TRANSCRIPT OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOLLOWITNG ADDRESS TO THE
NATIONIAL PRESS CLUB# WASHINGTON, 26 JUNE3 1989
X A02-PROOF ONLY
JrOURNALIST. FPollowing your talks with Agriliture
Yeutter today, are you confident the Americans are prepared
to concede any ground on the Export Enhancement Program?
PN: Well I think the correct way of putting it is as
follows. in discussions with not only Hr Yeutter but with
the President and with Robert Dole, I think there is a clear
understanding that we in Australia are not confecting some
concern about this issue. I believe that they will listen
further to the arguments that we put about this issue. I
think the important point is that which I eluded to in my
address and that 15 that we do have a period now of
opportunity. Until the end of 1990 when on our assessment
the impact the adverse impact of the EEP is not going to
be great relative to what has happened before because of the
stocks and price situation. In that period we do have an
absolutely identical objective that we should work within the
Round to achieve a situation where there will be an
elimination of subsidies so that the tree market can operate
in regard to agriculture. I have proposed the concept that
in the preparation of the new Farm Bill that it would make
sense to consider including in it some provisions which would
mean that if there is a successful outcome of the Round then
that any intention to pursue those provisions would not be
triggered. So I think in that situation that there will come
to be an acceptance that we have been adversely affected.
But the important thing is now to work together to ensure
not only as between us but internationally we're going to
remove these sorts of considerations so that there can be a
level playing field. within that level playing field
Australia will do well because we are the world's most
efficient producer of agricultural products.
JOURNALIST: Could you amplify a portion of that? Is this to
Bay then that the United States will be less critical of US
policy and more supportive of efforts to achieve changes in
agricultural policies in Japan and the European Community?
PH: It's not a question of being more or less critical. The
important thing is that there be a common basis of analysis
of what the impact and the cost of these programs are. Now
let's just in regard to the United States understand what the
cost of your agriculture support policies are. The fact is
that in 1988 the total cost to the United States taxpayers
and consumers was just under $ 74B. it was $ 73.8B. That was
the total cost to the United States consumers and taxpayers.
Now by any calculas I mean I know you talk in much bigger
figures than we do when talking about budget figures and so
on but $ 73.8B is a lot of cookies. It's a hell of an
inflation of your cost in price structure. The Europeans are
even worse. H~ ow the important thing is rather than just
being negatively critical, to try and get through to policy
makers here and in Europe and in Japan that they've got it
all wrong, that they are being influenced very, very unduly
by a small proportionist population that is its farmers
and that the large numbers of the population, of your
industry, your consumers are paying a massive price. in
Europe the best calculations are that employment would be at
least a million higher if there was not the impact of the
CAP, that their whole cost and price structure is massively
inflated, that the population as a whole is paying a stupid
and unacceptably high price. The same is true here. I mean
it's politics gone crazy, its economics insane. So what has
to be done is that there be straight, honest, not bitter, but
straight, honest talking, that we've all got it wrong, that
the Japanese public, the American public, the European
public, are paying a silly and unacceptably high price. Now
that's what the period between now and 1990 has got to be
about so we can get agreement that it doesn't make sense to
Jeopardise the increasing political intelligence that's
characterising the relations between countries. We are
moving into a period in human history where we can talk with
more optimism than ever before, ever before, that we're going
to have sensible political relations, that the threat of
conflict is diminishing. But the great paradox, as I said
recently in London, the great paradox is as that we behave
more intelligently in our political relations, we're putting
all that at risk by economic lunacy. We've got to get the
symetry right in our intelligence.
JOURNALIST: Last week the council of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade accepted the findings on your complaint
over US cuts in sugar imports from Australia. In view of
Australia's total embargo on sugar imports since 1915, how
much time are you prepared to give the US to get in the
compliance?
-3-
PM: We speak now from a position of great strength. We've
Moved to stop the embargo in Australia on imports. We've
moved to a tariff regime so the embargo will be removed. NOW
it took Australia a fairly long time before we got there.
