TELEVISION INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE
PRIME MINISTER, MR. JOHN GORTON, FOR
CHANNEL 10 NETWORK
Recorded on 24 September for screening on 5 October 1969
Interviewer: Michael Peterson
Q. Prime Minister, what do you see as being the issues which
will win and lose votes on October
PM. I don't know what will win and lose votes but I think the
issues that are important are the questions of the different approaches
to defence by the Labor Party and ourselves defence and foreign affairs,
the responsibility of the suggestions I made to the Australian people-as
to how their general levels of living can be increased and their judgment
as to whether wild irresponsible promises are made or sensible promises
are made.
Q. You speak of foreign affairs, do you see it as being as
important as it was in 1966 Vietnam?
PM. I don't think there will be the same concentration on the
question of Vietnam as there was in 1966. I think the reasons why we
went there were good and the reasons why we are there are good. This
is not something that I would say encompassed the whole of the field of
defence. The real differences as I see them are, for example, that the
Opposition would reduce the size of our army by one-third because they
would abolish National Service training. They would pull out the Navy,
Air Force and Army from our association with Malaya and Singapore.
They would, I think, weaken the ANZUS alliance by arguing in a
pettifogging way about the establishment of bases in Australia for our
joint defence. Matters of this kind, I think, are more important.
Q. You are also completely on the opposite side of the fence
to them with nuclear non-proliferation, aren't you?
PM. Completely. We believe that we should not sign this
treaty until we are assured that other countries have also all signed,
and also that we have proper protection for Australia, something we
can really rely on. I am shorthanding because there are other matters
as to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, inspection of our defence sites
and things of that kind. They would rush in to sign it straight away, and
hope for the best for the future. That I think is the difference.
Q. Still on defence the DLP bases a great deal of thinking
on defence. Are you concerned in any way that the DLP might withdraw
preferences? / 2
-2
PM. I would be disturbed. It would be a pity from our point
of view if the DLP withdrew their preferences. But we can't tailor our
policies to what any other party wants. I don't quite know how the DLP
could with honour and principle support a party that would immediately
withdraw all troops from Vietnam, that would immediately sign the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, that would immediately withdraw all forces
from Malaya, that would immediately abolish National Service training.
It seems to me that these fly directly in the face of what they would
expect to happen. But this is for them to decide.
Q. But would you expect, though, that their preferences
would all go your way again because of these reasons, because they
might not like your foreign policy but they liked the ALP's a lot less?
PM. I cannot see how it is possible for them not to dislike
the ALP's defence and foreign policies far more than they dislike ours.
Now it is for them to decide what they will do. One of the items in
this field which has never really been worked out is that we have said
that we think we must defend Australia, we must show that we are
prepared to take action ourselves to bring up our own defence forces,
to build them up if we are to expect support from the United States or
the United Kingdom for that matter. There has never been an indication
from the Labor side of the House what their approach to defence would
be, except that they would abolish National Service training and except
that they would do these other things I have mentioned. Whether they
would devote resources to it or not, I don't know and nobody else in
Australia does.
Q. Still on the DLP and how they may or may not support
you on certain things. If, for instance, and I have posed this to
Senator Gair already, they withdrew their preferences and directed
them to the ALP, would this almost put you out of office?
PM. I don't think so, no. But it would make a difference to
I can't tell you the number of seats 6 or 8 seats or something of
that kind.
Q. Do you see the possibility it might be a foolish question
to ask of losing any seats in the House of Representatives this year?
In other words, can you repeat 1966?
PM. Well, I . let me put it this way. It would be a
very great achievement to repeat 1966 because the 1966 vote was the
highest vote that the non-Labor parties have ever received. And since
that time at least four of our seats have been adversely affected by
redistribution. So if we did repeat 1966, we would be doing better
than we did in 1966 and that means we would be doing better than the
all-time record. And I hope we do: / 3
3-
Q. There are those political commentators who say if you
personally don't repeat 1966, then you have failed to a certain extent.
How do you view those comments?
PM. I would think that was rather absurd. If commentators
are saying that, what they are saying is if somebody doesn't achieve
better than an all-time record, then they have
Q. Can we perhaps go back in time to the time when you
became Prime Minister. The public image that went out at that stage
was of the ex-fighter pilot, one of the boys, etc. The image these
days my image of you is that you are looking considerably more
tired than you were at that time. Are you in fact Is it taking toll of
you physically?
PM. I don't think it's taking toll of me physically oh, I
suppose I wouldn't know. It might be to some extent because I
have travelled all round Australia almost constantly and spoken to
people I don't know how many meetings we have had this year but
something like 80, speaking to people all over the place. But after all
this is a fight and even when one was flying aeroplanes as a fighter
pilot, one occasionally got tired but one kept on fighting and one did it
just as well as ever, and I propose to do it just as well as ever.
