Subjects: APEC Leaders’ Forum; world oil prices; Opposition Budget forecast comments; North Korea.
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
JOURNALIST:
Nice shirt Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I notice that the fashion correspondent for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation approves of it. Pierre Middleton has declared that it’s tasteful, passed the muster. I have got to tell you the Canadian bomber jacket was pretty tasteful too.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the boys will be chasing after this one?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they certainly grabbed the bomber jacket. I think the bomber jacket is more popular with them, but anyway.
Right now, ladies and gentlemen, the APEC Leaders meeting has concluded. You were all at the reading of the declaration.
I want to thank His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei for the wonderful way in which this meeting was hosted and conducted and the hospitality extended to all of us by him and his government is something that I record my appreciation for.
It was a good meeting. In some respects I believe it got APEC back on its real track and that is to harness for the members of APEC the benefits further trade liberalization. There was a strong commitment to try and get a new World Trade Organisation round and at the retreat, although different leaders came at globalisation from slightly different vantage points there was a very strong acceptance that globalisation was desirable, in the eyes of many, inevitable. Although in the eyes of some including myself, something that can’t be taken for granted. There was certainly no concerted kicking against the concept of globalisation, although different leaders had different perspectives on the extent to which individual countries should seek to insulate themselves or some of their industries from the impacts of globalisation.
There was discussion about oil prices. There is a range of interests represented in APEC on the question of oil. There are some exporting countries such as the Russian Federation and Indonesia. There was a general view that if prices remain too high for too long that could have an impact on growth, not only within the region but around the world. There was also a recognition of course that exporting oil was very important to a number of these member countries of APEC and a recognition that there had to be a balance achieved in that area.
There was also discussion of course about trying as much as we could to bridge the digital divide, and that was canvassed in the Leader’s Declaration and a recognition of course of the enormous benefits that flowed from information technology.
I had a very valuable bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Thailand. Of course Australia and Thailand are very close. We gave a lot of assistance to Thailand in the wake of the Asian economic downturn and I believe that the economic reforms that Mr Chuan’s government have implemented have been quite courageous. Thailand took the full brunt of the Asian downturn. There was a widespread loss of jobs in that country and quite a deal of economic suffering visited on their society.
So I would report to you that the meeting was very successful. There is a sense of renewed purpose in APEC but, as always with these things, the proof will be found in the willingness of the rest of the world to commit itself to a new world trade round.
There are certain things you can do in APEC but there are things you can’t do and there are some very significant trading interests, particularly the European Union, that of course they are not part of APEC, and there are some parts of the broader Asian Region, particularly the Indian subcontinent which is also not part of APEC and large parts of South and Central America. So the WTO remains the major multilateral forum.
I think one of the things that did come out the discussion this afternoon was an acceptance that the negotiation of free trade agreements between APEC countries and APEC countries and other countries, provided those free trade agreements were consistent with the rules of the road laid down by the WTO and were consistent with the Bogor goals, those free trade agreements could make a contribution towards bringing about the achievement of the Bogor goals. I certainly see that as the context to the discussions that we would initiate with the Singaporeans on a free trade agreement and certainly other countries that are also having free trade discussions see it in a similar light.
Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
So Prime Minister, you got the date from the other APEC leaders. What is the significance of that and what’s the next step?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the next step now is to use all of our efforts and encourage others to use their efforts to get the world trade round up and running next year. And a lot of responsibility will rest upon the shoulders of the new American president because in the end they play a very major role and the attitude of the Japanese and the European Union has always, will be very important. For our part, we will be urging the incoming American president, the European Union, we never cease to urge them of course, and the government of Japan to be part of pushing very hard for a new world trade round.
JOURNALIST:
What pressure was applied to those resisting the specification of a 2001 startup?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there was, in the Leader’s forum there was virtually no resistance to …..
JOURNALIST:
So it was readily agree to?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. There was no, there was one leader who said it might have been better to have settled on the agenda first and then worried about the date, but it was not pushed hard, and you saw the text. So I thought there was a lot of agreement on that, more than I expected.
JOURNALIST:
So are you now more optimistic that a new trade round will get underway with an appropriate agenda, one which satisfies Australia’s interests.
PRIME MINISTER:
Jim, I am a little more optimistic. I am. I think what has happened at this meeting is that any suggestion that APEC may not have felt a new world trade round next year were desirable. Any suggestion of that has been swept away by this meeting. But you have still got to persuade, you have still got to energise both the new American administration and the Europeans. Now that is quite an ask. Quite an ask. We’ll keep doing everything we can and I certainly see one of the first responsibilities of the new American president, whoever he may be as lending the weight of the administration behind that.
JOURNALIST:
Did you get any impression from the Americans that they might be, in Australia’s terms, more realistic about issues like labour standards?
PRIME MINISTER:
That will depend significantly on who leads the new administration.
