PRESS CONFERENCE HELD IN ADELAIDE, 66/ 223
AT NOON, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1966
WITH
THE PRIME MINISTER, RT. HON. HAROLD HOLT, M. P.
INTRODUCTION:
P. M. One thing I think I should clear up is the use the Labor Party,
including the Leader, is making of views allegedly expressed by the late
President Kennedy. They represent such a travesty and such a mis-statement
of his own position that I am not prepared to have this perpetrated
indefinitely. To deal first, though, with the cost of the Labor programme, I
must take you first back to the document which was put out by Mr. Calwell
on Sunday, October 30. Most of you will recall it quite clearly, but I
will give you just the opening references, which I think will establish the
grounds on which my criticism is to be made. He heads the document,
" How Labor Will Pay", and the opening heading is " Cost". " In my Policy
Speech on November 10, I will be announcing the full outline of Labor's
programme for the coming elections. It will contain proposals relating to
the Means Test, Social Services, Health, and other matters. Each item
[ presumably this includes ' other matters' 1 has been carefully costed.
The total cost of our programme in the first full year of office will be
0300m." That is the ground work on which we start.
I did earlier, in commenting on this document, point out that
however specious, it contained fallacies inherent in it. In the first
place it talked about natural growth and revenue as something which could
be relied upon to finance this sort of programme; it made no reference
whatever to natural growth and expenditure. The Treasurer has since
pointed out and it was my own experience as Treasurer that natural growth
and expenditure tended to outrun natural growth and revenue. If you are
going to rely upon natural growth and revenue, you cannot turn your back
on what expenditure increases are likely to be. Some of these are in-built.
There is the natural growth of our payments to the States. There is a
natural growth in our payments to roads as population grows; there are
increasing bills for social services. Population growth means more
hospital payments medicine and the like. You find that there is a
substantial growth based on existing policies. Unless you strike particularly
buoyant years of revenue, it tends to out-strip the revenue, and
this has been reflected in the increasing borrowings we have made up to
this year when with the Loan market less likely to provide the loan moneys
we needed, we have had to budget for a substantial deficit in the vicinity.
of 6270m. That deficit has been calculated after we have taken into
account the natural growth we could expect in the financial year 1966-67.
In the first place, we have a firm statement by Mr. Calwell before the
Policy Speech is introduced that it will contain various proposals. Each
has been carefully costed, and the total cost will be 0300m. in the first
full year of office.
When you come to the Policy Speech, on page 3, under Social
Services, a number of figures are given as estimates of the costs in a
full year. There are one or two of these which I suggest should be
further examined against what I shall put to you, but the first of these
was to establish a universal scheme of national welfare. Without going
through all the detail of it, he puts a figure of 6j73m. on that, and no-one
can check that figure precisely, but for my current purposes I am accepting
the figure which he gives.
The second item referred to is to provide a medical entitlement
card for all persons of pensionable age, irrespective of income, and we
believe he has under-stated this one. Even if you were to assume that the
doctors and hospitals would give the same concessional rates to people
regardless of income, and that would be a bold assumption in the face of the
known views of the medical profession, the cost would be about more
than his estimate of 014m. In other words, the minimum figure we would put
0
* I.
,1
2. 66/ 224
on it would be 019m. I have the Minister of Health here, and he tells me
that the realistic view to put on this is to be taken against the known
background of the attitude of the medical profession. On the face of it,
why should the medical profession give a concessional rate of treatment to
a very wealthy man who just happens to have reached pensionable age.
If we were to put a bill on that one, in the light of the current attitude
of the profession, we would get a figure of 033m., and not $ 14m. or 419m.
whiLch we would regard as the minimum. Mr. Calwell proposed to provide
half pensions for all persons over 70, and gives a figure of 072m. for that.
Liberalised deductions of permissible incomes by deducting only
one dollar on every two dollars earned above the permissible income for
full pension entitlement. He puts an estimated cost of $~ 20m. on this.
Social Services feel this cannot be checked precisely until the experience
of it is gained, but a very much higher figure is regarded as a more
realistic one. Increased payments for child endowment for the second and subsequent
children $ 52m., and we don't challenge that.
Double existing maternity allowances. He gives a figure of 07m.
which is accepted.
0Double funeral benefits. He has erred in the wrong direction
here. One wonders how it could have been arrived at. The cost he puts
at ve2Im.. The total cost last year was kl. 49m.
Increased grants under the Aged Persons Homes Act. Three
dollars for each dollar raised. He estimated the cost at 4152m. Again an
easy calculation could be made there, and it is difficult to see why he
should have been in error by under-estimating this one by ; 2j or 6~ 3m.