Q. Coming to October 25, we've talked a considerable
amount about defence, etc. Is this, I take it, the issue the defence
and foreign policy that you would like to go to the electors on?
PM. This is one of the issues which I think will be of most
importance in the elections. I hope it will be because I think it is of
most importance to Australia. But there are many others as well
questions of development, questions of social welfare and questions of
trying to build a society that lives with the greatest amount of national
unity that is possible.
Q. Do you see this year I was just thinking of State Aid
and it led me to think of the Independents and people standing on the
question of State Aid do you see it as being a year when. maybe an
Independent or two could be returned to Parliament?
PM. I don't believe there will be Independents returned to
Parliament. No. There will be quite a lot of Independents standing
anti-State Aid people and some group called an Australia Party or
something like that. I don't quite know where that springs from but
you could regard them almost as Independents. There are a number
of others but I would doubt very much whether any of them would in
fact get elected. / 4
-4
Q. On the question of State Aidi do you see any point in
anyone standing on an anti-State Aid ticket, with the thing being a
matter of fact with almost all major parties?
PM. Yes, I see some point in it from their approach. You
see, we as a Government are providing aid to independent schools which
I think is going to be of great assistance not to the schools themselves
but to the individual pupils who are in those schools, and we are
providing it on a different basis from that which is suggested by the
Opposition. We are providing much more than the Opposition.
Q. Would you care to explain the basis for it?
PM. Yes, well. May I go back a little when I explain?
Previously, when we provided capital grants for science blocks, we
divided that money up so that 25 per cent of it went to independent
schools and 75 per cent of it went to State schools, because that was
the ratio of enrolment. And we did the same thing in libraries when
we provided capital grants. Then we looked at the whole field generally
and it became quite clear that the vast amount of public money, the vast
majority of public money that was going to education was going into the
state school system, and that if people were going to go to independent
schools, and they are, then it was essential for Australia that they
should be well taught and that they should have the facilities for education
which they required. So we said, right, we will help the state school
system by providing teacher training, by increasing the amounts we
are providing for teacher training and in other ways. But we will give
a grant per capita to the pupils at independent schools, and not divide
it up. To put the thing in a nutshell, the Opposition is prepared to give
far less assistance to independent schools than we are prepared to give
and at greater cost to the community. So if an anti-State Aid candidate
got a signif icant vote then they could regard that as a vote against the
provision of assistance to independent schools.
Q. Can you also draw the line of distinction for us between
your policy and that of the ALP on health?
PM. Yes, we hope to retain a voluntary health scheme and to
improve the benefits which come from that voluntary health scheme.
Now, at the moment the hospital benefits are really no problem. It's
the medical benefits which need to be improved. The Opposition
proposes to introduce a compulsory scheme and this scheme involves a
levy of I-L per cent, not on the taxation which you pay but on the taxable
income you have, which would work out at about an 8 per cent increase
in your income tax. For that, the Opposition would give you minimum
coverage. And again, to use figures to try and put it in a nutshell, a
single man now, once he earned any more than $ 52 a week, would be
paying more than he is at present for a minimum coverage. But also,
the Opposition scheme means there would be no tax deduction, and
taking that into consideration, the result is that a single man who earns
more than $ 39 a week would be paying much more under the Opposition
scheme than he is under ours. A married man earning more than $ 63
a week would be paying more for a compulsory scheme giving minimum
assurance than the voluntary scheme we now have. Now we believe the
voluntary scheme can be improved and we don't think it necessary to
put this great impost upon the people which the Opposition proposes to
put on them.
Q. In what areas do you figure the current system can be
improved?
PM. In the areas of paying doctors' bills and particularly
specialist bills and bills for complicated operations.
Q. Still on money matters, it was said after the Budget that
It had inflationary tendencies. This was said by many people including
the Opposition. Can we look forward to any surprises, anything new in
your policy speech to add or subtract from what was drawn up in the
Budget?
PM. Well, I don't think it had any inflationary tendencies
myself because after all it did draw off about $ 500 million as a surplus
internally in Australia. It is fascinating that the Opposition should say
that it has got inflationary tendencies because as far as I can gather
they propose to make available an untold number of additional millions
which can only have great inflationary effect unless, of course, they
greatly increase taxes.
Q. We have talked about defence. We are now on domestic
things. Would you like to see I'm sorry. You have already said
you would like to talk about defence. Would you figure that the ALP
would like to fight this election on domestic issues?
PM. Oh, yes, I think so.
Q. Why is this? For the Australian electorate?
PM. They would like to fight it on domestic issues because
they have such a bad defence policy.
