EMBARGO: 9.30 P. M. ON SUNDAY 19 OCTOBER 1969
" THIS WEEK"
TELEVISION INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE
PRIME MINISTER, MR. JOHN GORTON, ON
CHANNEL 7, MELBOURNE
Recorded on 16 October for release on 19 October
Interviewers: John Boland and John Fitzgerald
Q. Prime Minister, what is your reaction to the latest
Gallup Poll figures favouring Labor?
PM. Well, one is always much happier when the Gallup
Polls are running in one's favour than when they are running against
one, and at the momen?, the Gallup Polls are running against one.
They are usually accurate within two or three per cent, and therefore
one is much happier. We can't detect it in the electorates, but
nevertheless, it is there, and it would be silly to pretend one was
happy about the way they are running.
Q. Did you expect it to be as big as it has been in the last
I think something like 7 per cent....
PM. No, I don't I can't imagine actually what is
the basis of the poll. I didn't expect it. The people in the electorates
don't seem to sense it but there it as a poll, and it would be much
nicer if it were going the other way. I didn't believe them when they
went our way completely, bur, 2ill, it is much pleasanter when they
do. The major thing is to D f what h: ppens on the
Q. Prime M?'. lster. one gets the impression, reading the
reaction, particularly news-aper reaction that the Prime Minister is
almost on the floor and everybody is standing around waiting for him
to get up again after the 3allup Poll. Now, are you on the floor?
PM. Well, I don't think so. We have had a couple of good
meetings in Adelaide and Hobart.....
Q. You would always d-aw as Prime Minister, though,
wouldn't you? You would always draw the crowd?
PM. Not necessarily the kind when I say a good meeting,
I don't mean a large meeting. I mean a meeting at which people
sought to put one on the floor, and instead, I think, were put on the
floor themselves; the kind of Labor Party supporters who came along
to try and shout you down, to try and prevent our arguments being
heard. This is what I mean..... / 2
r*
Q. What type of meeting do you prefer? Do you prefer
one where you have a number of interjectors?
PM. On the whole, yes, I do. I think it is much nicer to
have something to fight against than a whole hall full of people who
either agree with you or don't say anything at all. I don't mean the
sort of organised stamping and shouting and chanting that goes
although I don't mind that in the very least. It is an indication of
the approach of the Opposition. But I do mean that there needs to be
a liveliness in a meeting, I think.
Q. You raised this point. Were you disappointed with
the " yes" type of crowd which listened to your policy speech on
television? What did you think of your policy speech on television?
It has been criticised.
PM, I thought it was all right myself and there have been
good reports about it. The only reason we had anybody in the studio
at the time was because I like to talk to people. I like to have some
people in front of me to talk to, to look at, to move one's eyes round
about. I thought I made that quite clear at the outset of the policy
speech. This was a studio speech. There were a few people there.
I wanted them there because I like some human contacts to talk to
rather than just a television camera which is pretty inhuman when
you look at it.
Q. Now, Sir, I wonder if we can get down to the crux of
your policy. I think you have made and foreign affairs the
two keys in your whole policy,
PM. Yes.
Q. Now, a lot are saying that you have bowed to DLP
pressure here. What is your answer to this?
PM. I'd like people to look at the record to see whether....
to make their own minds up. This is what they are supposed to do in
an election. But if they do look at the record, they will see that the
first speech made by the Governor-General when we became a
Government said that we felt we needed to build up our defences,
that we would be spending more each year on our defences not
necessarily in terms of GNP but in terms of money. This is on
record. This is what we sa-id, I have made it clear on a number of
occasions in the House in reply to questions that we felt it was
essential to retain National Service Training. I made it clear that
we are not going to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until
we are sure it does not damage Australia's future security. I have
made it clear we believe it right and proper to continue with joint
defence arrangements and bases with the United States in Australia.
All these things are on the record for a long time back. / 3
* I.
J7 2 k I
i L
r I
i
i i
Q. You certainly have brought the DLP more around to
your way of thinking, since you have decided to make this they key
to your whole policy.
PM. I thought you were asking had something been done
especially as a result of DLP suggestions, and all these things are
on the record as having been done long ago. There are only two
things which could lend any colour to this at all. One is the beginning
of a base in Western Australia, a naval base in Western Australia.....
Q. Which is what they wanted. They wanted that, didn't
they?