Estimated expenditure for 1966-67 for Aged Persons Homes is 9m on a two
for one basis. But it is not in the social services area that the failure to
calculate appears, because there he has set out each of the items, and
while anyone can query some of them as I have just done, it is significant
that he omits any costing figure against the other items except a few of
those that have been specified, e. g. he talks about establishing a joint
parliamentary committee to review repatriation and its administration,
particularly now that the value of repatriation benefits has in each
inst~ ance fallen to a very low level. " We will enable all World War I
returned men to be treated under repatriation whether their disabilities
were war caused or not. " 1 We have moved for this in Parliament several
times, and Government members have voted against it. " We will give the
benefit of the doubt to Servicemen when medical opinion differs as to the
origin of the disability. Wie will also grant medical benefits to the
wives of TPI pensioners."' Again, no reference to the cost.
The best stab the Treasurer has been able to make on that is
to 010m. When we come to education, there are two items to which he makes
specific reference. 920m. a year to State education departments, and a
payment of qp22m. a year to lay teachers in non-Government schools.
He talks of the adoption of the Martin committee's proposals for Commonwealth
assistance to teacher training, but does not itemise cost.
If the whole cost were to be met by the Commonwealth, this would require
a maxi~ mum amount of $~ 56m. If the States were willing to share the cost,
this figure would be reduced to $ 27m.
Free hospital services as part of its national health scheme.
Labor will, in the next three years, re-establish free hospital services.
He gives no figure, but the firm estimate on this is 0~ 90m.
He mentioned one particular tax matter. Country industry and
consumers to be free from the sales tax levied on the amount by which the
cost of goods and products is increased by certain charges. 015m. there.
3 66/ 225
War Service Homes allocation to be restored to 075m. There is
another 17m. He also speaks of the loan limit being raised to 010,000,
and the rationing scheme to be ended. Either he means this to be done
inside the Y75m. in which case there would be fewer people who could
benefit or else this is additional to the 075.
Industrial matters. Equal pay. In the Commo nwealth Public
Service he talks about equal pay. If female employees' pay was brought
up to the males' in the same employment category, the estimated cost would
be 05m a year. If it means eliminating the difference between male and
female basic wage, with some necessary adjustment to marginal rates,
the estimated cost to the Commonwealth Public Service would be about 014m.
in a year. Large additions to the National wages bill could be expected
to follow because once the Government gives-this kind of lead, the tribunal
is not slow to apply this to other categories.
If four weeks' annual leave were given to the Public Service,
it would not be long before industry would be pressing for a change also.
Employment of additional workers to provide replacements would be necessary.
The cost would be about $ 13m.
Another big item he hasn't mentioned except as a policy intention
is that all the Federal Tax paid by road users is to be spent on roads.
There is 6~ 75m. a year extra in that.
One per cent of national income to be devoted to foreign aid.
Taking the difference between what we now spend and a full one percent,
there is an extra
On the items which the Treasury felt it could estimate with a
reasonable degree of certainty, they got a total of between % 00~ m and
6675m. a year, but this was exclusive of the following items which are
mentioned to you.
The policy on defence which Mr. Calwell mentions both in relation
to equipment made in Australia in comparatively small volume which would
certainly be much more costly than getting it from countries that are making
it in much greater amounts, the reliance on our own resources very largely
both of manpower and equipment. No-one can seriously imagine that these
policies would keep our treaty arrangements intact, nor could we place
anything like the same reliance upon them in the future. I have not
known him at any stage to say the defence vote should be reduced. On the
contr-ary, he rather suggests it should be increased. There is no provision
in his statement for any estimate of increased cost.
Rural matters. When that $ 600-946? 5m calculation was made, the
rural items had not been announced, and there are further costs involved
there. War on poverty has been declared, but there has been no figure
indicated as to what this will cost, not even in a general sense.
This has been put in as a nil factor, just as in the case of clhld endowment
payments to be capitalised for home purchase. If any number of people
were to take advantage of this, it becomes immediately a budgetary burden.
This leaves open the question as to whether this was the way child endowment
was to be employed. The whole basis was to make that payment direct
to the mother in aid of the maintenance of the child in her care. Whether
a lump sum payment could be used for the purchase of a house is a matter
which. I would argue.
Education. Items listed for which he suggests no cost.
Taxation. To ensure taxation is levied and deductions are
allowed in a more equitable manner. Some of the salient items of taxation
increase or relief are: a capital gains tax, from which they would hope
to secure some revenue, although I notice Mr. Calwell last night said
this would not apply to the little people. Just who the little people
are when a capital gain is involved, remains to be clearly defined.
S
i I(-
recalled66/ 226
It will be realdby any Canberra regulars that one item which
is always pressed by the Labor Party when taxation legislation is under
discussion is the relief or deduct'ion for taxation purposes of the payment
of fares. That was not specifically mentioned, but it has been every
time they mentioned tax legislation over recent years. There would be a
cost of 653m. involved if that were adopted.
Economic development. " The Labor Government will under-write
provision of adequate capital and will improve existing administration."
There must be a cost involved there.
Housing. Adequate grants to the States to build homes at the
lowest possible interest rate. Subsidies for tenants or purchasers.
