P RI ME ITNIL Z s~ S ro2" WA -i IY7 AC
QUESTION: Could yo-u just rurt throu. rh why we are hiere,
why you are here, why is. Aust::, Alia representedl?
PRIME 1MINTST27R: It ou uite a -eay. There h* ave been
proposals for the tbime of a Cornsmon Fund around.
for quite some time, aid this was, a sigrif. 1. cant matter on the
agenda of the Coirmonealth ) 1ecads of Govjerni-. ent Meeting In
London. At that meeting 1 nrpoe -1' there should be a
Commonwealth. technical rou to tLr n d'i_ whtwol
be possible and was not :: os5ibie bec-ause there were wide
differences of opi; nio-. n in tho requests of the Group 77 and
and the B-Group countrics. ; oat tChat meeting the Commonwealth
Technical Working Group wa; established Stewart Harris
was the Australian rers: tiieon that. That lead to a
report which was discuss, 72-t~ iie Coinmonwealth. Ministerial
Meeting. Before that thcr2 1, d been the Corraonwealth Regional
Meeting in Sydney where TAuf-Jtreiia announced a position on
the Common Fund which was:. diifferent to that of the B-Group
countries from the poini-of t'he view-of the Group 77 it was
a significant adva.-nce, bas,: d on Aust ral ia's ow., n experience
with conunodlity arrangemel-t;, land b;: ased on w-hat wie believed
to be reasonabl~ e. We also ibclieve that if the Group 77 and
B-Group countries remain stuck in -their o,. m paddocks, and
nobody showed any sia : n of mo-Vement, ard the two groups
might be in negotiations, b,. ut they certainly olouldn't
get to any agreement ther; Ihad to be movement.
The sort of positioa -that Australia. had adopted then got
quite widespread support at a later~ .1Airisterial. M eeting,
held, I think in A-pril aft'.: r the Con, onwealth Regional
Meeting in Sydney.
Meanwhile a negotiating conference ha(. been held which
ended in failure, arnd as -you 1-now, anc-. ther negotiating conference
on the Common Fund has more recently ee held which
did indicate a quite signi-Ecant d-: ecree of. movement
from the B-Group countries s* onc-m'-vement in the Group of 77
but not necessarily a great de_, al. Out of that, I think
the last meeting, there was the prospect of an agreement of
some future meeting, but still some quite significant
points of difference, and m'aybe so-me nroints5 of difference
of philosophy about what people think. the Common Fund mi ght
or might not do. It is starting to get t~ o the stage where
people can talk more specifically about the areas and see
if there are ways of resolvi,..: them.
At the Conuronwealth M', etinis, Manley had expressed concern about
these particular issues. At the begd.-nning of this year
nearly 12 months originally proposed a meeting, arm that
proposal arose out of discussions he had with Helmut Schmidt
designed to get some developinq countries together in an
informal and unstructured viay to try and see ways through.
problems associated with the Comm~ ron Fun~ d and at the same
time, some other issues that thJe that are regarded as
important in the general north--south dialogue.
Australia's concern Ls think, on the one ha-dto try
arnd see that a reasonab) le Eoair tra-de i-n co. rw. idities
is established. We ( 3o jf rnm our ezperience in.
earlier time~ s when we w, 7re ch mcire eenntupon rurali
products than -vwe now. a-re, h?-v: Lolen can : esi the Prices
for wool -1-or w'. ceat and meat cant disr,.,,: ot' an %. ustralian
economy. Andl that hadiO bene ncWith us for mnanyr years,
when th'e mi C . icus~ t lrm S C-n. I cG i and we a re not
as depende-nt con those corpmoui tic s as V-erc.
We do know rom oiur OTv xemncsho~ v2 changes in
prices and market oi ' ooprtufLitics for cont-rodiLies can havre a
very severe impact on a CIONICeStic econorrmy. For many developing
countries the imorict_ is much -nmorce severo ti-, n it would b-e
for Australia because a nufnber of them haVe almost got
in terms of exroorts thei7r one comodity economies.