PM. Of course they wanted that. And we had started
investigations into that two years ago. We put Maunsell Partners
on to report how the thing should be gradually built up, and it is going
to be gradually built up. We had the report from them. I had been
questioned in the House as to whether we had turned it down. I had
said quite definitely we hadn't, and it is the beginning of something
which I think Australian defence needs. It wasn't suddenly brought
out of a hat. For more than two years we have been considering this.
So there it is. You asked me a question. That is the answer I give you.
Q. Well, now what about your attitude to the Soviet
presence in the Indian Ocean? Now, the interpretation is that you
changed your tack here,
PM. I think the interpretation is wrong. If you look at
what Mr. Freeth said, there was never any suggestion in it for one
minute that we wanted to have or would have or would contemplate
any military alliance with the Soviet Union, or that we would want
Soviet Union bases there or that we would want the Soviet Union
military presence there. Never any suggestion of any kind.
Q. He said: " It is natural that a world power, such as
the Soviet, should seek to promote a presence and a national influence
in the Indian Ocean". Now how else could they do that?
PM. They could d by assisting in the economic
rehabilitation of those nations in building them up. They could
do it, for example, in the case of the Soviet Union by renegotiating
the debts which Indonesia, for example, owes them, and giving
Indonesia a chance to build up its own economy instead of having to
drain off to the Soviet Union for war material which they bought in
the days of Sukarno. This is one way they could go about it.
Q. And is this the sort of thing which we could have
practical dealings with them in? / 4
-4
Pm. We would be happy to see a situation in which steps
were taken, as long as there were not a lot of technicians involved
in going into the country or a lot of so-called experts or military
people going in, in which take that Indonesian example in
which the Indonesian economy was helped as a result of a renegotiation
of the foreign exchange which had to be paid by Indonesia.
Q. Well now, Mr. Prime Minister, let me lay it straight
on the line. Weren't we in fact, with the Freeth statement,' following
the American lead in announcing our willingness to get along with the
Russians? Didn't Secretary of State Rogers ask that we do this?
Pm. I don't remember Secretary of State Rogers asking me
to do this. When you say " get along with the Russians" this is quite
a different thing from wanting to have a Russian military presence in
our own area. Surely it is. Clearly we have things on which we must
talk to the Russians. We have things like fisheries agreements for
example, which are quite important. We have things to do with trade.
We have things to do with civil aviation. This is not to be interpreted
as wanting to have a military presence. I think that the Freeth
statement was misinterpreted.
Q. Isn't it State Department policy that the only way we
can get extricated out of Vietnam is to use the Russians to put
pressure on Hanoi, and the only way we can prevent insurrections
in South East Asia is to have a Russian presence in South East Asia?
Pm. I don't believe it is for a moment. I don't believe the
United States wants to have a Russian presence, if by that you mean
a military presence in South East Asia. If they did, I believe that a
Russian military presence there would be against our interests and
dangerous to us. Now, Prime Minister, linked dramatically with our
defence pol icy i s t he F-ill1. Now, ca n it be sa id beyond all doubt
we are finally committed to this aircraft?
Pm. As long as the latest tests on the new wing boxes or
modified wing boxes show that it will give the length of service which
we require it to have. The interesting thing on this F 1i and indeed
our whole defence policy is that we have a policy and our opponents
don't. Perhaps they do. Their policy is to alienate our allies, to cut
our Army and to deny our Air Force the strike aircraft which our Air
Force and our military advisers say they want to have. Now if our
Air Force says this is the best strike aircraft in the world, this is
what Australian defence needs, surely that should be taken some
notice of rather than vague suggestions that some other aircraft not
recommended should be obtained by Australia.
6-
PM. I don't believe there is. I don't believe there is anything
in it. The United Kingdom makes up its own mind as to where it should
be and it decided that for reasons of its own it should withdraw
Q. But did Mr. Healey put a $ 50 million fee on staying?
Pm. No, he didn't. Never, ever. It has never been
suggested.
Q. Finally, Prime Minister, on defence. Is Cockburn
Sound now a firm plank of your Government's policy?
Pm. Yes, it is. We are going to build it up gradually.
We are taking the first step of a number of phases recommended by
our consultants and that is the building of the causeway. And gradually
we will be building up the other requirements for naval facilities so
that there can be as our fleet grows in the years ahead as it will,
some elements of that fleet based in that area.
Well, now getting around to your personal image,
Prime Minister. Mr. St. John has campaigned against your
credibility and the personal conduct of your office. Now what do
you say in reply to him? Are you prepared to reply to him?
