PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, you can ask Question No. 1 now. The Prime Minister is here.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Prime Minister whether there were any compelling reasons that is taking him to Australia in April 1986 and what he proposes to discuss with the Prime Minister of Australia.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Member asked if there are any compelling reasons taking me to Australia in April. The answer is no. The Member asked what I propose to discuss with the Australian Prime Minister. The answer is, a few matters of Singapore-Australian interest.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Prime Minister say how he proposes to reconcile his trip, if there are no pressing reasons, with the statement of the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement that the aim of the Government is to reduce significantly overseas travel?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know if the Member is suggesting that I should not travel to Australia?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is not the Prime Minister aware that it cannot be my suggestion? Of course, he can travel to Australia. Nobody stops him from going anywhere he pleases. My question is whether the travel will be paid out of public funds? I presume it is. And how does he reconcile his proposed trip, when there are no compelling reasons, with the declared aim of the Government to cut down on overseas travel?

The Prime Minister: From memory, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should imagine there would be about 3,000 government trips a year on official business. I would like to believe that my visit to Australia in April is not the least important of all the travels.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Prime Minister enlighten this House a little bit more about what is taking him to Australia? What are the matters that he proposes to discuss with the Australian Prime Minister? Secondly, is he going to take a huge entourage with him - Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries? And how much will this cost the taxpayers in the end?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should have tabled such a Question, and I would have answered him. He asked me if there were any compelling reasons, and I truthfully told him no. Now, he wants to know more. There were a series of very detailed questions. Could I have them again?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the second part of my question asks quite clearly and specifically what he proposes to discuss with the Prime Minister of Australia? My question is: will he enlighten us a little bit about what are these matters that he proposes to discuss with the Prime Minister of Australia? Is he also aware that the Australian Foreign Ministry in a statement said that there were no major issues between Singapore and Australia?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not follow the statement of the Australian Foreign Ministry as closely as the Member for Anson. I am sure he will delight the Australian PR Officer at the High Commission here, no end. He ought to be commended for having attracted the attention of the Member for Anson.

I am visiting Australia because in October, in the Bahamas, the Prime Minister of Australia personally invited me to visit him. My last official visit to Australia was in October 1976. The Prime Minister of Australia had been to Singapore in 1984. Although there were no urgent compelling reasons, I felt that the relationship should be nurtured.

The questions of mutual interest happily do not include contentious issues. When relationships are carefully nurtured, there are usually no contentious issues that get out of hand. I think it will be discourteous of me to tell the House the specific points that I will make when I meet the Prime Minister of Australia. But it would not be a breach of courtesy if I were to say that I want to thank him, first, for amending his system of special tariff preferences in such a way that he did not graduate Singapore, as New Zealand did. That was extremely helpful and it showed understanding of our need of at least another decade for a developing country status. Our relationship with them amount to some $3.1 billion in trade last year. It is not insignificant, not our largest, and not within the first five. The Australian System of Tariff Preferences (ASTP) is of value to us. There are some problems which we have about anti-dumping measures. Six export items, including dyes, steel tubing, have been severely cut down by complaints made that exporters were dumping into Australia. In many of these items, we exported 0.5-0.6% of Australian imports. Nevertheless, by their anti-dumping rules which allow cumulative combinations of all exports, we have been struck, even whilst investigations are going on. So from the moment an anti-dumping complaint is made, we are shut out, although we export no more than half a per cent of their imports.

There are non-compelling reasons like that which, if not attended to in time, and nurtured and discussed in a relaxed and non-contentious atmosphere, do grow and become contentious.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that our relations with Australia are in need of nurturing? To come to my other questions ---

The Prime Minister: Don't you want an answer to that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I do, Mr Prime Minister. Just hold your reins for a little while. I have got two other questions. May I have an answer to my two other questions? What is the number of the entourage that will be accompanying him and what would be the projected cost? Or is the Prime Minister going to tell us that all this has not been worked out yet? Does he not know who are going with him?

The Prime Minister: Sir, it will be a very foolish Prime Minister who says that the best of relationships need no nurturing.

My entourage and the cost - I am speaking from memory - if the Member wants details, he will get them. There are two segments in my travel. One to New Zealand and Fiji, the second to Australia. For New Zealand and Fiji, it is Encik Yatiman Yusof, Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs), and Mr Tang Guan Seng, Parliamentary Secretary (Education). For Australia, it is the Minister of State for Trade and Encik Zulkifli, the Political Secretary. I hope travel with me does help to broaden their experience. There are the protocol receptions, guards of honour, formal dinners. There is also the quiet interchange that takes place, both in conference and off conference. And I would like to believe that something does flake off.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Prime Minister now tell us about the entourage that is going to Australia? He has told us about New Zealand and Fiji, the first segment. Finally, what is the projected cost to the taxpayer of this sweep over the Southern hemisphere?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have given him the two parties. For New Zealand and Fiji, Encik Yatiman and Mr Tang Guan Seng. For Australia, Dr Lee Boon Yang and Encik Zulkifli. The entourage consists of two each.

The cost will be the cost of SIA fares to and fro, across the Tasman from Auckland to Fiji and from Fiji, by Air Fiji, to Brisbane. I will have to work that out. I am sure the Member will be interested to know that we have to make sure that we get the full discount which friendly airlines will give us.

The cost of actual stay in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji is usually borne by the host government. It is government hospitality, which I hope we will not be abusing by bringing such an entourage!

Mr Jeyaretnam: On this Question No. 2, Sir, in view of your observations this morning and before anybody on the Government Bench gets very excited, may I say that I have acted in the past for soldiers who have been injured. I have also acted for victims of traffic accident cases where monies have been sent to the Public Trustee. But may I say this: that there is no personal pecuniary interest whatsoever in these Questions or in the Questions that I raised yesterday, and that is why I did not say anything. I cannot see any personal pecuniary interest in the Questions.