guyana, it enthralls me I
haven't been able to sleep over the whole of the weekend as to the
outcome of such a confrontation. But these things never seem to be
quite as dramatic in the outcome:.
Question: While here in Kingston Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of
Singapore, commenting on Australia accepting refugees from Vietnam,
said: " Maybe it was a fit of emotional spasm, a sense of guilt,
maybe some Aussie in a drunken moment may have left something
behind and therefore you feel you have atoned for it, but have you"?
Can I ask you whether that's arational assessment of Australia's
humanitarian efforts. Or alternatively do you regard the
remarks as highly offensive and insulting?
Prime Minister: Assuming you are correctly quoting what Mr Lee
Kuan Yew said, I presume he was inferring that Australian soldiers,
during their service in Vietnam, had left children behind. If
Australian soldiers have children in Vietnam, certainly the
Australian Government would help to bring those children to
Australia. I have not come across any application to bring any
Australian soldier's child to Australia. Perhaps I should add
that there have been quite a number of children brought from
Vietnam to Australia by the Australian Government about 300
of them and they were brought in these circumstances: where
the former South Vietnamese Government had certified that these
children were elegible for adoption and where the Australian
State Governments w, 1o have the constitutional responsibility / 4
in such matters in Australia certified that there were suitable
parents waiting to adopt. So in those circumstances there has
been a reunion between about 300 eligible children and suitable
parents. My Government arranged some time last year that the
Australian Government would pay the passages of any children from
Vietnam who were coming for adoption in Australia. In this case,
of course, the children were brought in aircraft which belonged
to the Royal. Australian Air Force or were chartered by the Australian
Government. I conclude, I know of no case where an Australian
soldier's child has been nominated to come to Australia. Inquestionably
the Australian Government would have assisted in
bringing any such children to Australia.
Question: But was it done out of a sense of guilt, Prime Minister?
An emotional spasm as Mr Lee Kuan Yew has put it?
Prime Minister: I hesitate to comment on other people's news
conferences, because so often I find that a great deal is lost or
gained in transmission. I've stated the circumstances in which
children from Vietnam have been brought to Australia, and I
believe they are very proper circumstances. There was quite a
deal of agitation to bring many more children, but no greater
number of children could be found for whom the Vietnamese
Government was prepared to give a certificate that they were
available for adoption, or State Governments were prepared to gi'e
certificates that there were suitable parents.
Question: What about adult Vietnamese?
Prime Minister: The Australian Government said that adul. t Vietna imese
could come to Australia if they were the spouses of Australian
citizens or if they were the spouses of Vietnamese students who
were being given temporary permits to remain in Australia to
complete their courses of study. In addition decisions were made in
individual cases where there were Vietnamese adults, whose conduct
in association with Australians over the years would have
placed their lives in jeopardy.
Question: In other words they had to have a connection?
Prime Minister: Of course, yes.
Question: Last week at the conference you were reported as saying
that multinational companies had too much influence and control.
I was wondering why you raised it at this conference and whether
you were seeking some Commonwea'lth initiative?
Prime Minister: I raised the same matter at the conference in
Ottawa where I was asked to initiate the discussion on trade
and ecc: nomic matters. I made a reference to this subject in
the same item this time. I wanted to make the point that
international trade was concerned with commodities certainly, but
it also depended on a very great number of other matters which
militated against the developing countries and in fact, against
what are regarded as developed countries such as Australia,
because international trade depends for its infrastructure on
credit facilities, insurance facilities, transport facilities,
and these are in the hands, very largely, of international,
multinational companies. Most of the countries in the Commonwealth,
certainly the developed countries in the Commonwealth, have
mixed economies, the private sector is predominant and its
companies very often usually in fact multinational companies
that provide the banking, the insurance and the transport
facilities for international trade. Accordingly to deal
with international trade in terms of commodities alone is
to deal with only part of international trade. It maybe that
commodities are the principle preoccupation of Britain among the
developed countries in the Commonwealth. But itwould be quite
absurd for a Head of Government from Canada or Australia or New
Zealand or Singapore, the other deve. oped countries i. n the
Commonwealth to overlook the aspects of international trade
which turn not on commodities, but on banking, insurance and
transport. I should add that I was concerned also, to see that
the discussion turned on increased processing of commodities in
the country of origin, because unquestionably a country's w,. a] th
depends very largely on the extent to which it is processing
commodities. The countries which produce commodities would be very
much wealthier, the gap between them and the developed countries
would be very much reduced, if they were able to process their
commodities to a greater extent. There again, international
companies provide so much of the wherewithal for processing.