PM. I don't think so. Anybody can make any allegations
against anybody else. I understand the shipping line, for example,
was supposed to have been brought in without consultation with
Cabinet, and yet all Cabinet knows there were at least four meetings
on it. This theory of dictatorship and so on, I think, is refuted by
some suggestion that was made to me in Launceston the other day
that I was overruled in some other matters. I believe that there are
other reasons why Mr. St. John is conducting this campaign. But
something that decides the future of Australia and the conduct of a
government of Australia seems to me to be something that ought to
be decided on the policies put before the people and the good or ill
of those policies for the future of Australia.
Q. Except that you have campaigned on a personal image.
The Gorton image has become something in this country.
Pm. I haven't campaigned on a personal image. I have
campaigned on ideas. I have campaigned on achievements and the
achievements have been pretty considerable. I don't believe I
campaign on a personal image at all. It wasn't a personal image
that led us into the entry into overseas shipping. It wasn't a personal
image that led us into doing more for social welfare than has been
done by any other government in a comparable period of time.
These were things one wanted to get accomplished. I could go on
with the list but you haven't got the time for it.
7
Q. What about the appointment of a public relations
officer to your secretariat?
PM. I haven't appointed a public relations officer
Q. Your secretariat has.
PM. No, it hasn't.
Q. Well the Liberal Party has.
PM. No, it ha sn't.
Q. Well who has?
PM. Nobody has.
Q. But he is working there.
PM. There is a man who has been lent to do research and
background notes for speeches for a fortnight and this is riot in any
way at all anything to do with a public relations..
Q. But it is on the basis of your personal association
with a PR man.
PM. It's not on the basis oh, you mean because Eric
White is a friend of mine and said, " Would you like somebody to do
speech notes or research for you?" and I said, " Yes. All right,
but it is not doing public relations work.
Q. Well the interpretation has been that the Prime
Minister is
PM. Oh, I can't help the interpretation. He is doing no
public relations work.
Q. He is not trying to swing the country in ten days to
follow the Prime Minister at the poll?
Pm. No, he is trying to help me in the same way that, for
example, Mr. Whitlam's large staff which I haven't got helps him.
You see, I have never delivered a speech that I haven't written myself.
I doubt very much if Mr. Whitlam has ever delivered a speech he
wrote himself. I need some research assistance, some background
speech notes and this is what this man is doing and that is all he is
doing. / 8
-8
Q. Returning now to points on your policy. I think since
you have become Prime Minister, you have been very keen to express
concern about the middle and lower income groups. Now particularly
from the point of view of taxation, you have made promises that over
three years there will be some relief for middle income earners. But
I think or do you feel there has been a certain amount of
disappointment that you haven't been able to offer anything immediately
to these middle income earners and that you are going to wait until
the end of this financial year which is July 1st.
Pm. I don't know whether there has been any disappointment
or not. I don't know whether people would have expected us in present
circumstances to make some large step to introduce a whole lot more
of purchasing power, a whole lot more of money into the economy. I
don't think any thinking person would expect or would have expected
that we should have taken the first steps before the next Budget. But
I would imagine and I would hope that the thinking Australian would
realise that we are going to take these steps over this period to reduce
the burden of income tax on the lower income earner, the middle
income earner, the man with the family to bring up and the man paying
off his home. And that if we are to believe the suggestions put forward
by our opposition there would be no hope of doing this with any
effective benefit to the people so helped.
IQ, You don't think you can come in a bit earlier than the
end of the financial year?
PM. No, I don't. I think that the latest employment figures,
for example, show that our economy is fully employed at the present
moment; for the first time in Australia's history there are more jobs
offering than there are applications for employment. We have our
resources fully employed. Now don't you think, wouldn't any
reasonable person think in those circumstances, throwing more
money into the economy would riot provide any single person with
any more employment?
Q. I think, I think Prime Minister, if I get taxed, I
would like some sort of relief on this....
PM. Sure, but you wouldn't like to have immediate tax
relief with the result that inflation cut it out straight away. I don't
think.
Q. I'd like immediate relief
PM. PAM. s long as it didn't have the other aspect in it.
1~
9-
Q. On the social services question, now, this has been
something you have taken a considerable time over. There appears
to medical and hospital benefits.., your plans mean increased
weekly payments here. Also, of course, we had last Friday the
Hospital Benefits Association raising, even for the lowest family
unit, their fees from something like $ 37. 80 to $ 52. 20 a year.
PM. Are you talking about hospital alone or are you
talking about hospital and medical?