I have never seen or b: alie to unoerstand w.. hy it is
not possible to have tradie orcganised on a sensible, commercially
viable basis that do,.-es in a much qreater degree of_
stability than we have sec-n in the past. Vhat is the
origin of Int: n ina Wi hea r~ mns te or.! ims Of
International Sugar Ag-reeints, Th!, at is the origin of what
wue seek to do w-. ith all. rretnz Some o f those ventlres
have ' Oeen riar: kd successes.
Recognising pDroble-n of deve: lor. incj countries, recogrlisin3-
that official .' dalon iscl> 1 to solve those probl. e!,
Australia has teen concer-nedt try and see that there are
appropriate a; nd onrtiLes Ta~ ItVsanrn: e i
concern qjoes b-ack ccci.-tc-e so:,. e ay. T'her-. e are -the argumienrts
not entirely an altr'sttc and I dor't intend it is.
To get the sort of vie%. w that w. e have been rxk,+ ttincj to developed
countries is -that" to The extent that you can get e co n omiLc
take-off in the docvcio;., J.. na wol the ziariVcets are go-zng to
be expanded, and trado Cht way's will be expa-nded.
In terms of thne general interest of trading nations, there
is real benefi* t in trvin.-to -encourage a si-tuation where'
developing countries can advance their own d evelomet Programmes
more technically, mtore efficiently, and th-at more countries,
thereby, get to the staq of economic take-off and develorment
such as Korea and Tawnhave, Singapore, 1-', on! g Kong. The
reasons for their succcesses all obviously, di ffer, but ir
our own part orF the olda nuauber of the 6eveloping coUntries
are showing very marked success in the rnanaueoment of their
econ~ omies Malaysia also.
I think Australia asked or I wa~ s~ z to come to
this meeting as I was -zoc co to the meeting which didn't
take place last May, b~ ca-@ of the conce-cn and interest that
Australia had show.-n ma thi p rtcular to.-i, I th nk because
of our willingness to rekawav fromi-t'-h! e fixed, B-Group
positions for the first: tim e, and try ; and ppitoe stively
promote a dialocue anC: d discussion that -vonuld hl to get
to some form Of aqreevnen-t. Anart fromr--tihe fa that_ I
had to Leave Australia on ChL~ sDay, the tiinincr-J of
this toarticular mecItin! is anrxr. oprJ_ Fte ! becau ; se it is takina
place after thencoit~ conference and it is5 possible
therefEore, to revit?% tee:. procj-e: s that. i mace,, and to review
also the zireas wherec thlere are stil11 l ifJfecL.--cis, and try and
asses s how irmportant the. : Ce. t Unctobeeehsie
that tliis is not a 11'? Ol~ Iictltl. n ov(-rY Onezt courolc
of days -n~ obody'. is ), ere Frn'-' poi-) nt CC tiS 1' w to
h ave ;: in cc 1, 3~ of* . h here is
a meet jnq of minds on thc: Its' aothe~ r
f or to nec oti. Ie 1o be I . c c. Lue aa: n e.: chan a
of viewz. fromr. adi~>~ : u t as te 0n~ h
are mneE tC : n hce! reintn: . uJ ' i'a'
Because o01. c na iC o t hoi --jcu: S : ri, ; Pc. can x)_ C
action ny aini. ercrc w2' to': 2 7. TOC'-ve.!.% ota-i~
coniference, th', rc wil1 oe. 0s i nl 7 9 which1 ak
it a bit easie!: to r Ie 3CC 0 e o : erone to get to
agreement on sonv: cE the :'; ac~ l: iu~
That's it so flar as the._ Coi Fiund. \ sin hystralia is
here ., It is ouir intecrest. inr to thei Common L-und1_ and
theatitue: tat Austra). i-: has oxprc'ssfod whlich xqoi; lc have
lead to ine berc t: kdtc be r: vrsidc n, b ecau! e of_ those
very attitudes we ha%/~ take a n x-Ircszed over th-le last
couple of years, I certali11n~ fet an obi~ into Mr Manley
to be here.