The homes finance division of the Commonwealth Bank to provide finance to
a limit of รต 10,000. The raising of these limits, both in the case of War
Service Homes and housing finance under the Homes Finance Division,
proposed to be set up, would inevitably have an effect on all other
government schemes where a limit applies. It applies to housing in
Canberra and in the Northern Territory and other places, and there would
be a general reaction from this which would add considerably to the cost.
These are not items, although they are set out in the Policy Speech, and
iere taken into account in the Treasury calculation. These were regarded
as being incapable of precise costing, but if given effect to would
undoubtedly involve very heavy additional costs.
I repeat that the original document which set out to say that
the total cost of the programme each item carefully costed and
covering Means Test, Social Services, Health, and other matters would
be 0300m. was quite misleading and indeed one might use a stronger word
than that to describe it.
Most of you will have seen the publication " Eight Famous
People Challenge you to Think". You will also have noted the reference
in Mr. Citlwell's Policy Speech to the view of the late President Kennedy
on Vietnram. " Labor views on Vietnam are supported by opinions expressed
by the late President Kennedy and by other distinguished Americans like
his two brothers, Senators Robert and Edward Kennedy and by Senators Fullbright
and Mansfield and 24 other outstanding Senators."
"~ The President and his two brothers voted against the appropriation
for policies to be carried out in Vietnam.' As I understand the
position, they supported the present President on that issue as their
brother in his term supported the general policy of President Eisenhower.
Source references are a letter that the late President Kennedy despatched
dated March 3 1963 to a Mrs. Prendergras who had lost a brother in Vietnam.
" Eight Famous People Challenge you to Think" contains a picture
of the late President and a quote attributed to him was not sympathetic
to the policies which were being followed in Vietnam. ' There was no
source reference and no date mentioned.
In the letter mentioned above, President Kennedy said " Americans
are in Vietnam because we have determined that this country must not fall
under Communist domination. Shortly after the division in Vietnam eight
years ago, it became evident that they could not successfully defend themselves
without extensive assistance from other nationa of the free world.
A book by Sorensen on the late President Kennedy is accepted
without challenge as an authoritative work, conveying the late President's
views. On 2.8.61 President Kennedy said: The United States is determined
that the Republic of Vietnam shall not be lost to the Communists.
President Johnson has said " We have learned that retreat does
not bring safety, and weakness does not bring peace."
66/ 22 7
QESTION: P. M.
QUESTION: P. M.
QUESTION: P.
qUSTION: P. M.
QUESTION: P. M.
QUESTION: P. M.
QUESTION: P. M. Will you be making any statement on the South Australian
application for a loan to build a natural gas pipeline from
Gidgealpa to Adelaide?
I am seeing the Premier this afternoon, and cannot say
anything before then.
You said money could not be given before the next government
came in.
I said constitutional practice was that after Parliament had
been dissolved, governments did not take substantial decisions
on new matters of policy until the electiois had been determined
and the in-going government could look at it. I also
said this would be among the first business to be looked at.
It was not practical to deal with the matter just before the
dissolution of the parliament, and also the attitude of the
other States is involved.
Would you comment on the formation of the Basic Industries
Group? I read about it in the daily press. There has been no
mention made of it to me. I have tried to make my own
attitude to our coalition government abundantly clear by
public statement. Last week in Goulburn, the only electorate
so far where I have spoken where there have been both Liberal
and Country Party candidates seeking that seat which is not
held by either at the present time both candidates were on
the platform with me, and I said to the meeting that it was my
wish that the best man should win.
Does the Liberal Party accept the help that this group is
offering?
So far as the Liberal Party is concerned, our policies and
attitude are expressed in statements by our official candidates,
by the public advertisements, radio and telecasts, and under
the authority either of a named member of the Parliamentary
Party or the candidate or a specified official of the Party.
Do you regard this new bid by this group as aiding the
Liberal Party?
When there is not a clear alternative government offering in
the eyes of a great many people.
What consideration has the Commonwealth Government given to
Adelaide's request for a Festival Hall?
This is not just a Festival which services Adelaide, but
has a standing throughout the Commonwealth. I would look
on this matter not unhelpfully.
The Catholic Bishops recently sent you a letter pointing out
the needs of the Catholic Education System. Would you comment?
I have replied to that letter, pointing out what this government
and the previous one had done in this field.
We have done a great deal.
00
66/ 228
QESTION:
P. M.
QUESTION: P. M.
0 Has the Commonwealth any interest in determining the State
boundaries regarding natural gas, and has any State Premier
asked you to intervene in this?
This falls within the administration of the Minister for
National Development. I recall no particular request.
I did receive a visit from representatives of the oil and
gas interests who fe~ t that the contemplated legislation
was too restrictive and was unreasonable in their eyes.
There have been meetings between the appropriate State
Ministers and the Commonwealth Minister, and he feels good
progress has been made from these.
The Australian High Commissioner in England has criticised
the migration authorities there. Have you any comment?
The High Commissioner is much closer to the problem, and he
is a man who knows his own mind and is accustomed to speak in
a very responsible way. I take his comments as being
valuable comments from the Australian point of view.
I do not involve myself in action at this stage.
0 .6