But in our period in office we've moved to make sure that
when we speak to the rest of the world about what they should
do, we speak with clean hands and a clear conscience. so
when we talk about freeing up the markets, we've made sure
that as far as Australia Is concerned where we've had
basically free trading situation in regard to agricultural
products. In regard to sugar we were blurred. We've changed
that, we've now moved to a situation where that embargo on
imports will be removed, we'll have a clear tariff position
where there will be able to be imports. Now it took
Australia you might say, 89 years to get to that sensible
position. But as with most things in economic management,
it's all been accelerated since we've been here here, we've
got there in six years. But I don't think you're going to
need 6 years to fix it up here. I've had discussions with Mr
Yeutter today and I think that we have agreement that there
will be an acceptable way now of the United States handling
the decision that's been moade by the GATT panel.
JOURNALISTt Debate on trade in this country has focussed
primarily on unilateral US actions against other trade
barriers. Do you believe that Washington generally is
concentrating too much on unilateral action at the expense of
the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations? Are you concerned
that recent Super 301 actions against Japan, India and Brazil
could jeopardise the success of the Uruguay Round?
PM: We're not too happy about the concept of Super 301. As
you say, it's Japan, India and Brazil at the moment but
you've got others on the contingency list, many more. We are
somewhat worried about an increasing resort to this bilateral
mechanism and our view that we have been and will continue to
express is that the emphasis should be upon rectifying the
international trading system. We've got a very short tine
left, we've got until the end of 1.990 and we know how slowly
th~ ese things move. This was the essence of the discussion
I had this morning with 14r Yeutter and without going to the
details, I believe we have addressed certain tactical
measures which together we may be able to usefully employ
which will ensure that in that period we can maximise the
chances of those negotiations being successful. That is
infinetly the preferable way so I merely express the hope
that to the extent that that legilative provision is there,
the United States will take relatively sparing use of it.
JOURNALIST: Has the Australian economy become overly
dependent on the world's gold and metal industry? Could your
economy survive a long price decline?
Pm: I know where that one came from. No, we're overly
dependent on the gold and metals industry as an analysis of
our production statistics and exports statistics will show.
obviously Australia would suffer very considerably if you had
a very long decline in commodity prices, and I assume you're
not Just talking about prices for gold and minerals. we
and I know those sorts of figures don't loom very large for
you, they do for Australia we lost in 1985-86 $ 11B of our
national income through the very significant decline in terms
of trade. In rough terms $ 11B represents between 3-4% of our
GDP. So that was a very massive decline and so we are
watching the level of commodity prices with very keen
interest. I must say that as far as we can see the outlook
for commodity prices in the rest of this year and into 1990
looks relatively sound. But the important thing to note
about the Australian economy is that in the 6 years that
we've been in Government what we've been about is a process
of restructuring the Australian economy so that we will not
be so dependent upon movements in commodity prices both of
agricultural products and mineral products. We have been
excessively exposed to fluctuations in those areas and it is
of some satisf action to us that we are lifting the level of
exports of manufactured goods and services so that gradually
we will not have the degree of exposure as I say, to
movements in those commodity prices.
JOURNALIST: After 7 years of negotiation, what has caused
Australia to change its position regarding the Convention of
the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities?
PM: Obviously to some extent I've referred to that in the
address I've just made. Let me very briefly try and make the
point. The whole process of negotiation of CRANRA, the
convention in regard to the mining of mineral resources in
the Antarctic, wasn begun in a period where the world had a
quite different perception of environmental issues. So what
they were about was an approach which was predicated upon the
mining of resources, the potential mining of resources in the
Antarctic, and to get some sort of convention around that
which would minimise the problem. Now I think if we are
intelligent at all, if we understand anything, we know that
an we cone to the end of the 1980a it's a very, very
different world in its perception of a whole range of issues,
including environmental issues, than it was at-the beginning
of 1980. We take the view now that it's not very sensible to
be usinq a convention for mining as an instrument for
protecting the Antarctic against the problems of mining.