They control, in mixed economies, such matters as technology and
capital. / 6
-6-
Question: Could I ask you about the British membership of the
European Common Market,. bearing in mind that the British people
will be voting on the referendum in a month's i. ine. Would you
like to see Britain remain a member of the Market?
Prime Minister: Yes. I -said that a few months ago when I was
in Britain and when I was in most of the countries of the
European Economic Community. I said then that there was . no
advantage to Australia in Britain withdrawing from the Market.
I believe the same has been said by the Prime Minister of Canada
and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, in the Common Market
countries including Britain. During the discussion the four
days discussions so far of the Heads of Government Meeting here
there hasn't been a single suggestion that it would be to the
advantage of any of the members for Britain to withdraw from
EEC. There have been several statements that it would be to the
advantage of the members if Britain were to remain in the EEC.
Tribute was paid by several countries to the skill with which the
Wilson Government has renegotiated terms to the advantage of
developing Commonwealth countries. I hesitate to comment on a
matter which is primarily Britaints concern but since this matter
has arisen in the Heads of Government Meeting, since the matter
has been put to me when I have been in Britain, I suppose there
is no particular harm in me giving the same answer as T always have
given. There are many matters of political controversy in my
country and such is the neurosis of some people who were dragged
from the tart shop after 23 years in Government, that
there is any basis whatever for criticising my Government,
that basis will be exploited ad nausem. It is sufficient to
say that my views on Britain remaining in the Common Market haven't
produced a ripple of criticism in Australia. I wouldn't lose a
single vote in Australia by saying that Britain should remain in the
EEC. None of my opponents., none of my rivals, have seen any advantage
for them in saying that I should discourage Britain from staying in,.
I should encourage Britain to get out. This may come as some
surprise to you because it is true that throughout the sixties and
indeed there was an attempt in the seventies, by our opponents
the previous government to make it difficult for Britain to
join the Common Market. Britain is now in. Everybody accepts that
this is the proper thing and nobody thinks it would be to our
advantage and I suppose I am at least entitled to express that,
views on that question nobody believes that it would be to Australia's
advantage for Britain to get out of the Common Market. I
believe there are some people in the Briti'sh Labor Party who
feel that somehow the social democrat governments who are in / 7
power in Australia, and New Zealand, and Singapore and virtually
in Canada, should somehow rally to the cause of getting Britain
out. The suggestion has been made to all of them. It has been made
for some months. None of them have responded to the
suggestion. Perhaps I could warm to the subject by saying, that
as a person whose ancestors all came from Britain three-quarters
from England and one-quarter from Scotland I don't relish the
thought that England might lapse into the position of Spain
-looking to a mighty empire in the past and a peripheral
influence for the future.
Question: Prime Minister can I revert to your previous question
on the Common Market. In view of what you have said Ministers
have in the past, without perhaps a lot of evidence been saying
in Britian that the entire Commonwealth supports Britain's
continued membership of the European Community. On the strength
of what you have heard here, from your colleagues and in the
Conference and outside it, would you say that they would be
justified in future in continuing to make that claim?
Prime Minister: That the Commonwealth supports Britain's
membership of the European Economic Community?
Question: Yes.
Prime Minister: I believe that would be a correct statement.
Certainly there has been no statement in the Conference which
would in any way cast doubt on that proposition. On the other hand
it would be quite wrong to say that most people have expressed
a view in favour of Britain remaining in. Most people haven't
spoken on this on the relevant items where this matL er would arise.
But everybody who has mentioned it has mentioned it in
two contexts that they believe that Britain should rema-i, in
the Market secondly, that the Wilson Government has been able
to make very beneficial changes as regards each country itself.
Question: But do you think on that second point that there is
likely to be anything in the communique to make that point?
Prime Minister: I don't know. I would certainly support any such
statement in the communique. I think it would be a relevant
feature in the communique and it would be an accurate statement. / 8
Question: The fact that Britain has used her membership usefully
on behalf of members of the Commonwealth and their relationship
with the community?
Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that that would be an accurate
statement and I believe that it would be a relevant contribution
to the cormmunique. I don't think there can be any doubt that
of all the members of the European Economic Community, none is
in a better place than Britain to speak on behalf of the
developing countries. Britain certainly has a very great
deal of experience in these respects and I think Britain's
heart is in the right place in these matters.
Question: Mr Prime Minister could you explain why your Government
is not able to support New Zealand in its efforts to get a
nuclear free zone in the South Pacific?
Prime Minister: The matter hasn't arisen.
Question: But I thought it has arisen before, if not at this
Con ference?
Prime Minister: It hasn't arisen at this Conference and I'm
only concerning myself with matters at this Conference. I'm
sorry I can't help you to fabricate any confrontation across the
Tasman on this matter. You must be under terrific pressure
from home to substantiate these stories.