QUESTION: Do v-on th(_ iletnc c nceitr tJ-r1tt
well sol ey on t-. heCoor w
PRIME ' INISTFR: 11 don' I t! hiJ4n!. wil concent--r0_ ate on
some othere issuecs.. TIkn. is coz1nt:. ois ., ill want to talk
about Whiat they-, term: h J'CW! r~ ( A resources, %, 1ihicli don't
think is eesaiya qeud -cm Be Cau; c: . mpr* o" bette
terms of trade, betLer:!. C ko _ ACCeSS ean so often do more
for a country. You can uI think I' did somr., e time aqo,
you wouLld have ttoe ededc r3Cas of-ficial dvlmn
aid fLour times to make up'i: thK f-; our terz--s of trade that
have occured over the a .5 vnyars ne don't hold me to
those proportion~ s o-to trie actuall-: tii.-e scale, but it
just makes the point that tmsof: trade in developing countires
is not only but of vast iwtsveto them an.-in the
longer term prob: ably a good 3elmore rnmortant because it is
more substantial than offici'al. develozor., ent assistance is
likely to be. I think th-t there Yrma-. be some discussion about
the World Bank and In~ rntoa ianci-a3 inst~ tujion~ s.
McNamara has got p'l.-ns, as V) 1noto try anct ezoand the
capital of the ' Vorld Bank adAustralip. has suipported that
in principle alt-hough I Oo-n'k t' x1AIlhnc mi oiurselves
to any precise figure. In princ.-iple we ce rtainly 7upport the
expansion and capacity of the1. vlorld Bnk I think the
progress at ? rTN wilalso ' 3e discussc1. Even though a=_ veryone
has been saying tha: t agriCUltUr hias (; ot t~ o be included or
whatever, there is still, TI u'c scne : 7ang47_ r that the MNI-.
will end up ein no co. ' lbt nerhaps ' or a
sign ificant part, an arranqee: TI bottween Eu rope, North America
and Japan. To the cxtent thai: that is so, I think it omphasiszes
the importance on T,:-akincr -. rnt" s iuceL -! aztters at the
Common because again, liv~ aAstralia's ow~ n Particular
position out of it, for rtooat if the ;. idoe3 end up
by beinq somet11hing) wl-iclh so: igifca2 of Delng of
benefit to Europe, Fior) th Atme ricit and J.' rbcis hvarE.
major indu. stiral nations, then a very large pan: of th. world
TioSt of the de0 ielopinmuol . is i! 1 h oiti of being ex-clu,' cd
from any advantage of the so-called freer access to
trade or markets the Common Fund discussion take place
in a different form, UNCTAD and whatever. But if it
wasto end up an advantage to those three major industrial
groups, and if the diffferences which are starting to be
narrowed, but still remain in Common Fund negotiations aren-' t,
resolved by the time you get the major discussions at UNCTAD
five in Manila which is in % lay, that could plainly be in those
circumstances a very difficult forum and understandably
so. Again, it is in the interests of all of us, I think, to
not only try to make sure that the MTN does end up broader
based, but also to make progress on the other issues.
QUESTION: Early this year I think it was Strauss said that the
Americans would walk away from those talks, his phrase
a final agreement which did not include agriculture"
Do you feel that if it goes as you are forecasting
PRIME MINISTER: I am not forecasting and don't write it
as a forecast please I am saying it is a danger.
Until you see the final package you are not going to be able
to assess what the result wil1l be. It always has been a
danger, untilthe final package is determined it will. remain a
danger. QUESTION: Do you think the Americans have down?