It's doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense we think. There
is increasing evidence of the fragility of the Arctic and the
Antarctic environment. The Exxon Valdez has showed what can
( PM cont) happen there and vs there and we believe it just
makes sense now not to take that risk and we are very, very
pleased that in then period, the relatively short period since
we've made that decision, we have now received the support of
the Government of India, the Government of France,
indications of support from a number of others, and as I said
in my address, it is my belief and the belief of the
Australian Government. Ilia pleased to say it's crossed the
Australian political spectrum that this is the right course
of action and I express the view that if there's one thing we
are witnessing in world politics today, it is that people
across the economic spectrum, across the political spectrum,
across the age spectrum, are becoming increasingly concerned
with issues of the environment. I believe that in this
period ahead as we attempt to pursuade others of the
correctness of our position that we will be increasingly
supported by the weight of world opinion. I don't tinkc the
world is going to take the view that it makes sense to
endanger that last pristine environment by the risk and the
danger of mining.
JOURNALIST: Are environmental concerns having an impact on
Australian politics?
PH: Yes, as on politics all around the world. I mean the
thing that's happened as I was just saying, that it's become
an issue because in large measure, where you were talking
about the environment earlier in this decade and last
decades, if people were talking about a forest or a river or
a lake, the great majority of people tend to say, ' oh well
it's their forest, their lake, their river', and they didn't
in any very real sense tend to identify their own interests
with the environmental concerns of the few. That's changed.
I think you could say it's changed dramatically in the last
18 months. The environmental issues now are not capable of
being isolated by region or by nation. If there's a hole, as
0 there is in the ozone layer which is posing very considerable
dangers for people, it's not in part of one nation or in one
nation and not another, it's a danger for all. The
Greenhouse Effect is not a danger for one area or-another.
It's posing a danger for everyone today and particularly for
the next generation, for our kids and for their kids. So
whereas you had this compartmentalisation of environmental
concern, you don't have it anymore. People are saying these
issues concern me, they concern my kids. So in that
circumstance you're witnessing right around the world
including in Australia an increasing understanding of and
concern with environmental issues. It will be the case
whether it's Australia or in any other country that those
conventional parties, those historical parties who seek to
( P14 cont) ignore this issue, will do so not at their peril
but at the certainty of political devastation. Fortunately
in my case in Australia we don't have to be jumping on to any
latter day band wagon. For because fromn day one where we
saved the Franklin River and with our decisions i. n regard to
world heritage in regard to which I may say the World
Heritage Bureau has said that no government has done more to
protect world heritage values than has the Australian
Government. So we don't have to become latter day converts.
We understood these things from day one.
JOURNALIST: Speaking of world heritage values, do you see
any paradox in your country's, in your Government's support
for environmental issues and what this question says is the
approved slaughter of nearly 4 million kangaroos annually?
M34 No, none at all. That's a very facile sort of question.
The fact is that we have very stringent measures to protect
those species which could in any sense be endangered. We
have a massive, a massive kangaroo population. Now come and
see them sometime. There is a very, very strictly controlled
culling and shooting program which is justified by and is
regulated in terms of considerations which are necessary for
protection of the working farming environment. But in regard
to those areas of those species which could be in any danger
there is the strictest preservation. We have nothing to
apologis for in that area. There is no inconsistency.
-7-
JOURNALIST: Changing gears for a moment, what will be Australia's
response if the United States goes ahead with its plan to give
lethal aid to the non-Communist resistance in Cambodia of
Kampuchea? PM: Members of the travelling Australian press will recognise that
as a hypothetical question which usually gets-very short shrift
in my country when they ask me hypothetical questions. I have to
be slightly more accommodating in this environment I guess. Let
me say that this is an area which I've yet to discuss in detail
with my friends here in the United States, I did have a brief
discussion with Vice-President Quayle about it when he was in
Australia earlier this year, It is a matter that I will be
discussing with the President and Secretary of State Baker, but
it will be no secret that we have taken the view that we think
4 he provision of lethal aid is inappropriate. I understand the
thinking which is behind those who are contemplating it, but we
think that the processes, and let me say of course when I was
talking to Vice-President Quayle before the events, the recent
tragic events in China, we took the view that the process in
negotiation, the various strands of negotiation in regard to the
settlement of the tragedy in Kampuchea, had reached a point
where, in our judgement, it would have been counterproductive to
provide lethal aid, and I expressed that view to the Vice-
President. N~ ow, we have no reason to change our view about that,
though it must be said that, given the recent events in China,
that you have to have question marks as to what those changes
will do to the Chinese attitude to the processes of negotiation
for a settlement in Indochina. But even with that question mark
it must be in ones's mind what will they do? Will they try and
upset the negotiations, even with that question mark? The view
that I expressed to Vice President Quayle in Australia remains
unchanged, but, as I say, I've got to have more detailed
discussions about this with the President and the Secretary of
Otate tomorrow.