Quescion: My question was to explain why Australia does not
support New Zealand?
Prime Minister: The matter has not arisen.
Question: What are the implications for Australia's security of
the fall of Indo-China to the Communists? Do you feel that that
has been discussed enough at this meeting? And do you still feel
faith . in America as an ally for Australia's defence in that area?
Prime Minister: The matter has scarcely been mentioned in the
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The matters which are
given most attention at the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting are the matters which concern several members and
Vietnam has only directly involved Australia and New Zealand.
We were the only nations which participated in the civil war. / 9
-9-
We did so for several years, but our participation was ended in
each case in December 1972. So you can't really expect that
the question would bulk largely at a Commonwealth Meeting. I
would hope that there would be some reference to reconciliation
and reconstruction in Vietnam because that is something in
which most of us could participate, and I believe, should participate.
You asked me about America's situation. America has been,
is, and will for many years, as far ahead as any of us can see,
continue to be the greatest military country in the world.
What I think we have to realise is that from now on, America's
commitments will require the support of the Administration
and the Congress. People in the past, particularly those adopting
the Westminster system, have found it very puzzling, that if a
Government commits itself to something.. the Parliament doesn't
support it. But of course, in the Aunerican system the President
and the Congress are elected separately and its not for the first
time you have the situation where they have different points
of view. Quite obviously Wilson and the League of Nations is
one that we all remember from our history. But if the President
and the Congress support a commitment then I have no reason whatever
to believe that that commitment would not be effective
in the circumstances which it contemplated. And as regards the
arrangements between Australia, New Zealand and the United States
the ANZUS arrangements I have never heard any President or any
Congressional leader express any doubts as to the validity and
the relevance of the arrangements. And I say in that positive
way because from 1967 onwards I have on visits to Washington
made a point of ascertaining the views of Congress as far as I
could, as well as the Administration. And therefore I can say
that from the last visit I made to Washington which was last
September, Republicans and Democrats, in each house of the Congress,
supported the ANZUS arrangements. I will be seeing these
people as well as the President and the Vice-President next-
Wednesday and Thursday, and I would expect the same situation
to apply. I think we should avoid equating the situation in
South Vietnam with that in any other country in the region.
The reason why South Vietnam's Government failed was principally
two-fold. The first was that they never were prepared to test
public opinion. After the General Agreements in 1954 and after
the Paris Accords in 1973, in each case the South Vietnamese
Government refused to carry out the undertakings to have elections,
or to have a broader-based government. That is, they just
wouldn't budge on that aspect. And of course, they fell.
And the other reason is their situation was seen by their own
citizens to depend on outside support, And no government can
have the respect or support of its population if it is
regarded as depending on outsiders. However the noble the
motives or however the might the resources of those outsiders,
no government has respect or retains support if it is seen to
depend on outsiders, That situation doesn't apply with any
other country in the region.
Question: Could you tell. us what your attitude would be to an
invasion by North Korea of South Korea?
Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question.
Question: This Conference has spent almost two days discussing
Rhodesia. On Friday you had every bit of 15 minutes to deal
with a whole range of subjects namely, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea,
the future of Portuguese Timor, the power play in the Indian
Ocean. All matters of considerable importance to the peoples
of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. My question is this:
do you think that this Conference has spent so much time on Rhode La
that other matters of vital importance to the Commonwealth,
particularly in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean have been
virtually shut out' And while we are on the subject, do you
approve of long set speeches being given at this Conference?
Prime Minister: It is inevitable t.: La this Conference should have
spent a very great deal of time on Rhodesi. o, It was dealt with
early because some of those who wanted to take part in it,
had to leave this weekend. But it was inevitable that a very
great deal of time should be spent on Rhodesia because at
every Conference. throughout the 1960s and I think back in tha
very great deal of time was spent on Rhodesia. It is a matter
which concerns a very great number of Commnonwealth countries.
Obviously it concerns the African ones, bIut it is a matter upon
which most of the others feel very intensely indeed. Furthermore
this time there was a very great breakthrough in that since our
last Conference;-Portugal had decided to give up her empire. In
those circumstances I don't think we could have expected that
less time would be spent on Rhodesia Zimbabwe than was spent. ./ 11
-11-
Now on Papua New Guinea and Timor, these were only passing
references I made. Obviously I would be expected to refer to
Papua New Guinea because the Chief Minister on Thursday sent me
a message asking that the Conference should accept Papua New
Guinea's membership of the Commonwealth when she gained independence,
which will be in a few months time, That was announced to the
Conference on Thursday-and the first business on Friday was
W. accept the proposition. Well natural]. y when I had a few
ninutes I think it was about 10 minutes at the end on
Friday to mention a few subjects which I thought ought to b6
dealt with in the communique I referred to this situation.