PRIME MINISTER: It is too early to say because what I have
said is not a forecast. So far as Australia is concerned
the negotiations the European negotiations relating to NTN,
American negotiations relating to tUN, and Japanese, in some
of those areas I have not doubt we will make progress no
doubt at all. The extent to which the United States will
throw her weight behind the need to include agriculture
in the final result of rIrPN has yet to be proved and
demonstrated. I know they have done a great deal and Strauss
has spoken pretty trojantly on the issue*, but it ' is the
result that will be the testing ground. The result could
be adequate, and I have not the slightest doubt that the
United States-will have to throw her own negotiating, strength,
behind trade in agriculture in which the United States is
not intimately involved, or intimately concerned. There are
some commodities which the United States is intimately concerned,
and clearly she will throw her negotiating weight and strength
behind those things. For there to be adequate progress in the
other areas the United States will also have to throw her
weight behind the freeing of trade in other commodities.
QUESTION: So the trend in which things are going at the moment..
PRIME MINISTER: Don't make an assumption that the United States
is not doing that, because the assurances they have given Australia
are very real and very strong. The assurances are from you
have mentioned Wolfe, but I think in a personal letter to me
the President himself has given the same assurances.
Against that, I think everyone knows the European Community can
be fairly firm in their views.
QUESTION: Assurances
PRIME MINISTER: ' The assurance is that the United States
will not regard the t WN a success unless it is broad based
and unless agriculture is included.
QUESTION: What do you mean? Do you mean that Europe will . make
some changes in its subsidy arrangements for agriculture, is
that or are you talking about beef exports to Japan
a series of bi-lateral mieetinqs? What exactly are our
proposals of the beef and dairy products, and access to the
markets for them?
PRIME MINISTER: In terms of the beef, Lindsay Duthie
could give you a run down on that if you wanted it.
The two main areas in which Australia is concerned are
obviously in terms of marke-t access, but also in terms of
export subsidies.
QUESTION: Would you be talking with Hierr Schmidt while you
are here about access for beef. products to the EEC?
PRIME MINISTER: Not, in this conference, no. I have no
doubt there will be some discussions outside the conference,
but I wouldn't be intending to raise any bi-lateral matters
at the conference
QUESTION: But outside?
PRIME MINISTER: Outside there will be some discussions, I have
got no doubt.
QUESTION: Are you saying then that the success of the M7rN
from Australia's point of view then really depends on
how tough the American
PRIME MINISTER: I -think it depends on the United States
negotiating strength, yes I do.
QUESTION: What we get out of MVN?
PRIME MINISTER: Not just Australia, there would be many countries
involved.
QUESTION: But Australia's own position?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but I am not talking about it from a
bi-lateral point of view when I say that.
QUESTION: This communication~ from the President was a recent
one was it?
PRIME MINISTER: It was a letter throughout the course of this
last year I haven't got the date of it.
QUESTION: I was just wondering about the context of the letter
was it the same time that StrauIss was saying
PRIME MINISTER: They have all said it. It's been published
too, -the substance of it war, published.
QUESTION: Did you mention wool or did I.?
PRIM4E MINISTER: I didn'lt mention any particular commodity.
Wool is not a problemn with ' Europe so izuch.
QUESTION: I thought you mic ht have meant an arrangement with the
US. PRIME MINISTER: The known threat to our exports on a continuing
basis, apart from market access to Europe, comes from
a continuation of high export subsidies. That is the main
threat to our trade.
QUESTION: But there is nothing going to happen on that in the
PRIME MINISTER: There are export subsidy codes, we have
yet to find out what those codes finally say.
QUESr ION: But even if we still have the codes there is
still an inmmenise amount of bi-lateral dealings isn't there on
the arrangements betw., een Europe, Japan and the US
PRIME MINISTER: There is a good deal of bi-lateral discussions,
all within the MTrN context.
QUESTION: What you are really saying is that the trend at the
negotiations is such that there is a danger that there may not
be major concessions on agriculture that's.. particularly
to flow from the intragience o-f the EEC, doesn't it?