JOURNALIST: What advice do you have for President Bush on current
events in China?
PM: Well, we don't presume to give advice, but let me say that in
the very congenial period that I had with the President at Camp
David yesterday, the issue of China was the one that took up most
of our time. We're in the position where both of us have a very
considerable degree of knowledge and involvement with China, in
the case of the President of course, involving his time as
Ambassador to there, and in my case reflecting very, very long
hours of discussions that I've been able to have with leaders of
China over the last six years, both in my country and in China.
I'm able to say that the position of the President and myself is
essentially at one. May I sum it up in this way. Firstly we agree
that there can be nothing but condemnation, unqualified
condemnation of the barbarity which is reflected in Tiannantman
Square and in subsequent persecution and execution of people in
China. We are at one in saying that we and the rest of the world
must, without qualification, condemn that suppression of
legitimate human ampirations. We also are at one in recognising
that it is important for the people of China, the region and the
r. X~ f L V to L V aIV..
-8-
( PM Cant) world that the processes of economic reform be allowed
to continue within China, and that that is not only intrinsically
obviously correct, but we also share the view that it is only
with the effect of further economic reform proceeding that you
will have the environment within which there will able to be a
flourishing of the pressures for political reform within China.
Arnd so what we believe we have to do, and the rest of the world
has to do, is to walk what is, admittedly, a very difficult
dividing line. You have to express your position without
equivocation, of condemnation of what has happened. At the same
time make it clear that you want to do what can be done to assist
the processes of economic reform. The interests of the people of
China, and particularly those people within China who are
committed to political reform will be very adversely affected if,
by the action of the rest of the world, China was forced
* ompletely to turn in upon itself, because the processcs of
economic reform would be diminished, anid therefore the
opportunity subsequently at some time for political reform. And
so that is going to require a delicacy of decision and, of
course, very considerable difficulties would be created in
pursuing and walking that line if in the near future there were
in fact to be executions of the student leaders. To this point,
that basically hasn't occurred; the two categories are those who
were involved with the train incident in Shanghai and workers
representatives. if the Chinese leadership were in fact to pursue
the leaders of the students, there were to be further executions
in that area, then it would make the walking of this sort of line
that the President and I agree on extremely difficult. It's our
profound hope, the President and myself, that those who now have
the responaibility for leading China both recognise the ultimate
futility of what they have done, and more importantly for the
future will recognise that if in fact they are to be able to do
what they said an the 24th they wanted to do, that is to continue
~ he process of economic reform and have opening up to the rest of
Uhe world, that that will only be facilitated if they eschew
further violence, persecution and certainly execution of people
within their country.
JOURNALIST: should Great Britain re-examine its agreement to
relinquish control over Hong kong, in view of the recent events
in China?
PH: Well again, I don't presume to tell Great Britain what they
should do, but I've had the great good fortune, at the end of
last week and quite a bit of last week, to have extensive
discussions with Mrs Thatcher, and may I say that in expressing
as I did just a moment ago the views of the President and myself,
I think it's fair to say that those views reflect also those of
the leadership of France, with whom I was speaking earlier, and
of Mrs Thatcher. We are at one in our perceptions in this matter,
and I don't believe that Mrs Thatcher is taking the view that is
appropriate to attempt to undo the negotiations that have
occurred. Having said that, she has a very deep sense of concern
about the future of the citizens of Hong Kong, and they have gone
to great lengths and difficulties to negotiate with the
authorities in China to get the basis of the post-1997
transition, and it is, I think I've put it correctly, to say that
r KUM P, V
PPK UM 9 I
-9M
( PM: cant) it's Mrs Thatcher's hope that the sort of processes to
which I've been referring for the immediate future will turn out
in a way to which they will be able to adhere to the arrangements
that they have already made with the Government of China.