There will be a difference. There is no doubt about that. If the new administration is a Republican one I believe there will be a different view on that issue from what it would be if it is a Democrat one.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how does tonight’s outcome , how do you see it figuring in the broad debate about globalism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what it means is that there is really absent some cataclysmic economic event. There is really no turning back from globalisation. And there oughtn’t to be. I may have said to you last night that the DFAT study that I hope you have all had a look at paints a very compelling picture of the benefits of globalisation. I made the point in my own intervention this afternoon that if you looked at ways of population comparison, rather than countries, there has in fact been a narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor. If you looked at the success of those poorer APEC countries that have opened their economies, you start to get valuable pieces of evidence in favour of globalisation. And I said, to the meeting as I did to the ABAC meeting yesterday, that I felt the, all of us had a greater obligation to explain how successful, or how good globalisation had been at delivering higher incomes for poor countries, which in the end is its greatest moral justification.
Globalisation is being attacked now almost on moral grounds by its opponents. Yet if you look at the outcomes you see a very compelling moral justification for what is occurring. I mean I said yesterday I can’t understand why people who want debt relieved wouldn’t in preference to having banners saying forgive the debt, perhaps you could have two banners saying forgive the debt, cut the protection. The second banner would deliver, what, thirteen times the benefits if acted upon than the first banner.
JOURNALIST:
A statement about [inaudible] relating to all countries, yet perhaps the [inaudible] dimension of that, the issue of increasing production, oil country’s production is sort of tucked away down the back, why is that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t think there’s any particular significance in that Karen, I think it’s just a question of how it was drafted.
JOURNALIST:
Was that the biggest sticking point though in relation to oil prices?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it’s not really because it was never going to be that we could make a binding pronouncement. I mean the major oil exporting and oil producing countries don’t belong to APEC. I mean there are some, obviously Indonesia and the Russian Federation but, the clout in that organization resides elsewhere.
JOURNALIST:
What difference, what practical difference do you think having a pronouncement on oil then has?
PRIME MINISTER:
Every piece of public reference, every bit of international advocacy brings home the point. And there were some quite strong interventions about the impact, strong intervention from the President of Chile, a strong intervention from the President of the Philippines about the impact of rising oil prices on the economies of those two countries.
JOURNALIST:
Do you accept though the other side of the argument that perhaps one of the reasons why things have got out of control this time is the fact that oil prices got too low for the producers last time and that’s a matter of concern too?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s part of the argument Jim and it’s part of the debate and you can have an argument that something can be too low but in the end it’s, these things are determined by the operation of markets.
JOURNALIST:
Well there not in this case though, they’re due to the operation of a cartel. Isn’t it a question of stability . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes but even cartels have to genuflect to markets in the end because if people stop buying the product that will have an impact on their bottom line. I mean it’s worth remembering that oil now contributes less than half the cost of producing the world’s GDP then it did forty/thirty years ago. Now one of the reasons for that is that after the first and second oil shocks people went hunting for alternative energy supplies, so you can’t completely ignore the market.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister what’s changed since Seattle that makes you confident, or APEC confident a new round of talks will be launched next year?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I said that it’s more likely. It’s because there seemed to be a greater unanimity of view on that issue than I expected. I thought there would be more resistance, now I can’t put it anymore strongly than that, but that’s an improvement. These things are always incremental, you never declare victory on the basis of one meeting, you never walk away saying we’ve finally had a breakthrough, you just bit by bit work towards achieving an outcome.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard how important . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard how important was the fact that APEC has made it a much stronger statement on world trade to the relevance of APEC and its future?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it was very important that it did. APEC has not been as active over the last few years as it was in the two or three years before that. I see this meeting as recovering some of that lost ground.
JOURNALIST:
Was that resistance that you talked about that wasn’t there as you expected – was that broken down somewhat by the references in the communiqué to more assistance for developing countries . . . ?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it was just the ambience of the meeting was more universally supportive of liberalization than I expected.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister I do appreciate that you’ve been preoccupied today, but there’s been an earthquake just north of Papua New Guinea, have you had any briefing and is there anything you’d say . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
No I have not had a briefing on that Dennis. No I have not. I will. Thank you for telling me. I will get a briefing on it immediately.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, earlier this month your Trade Minister wrote to his Thai counterpart asking, canvassing their interests in a bilateral FTA. Is that something you discussed with the Thai Prime Minister today?
PRIME MINISTER:
No we didn’t discuss it. Bear in mind that the Government of Thailand is in election mode at the present time and I would not expect that’s something that would come up until the election has been held.
JOURNALIST:
Can I go back to the WTO?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] one’s agreed that there should be a round, but they disagree over what should be in it. Did you actually get down to tin tacks today and talk about the detail?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we didn’t, we didn’t start talking about the detail of the agenda. There was general agreement that there should be a whole lot of things on the table and certainly a lot of references to agriculture – not only from Australia and New Zealand but from a number of other countries as well.