PRIME MINIST'ER: I think that is a fair statement, but it's
not a new statement, it has always been there. I am not
making the danger now as something greater than it was a month
ago, or two or three or four months ago please -don't lose
the reason why I am making this comment. I make the comment
to emphasise the importance of making advances on matters that
are of interest to the developing world. If you get
agricultural commodities not getting much benefit out of
this round of MTN discussions, it then does become something
of significant benefit to the extent that it is a benefit
it is a benefit for North America, Europe and Japan and that
leaves many countries and the developing world in particular
with the feeling of exclusion. That, again, just emphasises
the importance of making progress in other forums. The other
forum of most relevance to all of that is UNCTAD and the
Common Fund negotiation.
QUESTION:.. importance of the A merican's position, the strength
of their negotiations.. reemphasise the agricultural positions
in connection with the VlN?
PRIME MINISTER: I wouldn't want this directly attributed to
me at the moment, but one of the points I will be making is the
importance of making sure that the iWN result is broad based.
I think the argumrents in support of that are very strong ones.
I don't want you writing directly what I am going to be
saying to President Carter when I see him so don't put
that part
QUESTION: What sort of time frame do yo-u see nowa on a resolution
of the IVC N?
PRIME M4INISTER: I understand people are talking about next
March or April, but last April/ May they were talking about
Jiily 15, and then they were talking about December the
something or other. I am a little but sceptical about closing
dates there is a great dea. of negotiation still to go on.
QUESTION: Just on this point of attribution, we can " expect"
that you will be making..
PRIM E MINISTER: I would sooner you mnade it as remote as
possible. QUESTION: ( inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER: You can expect that from what I have said in the
past, or whatever. That has been the argument we have used
the industrial tariff proposal is fairly im~ minent, if you
are looking for something that is going to give an expansion
to markets, a boos-t to world trade, you have got to go beyond
that. That is one argum,, ent; the other argument is
the geographic argument, in which the industrial tariff proposal
alone too many countries are basically to benefit.
It is a two-fold argument,, I made the views publicly often enough.
QUESTION: You met Mr Manley this morning, could you tell us what
you discussed?
PRIME MINISTER: We wanted to exchange views on the format
of the discussion, and the informality that there would be
and had a brief discussion about the nature of the agenda and
the format and order of that and we had some discussion on the
Common Fund issue.
QUESTION: Have you met any of the other Heads of Government
PRIME MINISTER: No, not yet.
QUESTION: tonight
PRIME MINISTER: Could be, but I am not quite sure what their
movements are.
QUESTION: Is Andrew Peacock here yet?
PRIME MINISTER: I think hie is driving from the airport he
should be here any time.
QUEST'ION: Hlow long did you meet. Mr Manley for?
PRIME MINISrER: About an hour.
QUESTION: Do you envisage in these discussion you will be
playing a bridging role -for Australia between
PRIME MINISTER: I am not envisaging any particular role for-
Australia I have given the reasons why I think Australia
was asked, and that is all on the record in a sense.
I just have to see how the discussion goes, i think.
QUEST'ION: I was just wondering how the proposals of the
Grou-B and Group 77 could be brought closer together?
PRIME MINISTER: It is a cuestion of analysing the differences,
and in this area it is important in a sense to analyse
the purposes that people have in mind. One of the things
that I think emerged in the last negotiating conference is
that there maybe a conflict of philosophy If you want something
which will help to stabilise prices on a commnercial viable
basis that is one thing, but if you want a device which is
going to result in the north-south ter-minology of a massive
transfer of resources that seems to be a different
sort of operation. There appear areas where matters need to
be defined the secondl window operations haven't been defined.
It's not surprising that people might be reluctant
to finance second window operations if -they don't know
what the purposes are Australia said it is prepared to
finance second windows but we have attached our own
definition to it,' to give an example of what we think would
be responsible.
QUESTION: Will you be tossing up some proposals which
conceivably might bring the two sides closer together?
PRIME MINISTER: We have been and I think other people have
to have been looking at the results of the negotiating
conferences to see what the areas of difference are and
what the options might be fore overcoming some of them.