JOUR~ NALIST: Do you anticipate a large influx of people and money
from Hong kong as the deadline for return approaches?
P14: Well how many people will come from Hong Kong will depond on
our decision, and we of course can approach this issue generally
with the very cleanest of hands and the very beat of records,
because in regard to that region, the fact is that we have taken
more refugees from Indochina per capita than any other country in
the world, including the United States. We've taken 118 000
refugees from Indochina since 1975, so Australia is a country
with a record of compassion and concern for the people of this
* ion. May I interpolate to say that of course in regard to the
nflux of people into Hong Kong from Kampuchea, that we're faced
now with a quite different situation. They are no longer
essentially political refugees, they are economic refugees, and
let me make it clear that as far as we're concerned, we said so
at the international conference on Indochina Refugees in Geneva
earlier this month, that where you're dealing with economic
refugees, as is overwhelmingly the characteristics of the people
going from Vietnam into Hong K( ong now, they are economic refugees
and there is no corresponding obligation on the rest of the world
to accept them as there is in the case of political refugees. Now
in regard, therefore, to that component of people in Hong Kong
which represent this influx from Vietnam, in regard to the people
of Hong Kong itself, where there is a legitimate case for
considering their trying to come to our country they will be
sympathetically considered within our overall immigration
program, which has a significant component for refugees and
humanitarian considerations. As far as business people from Hong
~ ng are concerned, one of the components of out immigration
Wogramme is a Bus iness Migration Programme, and under that
programme we've already had a very significant influx of people
from Hong Kong. So, those components of our programme, the
Business migration Programme and the refugee component, will be
utilised to allow to come into Australia significant numbers from
that area.
JOURNALIST: Switching gears again, what in your view of the
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's decision yesterday to declare
Mr Alan Bond unfit to hold a television station licence?
PM: Well it's an ambitious question. Ambitious in the sense that
the matter is obviously sub-i udice. what has happened is that the
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has, as you properly say, found
that Alan Bond is an unfit person to hold a licence. But what
they have now said is that they've referred the matter to Federal
Court f or a decision for decision in regard to penalty. it must
be obvious that in those circumstances of being sub-judice it's
quite improper for me to make any commnent.
M( U ; d. Iwb 191eoP .1 IJOURNALISTs
Do you see any improvement in the South African
situation, and do you favour continued economic sanctions against
South Africa?
Pt~ i The situation in South Africa is one which I think needs very
careful analysis at the moment, because there are going to be
lots of arguments and pressures both ways in the rest of the
world as to what should be done to increase or not to increase
pressure upon South Africa. And I would say to those wit~ hin this
country who are going to be considering this issue that they
should take very considerable account of some recent commnents
that have been made by influential figures in South Africa. For
those who in this country or anywhere else argue that pressures
upon South Africa have had no influence, they ignore the facts,
idit ' s about time they stopped ignoring the facts. In two
Itatements recently, firstly I refer to the statement on the
of May by Mr De Kierk, who is the Governor of the Reserve Bank of
South Africa, and his statement was very explicit. H~ e said that
there warn no hope of South Africa sustaining viable economic
growth, no hope of them sustaining viable economic growth in
South Africa, unless there was fundamental political reform in
that country. And this, as he said, was the result of the
financial pressures that have been applied to South Africa. And
on the 9th of May, De Plessis, the Finance minister, made exactly
the samne sort of considerations. Hie said that as a result of the
financial pressures on South Africa, that South Africa could not
sustain its existing standards, and there would have to be the
imposition of very significant austerity measures. So, if the
governor of the Reserve Bank and the Finance Minister of South
Africa are both saying, that an a result of what the world has
done, this is the impact upon them and that they can't survive
with their existing standards and expectations unlearn they reform
how muily it-jj fnr Aflvfifl oIRA to bet saying, " well, pressures
Sven't had any effect." Now the important thing therefore, I
alieve is to recognize that with the change of leadership there,
that there may be some hope. And now for a different approach.
