HEDIA RELEASE FORE! IG INVESTMENT GUIDELINES
Statement by the Acti--g rime Minister and Minister for National
. Resources, Rt. Hon. J. D. Anthony, M. P.
Recent co-ments y Sir Charles Court and Mr Bjelke-Petersen on
the Government's foreign investment guidelines suggest that they have
less than a complete understanding of the -maeter.
The guideliens are not stifling develo zen-of mining in Australia.
The Government has introduced the guidelines to give Australians
encouragement and opportunity to participate in Australia's development.
The guidelines, and the way they are being administered, will
achieve that objective but will not hinder or delay new projects if
those projects are in Australia's interests.
The national Government has a clear duty to see that Australians
do have this opportunity, and to ensure that the overall national
interest is protected.
There can be only one interpretation of the Premiers' comments
that they want an " open s] ather" policy.
To believe that the community would accept such a policy on foreign
ownership of Australia's resources is quite unrealistic, and it is an
approach which the present Government is not prepared to accept.
Yet we have to make sure that our resources are utilised for the
benefit of the community.
New mining and energy projects could play a vital part in Australia'
recovery from its present economic difficulties.
The foreign investment guidelines, as made clear by Mr Lynch when
he first announced them on April 1 this year, and as emphasised by
3bth the Treasurer and myself since, are not rigid and inflexible.
The Prime Minister also has underlined the flexibility of the
guidelines in his statements in Japan.
We want, as a general rule, to see at least. 50% Australian equity
in new mining projects 75% in the case of uranium. ./ 2
rr-
2
But we have made it quite clear that if foreign companies
genuinely try to secure 50% Australian involvement in projects other
than uranium but are -nable to do so, then we will not see worhtwhile
development held up.
A lower level = f Australian equity will not necessarily prevent a
project from proceeding.
The equity requirement on uranium, subje:: to the Government's
atti-tude to Dortfolio investment as outlines b-y the Treasurer and
. yself on 28, is firm.
As I have indicated recently, there could be an extreme case whereno
Australian equity at all could be obtained for a new mining project.
y--he project should and would proceed.
Of course, we would seek, as appropriate, s-isactory arrangement
in such cases for Australian equity to be increase: to at least
at a later stage.
There has never been any suggestion that the ZGvernment will appl.
the guidelines in a doctrinaire way.
It is significant that I have been able to quickly reach agreement
on equity arrangements for three major proposed coal developments in
Queensland. In the case of two of them--Norwich Park and Nebo the companie
have agreed to ensure there is 55% Australian inzerest, and in the
third case Hail Creek the agreed level of Australian interest is
The first of these projects likely to be in a position to go ahe-.
is the Norwick Park proposal of the Utah Development Company.
I am sure everyone welcomes Utah's willingness to accept arrangem'
S. ich will mean 55% Australian equity in this pr-tect compared with o.
= abut 11% in their existing developments.
Surely the Premiers do not dispute the adva.-: e to Australia of
S. k-ii of arrangement.
While the equity arrange-en-s have been f: r-some time, tl.
Company is still having difficulty reaching a-re en-' with the
Queensland Government for the project To prccei. / 3
3
As far as he C-oc. nwealth is concerned, there is no obstacle
the project was cle re several months ago.
I hope the ^ 1ueensland Government . ill soon be able to reach
agreement with the company.
It is a maiter for great regret that The long delays caused by
the Drevious Government's unreasonable and _ realistic attitudes
have called into question thesemajor new projects because development
costs have increased so significantly.
CABERiRA June 1976