In some of the areas there might be several ways of overcoming
the difference. In other areas you can get a more precise
def inition of what is inLendei, what is in mind that in
itself mighlt help to remove differences, or to remove concerns.
QUEST'ION: Prime Minister, we are taking part in negotiations
related to the MvTtN on new wheat arrangements. What proposals
will we be putting forward for linking a new wheat agreement
to a Common Fund?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know that we have put forward any,
but to get to the details of that, I would ask Lindsay Duthie.
QUESTIION: Have you named an amount that Australia is willing
to contribute to start off the Common Fund?
PRIME MINISTER: No, not yet, I don't -think it has got to
that stage.
9
SIDE 1 ENDS
PRIME MINISTER There was an obligation to see what can
be done to help them. I believe the Conference can play an
useful role in helpinq them. May be defined in the minds
of the participants at any rate, the ways in which the
difficulties the remain to be overcome.
QUESTION You don't seem to be, you know, really enthusiastic about
this. PRIME MINISTER
It's not a question of lack of enthusiasm, it's a question of
reing cautious about somebody writing the great results,
great decisions are going to be prominent. It's not that sort
of conference. It's not a negotiating conference which is
going to make decisions. There is nobody who can make
decisions for the B group countries, there is nobody here who
can make decisions for the group 77. But it is possible to
Ahave people from different perspectives and different points
of view. It's defining the issues and searching their own
minds for a solution which may or may not be acceptable to
other people. Now, if you can do that an advance has been
made and there will be a great chance that the next negotiating
conference thereby will be successful.
QUEST ION
Would you say there would be any chance ( inaudible)
PRIME MINIa ER
None at all.
QUESTION ( inaudible)
PRIME MINIT ER
Well, we have got about 4 days to go yet.
QUESTION ( inaudible)
PRIME MINI ' ER I thought you said this calendar year.
QUESTION No.
10
PRIME MINISTER:
I would have hoped so.
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTER: I think there will be a very great deal of
disappointment and even bitterness. UNCTAD in Manila
which Allan Griffiths reminds me will be held about May, if
there can't be some agreement by then.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, I think it was in June that
Mr Anthony and yourself announced Australia's response to
the MrN ( inaudible) of the 14 per cent cut of tariff. We
believe propositions that you or Mr Anthony put forward
had a number of conditions attached to it. Could you tell
me whether that offer is being changed?
PRIME MINIST ER:
QUESTION: Whether its being adhered to or whether its being
accepted. What's the status of that in the KCN?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, it stands. In some areas countries
would want us to Approve an offer and in other areas we would
believe that in any sense of response to the kind that would
enable that offer to stand. But, at the moment, it stands.
And we hope that the response ultimately will be such that
will enable it.
QUESTION: Is it more likely to be withdrawn than improved?
PRIME MINISTER: That depends on response from other countries.
QUESTION: ( inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER: You can't judge that clearly. But that will
be one of the matters before us over the next two or three
months. QUESTION: Does a lot of the disagreement on the Comnmon Fund
boil down really to the size of Fund operations?
PRIME MINIISTER: No, I think there are a number of areas.
It must be very hard to write this stuff because it is technical.
And hard to get, you know off the record, who are the
mystics Sorry, where were we?
QUESTION: You were saying it's hard to write.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think it is, because its technical
stuff, first window, second window. What's does that mean to
us? The bloke in the street but there are some disagreements
about the amount that will go into the market stabilising
operations.
ii
PRIME IMI NS1' E R ( Contd) That' the first window.