Never at any stage have I or the Australian government taken a
view that we take any pleasure at all from sanctions an such.
And I imagine that those who are responsible
for the 1986 Anti-Apartheid Act here, and the Rangel Tax
Amendment here, and to that legislation, none of those people
would have been saying, we want to impose sanctions for the sake
of sanctions. All we've been about is using sanction. and
financial pressure as an instrument to get the regime of South
Africa to the negotiating table, because what we must realise if
we're talking about South Africa is one fundamental truth, that
we are running out of time, if you're going to be dealing in
terms of the blacks, if you're going to be dealing with those who
want Lo retain the white influence in the economic area. The
current leadership of the ANC, the current leadership of the
front-line states, are quite explicit, they have been in
conversation with me and with everyone else, they say, we don't
want to see the whites expelled, we don't want to gs white
capital, white expertise expelled, because they recognize that
the future prosperity of a democratic, racially discriminatoryfree
south Africa depends very very much upon keeping white
P'KUM
FROK 2. 1986 19806 P. 12
( PM Cent) capital, white expertise, there in that country. They
understand that, but they are running out of time with their own
younger generation, who are saying, why are you adopting this
attitude when we're getting no positive response. So I trust very
very much Indeed that what will be done by the rest of the world
is to keep up the pressure but to give this, the new leadership
that's emerging in South Africa, the opportunity of responding,
getting them to understand, getting them to understand that it is
only by getting to the negotiating table in the near future that
we are going to have the opportunity of a resolution of the
conflict in South Africa in a bloodless way. It will, an I've
said on many occasions, be resolved in one way or the other, but
the time, I believe, is running out, where it can be done in a
congenial and bloodless way. The pressure that the world,
including the United States, has put upon South Africa has, in
the words of these two people, the Governor of the Reserve Blank,
tpMinister for Finance, its had its impact. Time now to keep
tup, not to try and, as I've said before, to bring them to
their knees but to bring them to the table, and I hope that
together, both from within the Commnonwealth and with our friends
in the United States and elsewhere, that that's the result that
we can get.
JOURNALIST: Before asking my final question, I'd like to present
you with a Press Club Certificate of Appreciation, and also as a
memento of your trip to the United States, the book " A Day in the
Life of America".
PM: Thank you very very much indeed.
JOURNALIST; My final question is, when will Australian tennis
prospects improve?
PM: Well, I think I've, as you may have seen by now, I'm prepared
to be fairly definite and dogmatic about most issues, but on this
I can't be. But there's one very serious point that ought to
W ade about this, it seems always to have escaped those who
have tried profoundly to analyse movements in dominance in sport.
Where Australia is concerned they say, why aren't we dominating
in tennis? Why aren't we dominating swimmiing, as we used to in
the post-war period? Well they're not very clever or intelligent
in analysing this thing. We dominated in the post-war period in
these things, tennis and swimming, because the rest of the world
had gone through a bloody rough time during the war and before
that, and here we were, a country which, of course we lost many
of our young men, but our country hadn't suffered, and in that
post-war period there we were, beautiful climate, plenty of food,
everything in our favour, and the rest of the world recovering
from devastation, and with allot of the world, the East not even
knowing the rules of Lennis, let alone playing it. But as the
world recovered from the devastation of the second World War, we
more and more and more and more got onto a level playing field,
FROM r A I
-12-
( PM Cont) where others had the same advantages as we did. Now,
once that became the case, the capacity of a country of 16
million people to dominate was very very significantly reduced.
so we will continue to do well, but in a world where others,
fortunately, have all the opportunities and advantages which were
fairly exclusive or relatively exclusively ours, we will never
again get that sort of dominance, and that's as it-should be.
JOURNALIST: Thank you Prime Minister Hawke.
ENDS 0 -9.
Z. 170T 0 1769* 00