Q. In addition, do you feel that the Australian electors
understand domestic issues more readily than they do foreign policy? / 6
the Opposition scheme means there would be no tax deduction, and
taking that into consideration, the result is that a single man who earns
more than $ 39 a week would be paying much more under the Opposition
scheme than he is under ours. A married man earning more than $ 63
a week would be paying more for a compulsory scheme giving minimum
assurance than the voluntary scheme we now have. Now we believe the
voluntary scheme can be improved and we don't think it necessary to
put this great impost upon the people which the Opposition proposes to
put on them.
Q. In what areas do you figure the current system can be
improved?
PM. In the areas of paying doctors' bills and particularly
specialist bills and bills for complicated operations.
Q. Still on money matters, it was said after the Budget that
it had inflationary tendencies. This was said by many people including
the Opposition. Can we look forward to any surprises, anything new in
your policy speech to add or subtract from what was drawn up in the
Budget?
PM. Well, I don't think it had any inflationary tendencies
myself because after all it did draw off about $ 500 million as a surplus
internally in Australia. It is fascinating that the Opposition should say
that it has got inflationary tendencies because as far as I can gather
they propose to make available an untold number of additional millions
which can only have great inflationary effect unless, of course, they
greatly increase taxes.
Q. We have talked about defence. We are now on domestic
things. Would you like to I'm sorry. You have already said
you would like to talk about defence. Would you figure that the ALP
would like to fight this election on domestic issues?
PM. Oh, yes, I think so.
Q. Why is this? For the Australian electorate?
PM. They would like to fight it on domestic issues because
they have such a bad defence policy.
Q. In addition, do you feel that the Australian electors
understand domestic issues more readily than they do foreign policy? / 6
6-
PM. No, I don't. I think the Australian people have an
instinctive feeling and knowledge that we are becoming more&= and more
isolated in the world and therefore we need to build up our own defence
forces, not necessarily to fight some other large country but as an
indication that we are interested in our own defence and that we are
doing something about it and that we are deserving of our Allies to come
to our assistance. I believe they have this instinctive feeling. Labor
policy is to break down our own defences.
The F -ill comes under defence, and in the last couple
of weeks you have made the announcement that we will buy the F -ill
subject to conditions. I don't see that as being anything new if it is
still subject to conditions. Can you perhaps explain that for me?
PM. Yes, because there were a number of factors concerning
the F-Ill1 which were not entirely resolved until the last six or eight
months or so, or even less than that. That is whether the range was
what we wanted or whether the bomb load was what we wanted. Above
all, whether the United States was going to have sufficient aircraft of
this kind flying around for the next period of time so that we could get
our spare parts whenever we wanted them. This was a very significant
factor. The one remaining significant worry, too, was the wing box.
Now, we needed a service life for this aircraft which would carry it
through into the 1980' s. If a wing box wouldn't do that, then some way
had to be found by which either new wing boxes were fitted or new wing
boxes were developed. Now this has been found and there still remains
the testing of these things, but at least we have reached a stage where
we know that when a wing box becomes unserviceable it will be replaced
at no cost to us.
Q. If, to quote an hypothesis, another F-ill crashed between
now and the elections, or one or two, is it delicately enough poised to
do harm to the Liberal Government?
PM. You are asking me to make a political judgment on what
people would think...., but it certainly ought not to be, because the
accident record of this aircraft Is not bad. People think it is but it has
got a better accident record than the Phantom, for example, given the
number of hours it has flown, or the Super Sabre or any other of the
F-100 series aircraft. It is not a dangerous aircraft at all.
Q. You would agree, I assume, that it has had tremendous
publicity and must be something well in the forefront of Australians'
minds? / 7
& 7
PM. Every time it has had an accident, there has been
tremendous publicity I agree entirely publicity which has never
been directed to any other aircraft as far as I know. I think it would
be well in Australians' minds, but what they have to decide is whether
they think the Australian Air Force ought to have a strike bomber,
whether they think that strike bomber ought to be the best available,
and if they do think that, then they must decide that we should buy the
F-111 because it is the best available strike bomber in the world today.
Q. Prime Minister, briefly, if you wouldn't mind summing
up for us why Australians should vote Liberal on October
PM. I think during the last twenty years under Liberal
Governments, Australia has progressed at a pace at which it has never
progressed before. I think we have shown that we are responsible,
that we are not willing to make wild promises which can't be carried
out, except at the expense of the people themselves. I think that if
you look at Australia today, you will see that there has never been such
a state of full employment, never been such a state of prosperity, never
been such a state of opportunity, and I think it would be difficult for the
Australian people to risk this by going into the wild schemes which are
put forward by the Opposition. Further, I think that the defence of
Australia rests better in our hands than in the hands of the Opposition
and I believe the arguments put forward on both sides show this clearly.
I also feel that sections of the Labor Party not the Labor Party as a
whole are influenced in their attitudes by Communist-dominated
unions affiliated with them and this is completely absent from the
Liberal Party itself. On the record, on the existing situation, on the
programmes put forward for the future, I think the Australian people
should vote Liberal. Prime Minister, thank you.