There arc? some who want a di~ r-ect link betw-een the first
window and the second ino. There are others in the B
group co-untrie-: s who oppof.; e that ver-y sti-rorqiY. There are
some who don' t want LO nut zinv moncix' : nto rh -leSecond windo,;
operations. On the other hanl G-ou-p 77 would be unwilling
t'-o define second window. oper ALiors. A n while we have said
we are not prepared to put r11oney i-nto the second,.%, infdow operations,
for ex~ rlrese--arch and promot1on and. matters relin to
trade and' the product:-, wc'. Ald have very grave rese-rva-t ions
about second window-. s purposc; ar undK, 22_ ind. But it ought_ to
be possible lto get down, and say, wel. 1 alrighlt, let's define
the purpose. s of the second window operations. Is it research
and prormotion? Does i~ t jo 1be-ond that.? Ancd the people ., ho
are genuine about it there ought to be some thrincgs h-ich it
can get agreerment and maybe kep the oti ois open LFOr a la-er
review stage, as to henrt purpo0ses should be extended.
So, one of the ddiil'fr-einrce nces hich mright be of
philosophical difference,, is: whether or not~ ol are looking
at the Coin Fund as a stabilising mr-r. t prospects,
stabillisinq3 trarl,-e ia a comoitor wh. dether they're also
looking for a Comrncon T'uncd cas a means : ca dent in the
Nor th,' Souitht jarcion, for a mc~ iet-a-sfer resources.
In which ca-se, it's Jin a sc~ na--o It' anct'r ques ti: on. Th at
miqh1[ wel be a world bankQetñ n or CiLI
auestion. B~ ut it's not rei?. ly-a questicri rel~ ted to the
purposes ofl the Corvuntor F! And, cl. IurJerstn-d i~ t any and
I thinlk OUt Of the TeCI. Cotrati. r u-ConCojncthre rnay be
underlying th&-c ttuds o somne difrec n purpose. ~ el
agair it ought to be possiLble onanl s -to analyse that
out and define it.
QUESTION: The develo-irtg coun., ries, IhiKon occasions
have tCalked i~ n terns of 6 billIion dollar flinds. i1 7 7vi ecn', t
reumiyAustraliawud' aaree-, to anything that
:, reat.
PRIME P-11FI3rER: Well that d1oesn't-seem to be don't
think people are talking in thoese tr now. That's only
half the annutal agricult., aral sub,_, sidvl that.' s only half
the annual exnport subsidy.
QUESFION: ta. woulkd. i . nvolv,, e 7-4 Yprtty bici transfer of resources
presumably on the ( inaudibI,_-scale.
PRIM1E MINISTER-B6ut ocu laren't takn: aotthat.
QUE, 3' ION: ', oliwe beiairly clo7se t. te ? Atier2can posit.-on
now wn. lich the,-y' re pcert pre-pared to ., Aake a contribution,
a direct contribution, -to tht adile
P RIMP-tI. NIJSTE R: UelI ' h zvon' t seen thern pult a f-igure on it.
QUEST TON: Wel I I think that' beF~ n -, eote( d.
PRIME ' 1i1U4IL'ER: I th inkteyv Loae. n % ver-y close ' to our position
over the last few mioiths, rI nclsay Duthie, Raiwd. on Dalrymple
were ) both ovel.: r in t't-SLate _ s Lo--or hre onths ago tal1--: inj
with Dick Coopr ()& COmpan k-, Io ut Ih i s. lhero are still
some di. f fereiicf:, s (.. ucre: r , s -inwd -thc Vfl,-' Ate-. States, but
Much less than Lhtr -t. 7ce 0or H LQ : lonn ago.
PRIME 1, I1NISTCER ( Conz.' d) i2Lt t**!-ey've move~ d their position rjuitL. e
some way as indeed the B Group countries E:. s a whole did at
the last Negotiating; Conference. They are all much more forthcoming
ftn they have b) e en.
QUEST ION: lfavo you had hLi'l ateral dicscussiors wit-h
either flow or in the imeiate past a9bout registering the
Comm-on Fund," s-tin
PRIME ' MINXIrER: No, it-ha ne'rcer be) cen raised. Never.