Every member of the Comonwealth has been a British colony with
two exceptions, there was Western Samoa and now there is Papua
New Guinea. So inevitably it is a matter which we should acknowledge.
that a colony and a trust territory of ours should be admitted.
Timor was only mentioned in the context of the Portuguese empire.
After all there are some bits of it, apart from Angola, Mozambique,
and Cabo Verde. I would hope later on that there would be some discussion
and that in the coinmuni-que there would be some reference
to the Indian Ocean because about half the Commonwealth countries
are island or littoral or hinterland States of the Indian Ocean.
And several of them have taken initiatives in international
bodies dealing with the Indian Ocean. I think it would be
appropriate for us to refer to them. And the other mater
which I think ought to be mentioned is some aspects of disamname. t
such as the comprehensive test ban treaty which is being
discussed, or this coming week the review conference on the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Question: In the Rhodesia question, as you mentioned you are
going on to Wahsington and this Conference is much concerned
with pressure on Ian Smith of a practical kind. I'm sure
you will be taking up the chrome problem as part of the
sanctions tightening when you're in Washington. But looking at
the thing more broadly, I wonder if you could tell us why either
Australia or other countries remote from Rhodesia should be
concerned with the problem at this summit. I mean in what
sense does it drive you to try to get a formula, why bother
it certainly would be easier politically just not to worry. / 12
-12-
Prime Minister: I agree with the unanimous Commonwealth view
on chrome. I wasn't proposing to raise it in Washington, its
not a matter which is of prime concern to Australia. There
will be very much more important matters for me to discuss in
Washington. Now you mention about Rhodesia, why should it take
up so much time and what are the political matters.
Rhodesia has concerned people not only in the Commonwealth, but
in the United Nations for quite some time. It's obviously not
a prime consideration so far as Australia is concerned.
Nevertheless Australia has got obligations under United Nations
resolutions. It's faithfully discharged those obligations,
As regards internal politics I don't say that one gains any
votes in Australia by supporting this question but by the same
token any votes that were going to be lost had been lost already.
And from what I see of the spokesman for Ian Smith in Australia
I would not expect or wish that they vote for us. . Externally
it is important, that Australia should be know! n to support
proper principles ' in this question. Australia cannot afford to
be in the si. uatio. n. in regards to South East Asia or the Indian
or Pacific Oceans that South Africa has got into in Africa.
There is no basis for Australia being put in that way, and nobody
should be under any impression that it is. So accordingly we
support the attitude which is universally expressed in the
Commonwealth and in the United Nations,
QuesLion Apart from what's happened about chrome and New Zealand
and the Tasm. an Sea. We recognise that history has been made
in Tndo-China in the past week and that you. know more than we
do that history has. been made and that you yourself have
described the United States as the greatest military power in the
world, has been forced to withdraw from that part of the world,
You yourself have boasted that Australia has made a tremendous
conLribution to the humanitarian aftermath of the Vietnam war,-
Do you not think that there is not a terrific political vacuum
there which you in Australia may be uniquely placed to fill.
Having talks as you do have with President Ford in the United
States in a few days time, do you see yourself as taking an
initiative here to bring the nations of that part of the world..
together to try to make political headway where there is a
terrific political vacuum? / 13
Prime Minister: No I wasn't wanting to boast of the huge
humanitarian contribution that we have made. All that I was
saying is that we have done more than others. 1. think there
is room for Australia to do more than she has and for others
to do more than they have. I am not thinking of taking any
particular initiative or being cast in any such role. But I do
believe that international organisations and various countries,
preferably through international organisations, ought to.
do something about reconciling and rehabilitating this country.
It is quite tragic that of all the old colonies in South East Asia
and in Southern Asia, Indo-China has had to wait so long for
independence. There was no earthly reason why South Vietnam,
Cambodia and Laos should be in so much worse a position than say,
the Philippines, which was emancipated by the United States, I
think in ' 46, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Burma which were
emancipated in ' 47, and Indonesia which was emancipated in ' 49
had to put up a bit of a struggle to do so, but it was then Malay-v
in ' 57 and then later on Sarawak, Sabah, Bangladesh with a
terrific t. raurna in the case of Bangladesh all were able to
get independence. But in Indo-China for nearly 30 years the
war has continued. And there is no reason whatever why the po. ' tion
of Indo-China should be worse than those of all the other
colonies. Now in those circumstances I believe there is a
very great international obligation to reconcile the people
and reconstruct the country.