And just while I am on the subject of everything being on the table, I understand that in the context of the remarks I made last night that one of you is writing a story suggesting that the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and Singapore necessarily raises the question of the free movement of people, They are really two quite separate issues. When I said that everything was on the table what I meant was that everything was on the table in relation to trade, that’s in goods and services. If I can point to the analogy of New Zealand, the agreement for the free movement of labour between Australia and New Zealand flowed from an agreement that was quite separate from the trade agreement. I mean I make no negative comments incidentally about the free movement of people between Australia and Singapore, we welcome people from Singapore, and students and those who immigrate here under our immigration policy. But there’s been a suggestion that it automatically means that . It doesn’t, they’re two quite separate , they’re dealt with under quite separate protocols.
JOURNALIST:
Are there any concerns expressed about America’s bilateral group trade agreements and given your announcement . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
No there was a general agreement that bilateral trade agreements provided they observe the spirit of the Bogor Declaration and provided they were WTO consistent it would actually aid the process.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on the digital divide?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes?
JOURNALIST:
This idea that no child would live in digital poverty by 2010. What is APEC going to do to ensure that the villages and the paddy fields of Asia can surf the net by 2010?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they’re sort of, that’s - I won’t adopt that language. I understand the point you seek to make but I wont adopt that language. Well I think what has to – obviously the big effort has to be in the less developed countries because the digital penetration – if you’re going to for example achieve a goal of quadrupling or tripling when you’ve got a starting point of what 70 percent in some of the countries such as the United States and close behind Australia you do need an extra effort in many of the developing countries. Now – you say what is APEC going to do? Well they’re whole different- a lot of different things, a lot of corporate things that can be done within APEC and you will find talking to the ABAC people they are strongly supportive of spreading access. There are of course a whole array of government programs and I heard today from leader after leader of the way in which they’re intending to continue to extend access within their own countries.
JOURNALIST:
Do you believe that is achievable Prime Minister? Or is there a touch of gimmickry about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don’t think there’s a touch of gimmickry about it. I think it is important to try and prevent there being too much of a gap between the information haves and information have-nots. There are other things, of course, such as basic health standards that are even more important in many of those countries. I mean if I had to choose between perhaps a choice between a greater expansion of information technology and curtailing the spread of HIV aids there’s not much doubt in my mind that the latter would bulk more importantly.
Now the ideal of course is to try and do both isn’t it?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard in the last three months we’ve had two world bank ….urging Australia to get involved in trying to …
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are partly as a result of what Mr Wolfensen said and also of our own initiative we are conducting a study, Mr Downer has authorised that be done in the context of the AusAid responsibility. We are conducting a study at the present time as to what we might be able to do and when we have the results of that we might have something further to say.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister what guarantee have you got that your plane is going to make it home (inaudible)……
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I’m a cautious fellow but also patient.
JOURNALIST:
Is it leaving tomorrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
It’s leaving tomorrow morning. Well the guarantee I have is that you’re all coming with me.
JOURNALIST:
I’m not actually.
PRIME MINISTER:
You’re not. Oh, ye of little faith.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister could I ask…..
PRIME MINISTER:
I wish you’d ask me a domestic question.
JOURNALIST:
That’s what I’m asking.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank heavens for that! I’ve just got something I want to say and then we can all go and have a meal.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister the Opposition’s finance spokesman , Lindsay Tanner, suggests the budget forecasts are too optimistic and he’d be nervous if he were the Treasurer. What do you say to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it would be a very good idea and if they got their lines straight. Kim Beazley says we’re rolling in money and we can afford to spend hundreds of millions more and his finance spokesman doubts that completely. I mean Beazley and Tanner are in direct conflict on this issue. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t suggest as Mr Beazely has done that we are deliberately suppressing information about an even larger surplus which we’re not. I mean what we released yesterday was what we’ve been told by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance was the true projection of the state of the budget and that’s what Mr Beazley is saying, Mr Tanner on the other hand is saying that the budget’s in crisis effectively. Now they both can’t be right. That’s just a typical example of the Opposition walking both sides of the street. I mean Mr Tanner thinks he’ll be reported in the Financial Review and Mr Beazley hopes he’ll be reported on you know in the tabloids. Well I hope you all report the fact that they’re arguing with each other.
JOURNALIST:
The Financial Review is a tabloid. Not a good one but…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Right, last question.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, what’s your name?
JOURNALIST:
I am from Kyoto News.
PRIME MINISTER:
How do you do?
JOURNALIST:
Was the possibility of North Korea joining APEC brought up at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well certainly from an eligibility point of view as far as location and so forth is concerned it’s obviously a country that would qualify. My recollection without checking the record is that when we decided that the Russian Federation, Peru and Vietnam should join we put a moratorium on further admissions for a number of years but I hope that relations between the two Koreas continue to improve. I welcome Mr Downer’s initiative in visiting North Korea and I do look forward to the day at an appropriate time when North Korea does join it.
Thank you.
[ends]