QUEST ION: in a Ud ib-le)'
PRIME MINISP ER: ' Vell he v: er~ ys imuch inv,, clveJ. and I was partly
involved in whatever ciJe OW . VA You know a lot of people were
involved in helpin cdraw -e
QUESTION: ( inuK-Ji 1,, 1 c)
P R114E MIN I ST E 1Z r-erePse. nrt--inr2 South AFri ca achieved
QUEST ION: ( na u -1i b I
P RIM E MI NIS.? HCI1: . li aua. r : Jc-. re were , ieze part icuiar
not. onlv that isssue but ay& c; aif the iss-ue of thce. Common
Fund. Set out in -t-ne ac5' ida of thut particular Comrmonealth
Colf erc-nce. it was tha~ t Cq rnethat" set up -the origminal
Co-monimealtlh lrechir,-J. VorkiJn-" . h. ch I riue: ntioned Stew-art
Harris was on. Wa. 1kcr oHI-c ~ c vwas Chairman of the Negotiating
Conference -and Jamaica citiito anart from 1, anley's own
position, it is for that reason that S4( cinificant in the
Common Fund discusS;~ on iic
QUESTI! ON: Could you ruover the disucssion vwith ilanley hi
morning. PRIME MINISTER: It is on the tar e. David Will jplay it back
to you, won't you David? But brel'there was about an hour's
discussiLon. we tal)% ed about th;-e agen'a., w,. e talked about the
format of the % ec ti. tja . Dzed about Common Fund issues.
QUESTION:: P11 there i-; s a-.-ena Goverpnme: nt doculirnent w-hich
outlines the poli tical andooom. situatlion in 3 Zma.-Aca
at the moment which c
-his1' critical ofi Mr. JMnley's
han-dlinq an," says tllh-L \: nac2h~ etold their
Go-v. ernments thamt MAr. 7.1arniez bie LMSfln thi~ s Conference
to boost his own j -cc. Dc. o cv n" or~~ t
on that?
PRIME MINISIW ERK: Joll don' want to iiaz Ie any co ment on
Jamaica's internal situat-ion 1; tlet me only say that I beli-eve
that 11ichael Marlev' s attitudec ie rlaio to the Comnmon
Fund and North/ South-issues is a v. e7ry genuine attitude and
in terri-s of try~ inq -1to -ahft inLth tr
13
PRIME MIINISL'ER ( Cont.' d) tho olbjective is one that Australia
shares. We can share it out of our own ex. PFrience. Co-mmodity
trade whi ch has i luctuaterd wildly has inmensc; ef', fectL-s
on the fortunes of-areas, ; rovips and rc-ally at timcas Australia
as a whole. He is 1v any . sLancdartis one of' the more
significantL lliaures in heqop77. 1 -_ ccert and I believe
that thle other ciuti! r ho are heiricj orlc ere also
accept the im rAac f th nature: of_ discussions
and the factta aric based out of c very cger. iuine concern
of the issules. I II t 0ot 7cm1V r CasCe 0 to doubt that for
one moment.
QUflST 1.0, N: Do '. ou . ce. P .~ thats~ m cr _ he c~ tr
PRIME1 M11INISTER: T think i4wol h-vC be n I. epf Ll.
You have got a pre~ tt hc: o: 3setIn
QUEST ION: Do you thj~ nk US prresonce rhere could heuspecifically?
PRIME miNISTER: I don' t-thiink I want to crrrnton whetnrr
a iarticular country wouiiu: or w-, ouldri't heir',-. You can -o through
all the gamit olf countLries.
ouE,, r rmN: But n-tean the tinit( ci States, is in a rat.-her special
PRiN1E !. II ; TER-1:: T know t1hat. Mainlev h~ d some very close
conversa~ k.:-ons with : n Presielent: over trleissues at Panai-a rrc
to sicining what-Iever earl. icr in the ye. Dr, so there have been.
discusss ci. Lnq on, 1 twant tm OTJ?. l on the presence
or otheri-wise of ot-her rti: uaconrs
TAPE FINISHIP'-)