Q. I am talking about both. I would like to bracket them
both if I can in the period of time. For this increased medical help
which you are suggesting, the obv'ous thing here is that you have to
pay more to get it. Now where is the relief here?
PM. Where is the relief? Well there aire two alternate
plans that are placed before the public at this election. Let's take
the State of Victoria because we are speaking in Victoria. Yes, a
person would have to pay more in order to get.. pay more for
their medical table in order to get the medical benefits which we
offer, but we have taken care of all families who have incomes of
$ 39 a week or less. Now, in Victoria, it would cost to get public
ward cover and to get the medical facilities that are offered, it
would cost a single man m--ore im -diately he reaches a wage of
under the Labor scheme. It would cost under the Labor scheme
more for $ 40 and above for a single man. For families a Labor
scheme would cost more for families earning between $ 60 and
I can't tell you exactly where between there but somewhere between
and $ 70. It would cost them More. It is not a question of have
people got to pay more because the Opposition's plans are going to
tae 4per cent not of the tax at present paid but of the total taxable
income compulsorily. That is going to raquire people to pay more.
That is going to require people to pax! more than our scheme requires.
But the great benefit of our scheme as I see it is that it will have
the AMA co-operating with it, whereas they won't with the Labor
scheme and you may remember back in 1949 when Labor tried to
bring in a scheme and the doctors wouldn't co-operate with it.
it will have the doctors' co-operation with it people
contributing to it will know that they will be relieved from the fear
of very expensive illness, because however expensive it may be,
the medical fet-s will not require them to pay more than
Q. Have you been assured of AMA co-operation?
PM. The Minister for Health has been assured of AMA
co-operation in this line. The proposal is that there should be a
common fee known and that the policy of the AMA is that that common
fee should be told to any patient who asks, and the patient if he wants
to choose a doctor who charges more will have to bear the extra
himself. But he can get this treatment at a common fee, and
10
statistics show that more than half the doctors charge the common
fee or less already. This is quite different from Whitlam's
commonly-charged fee. This is going to be a common fee known
to people and publicised by the Commonwealth Health Department
so everybody knows what it is.
Q. Well, you reject Labor's argument that you will have
to shop around for a fee that is acceptable?
Pm. Yes, I think that that is a spurious argument. I suppose
it is based on this that if a patient went to a doctor and said, " Are
you going to charge the common fee which I know to be the common
fee because it has been made public" and the doctor said, " No, I am
going to charge more", you don't take that doctor. I suppose that is
what this is based on. But of course the alternative is the
nationalisation of medicine which, of course, is what Labor is after.
Q. Prime Minister, I would very quickly like to turn to
education and ask you two questions here now. On your State aid
proposals, and the Government's proposals, it would seem that the
richer schools are getting richer and the poorer schools are getting
poorer. Now there is a comparison here with Mr. Whitlam's
promises, of course, of a schools commission. That is the first
part of the question. The second part of the question is: What do
you feel or what do you think is against Mr. Whitlam's $ 12 million
proposal for free universities?
PM. Well, the first part of the question you asked me is
a proposition put forward by the Opposition to set up a central
commission in Canberra to examine the needs of 10, 000 schools
throughout Australia. Our proposition, on the other hand, is already
in train, in which each State Education Department is examining the
needs of the schools within its own State, and we think that is a better
way to go about it. That is already in train. And they are not only
examining the needs of the State schools but also co-ordinating into
it the needs of the independent schools. People sometimes call me
a centralist, but if there is anything I could see designed to take
completely out of the control of the States the running of the education
system, then this schools commission, so called, would be the one
designed to do it.
Don't you feel, though, that with this schools like
Wesley, Xavier, these schools that don't really need grants and
money are getting a lot of money
11-
PM, They don't get the grants. Who gets the grants are
the parents who send children to schools. Now there are a lot of
parents who want to send their children to a particular school and
who are not rich people. But who for reasons of their own, and they
are entitled to have these reasons, scrape and save and deny
themselves other things in order to pay school fees. I don't see
why those people should have a means test put upon them which
is what in fact is inherent in the suggestion you made.
Q. Free universities. Can we afford them? Can your
Government afford them?
PM. Yes, I think you could afford free universities. At
the moment it would cost $ 14 million a year from your pocket. You
wanted some relief from taxation. It would cost that much or a part
of that much extra out of your pocket for the extra taxation. But why
should you pay it? We seek to reduce the burden of taxation, not to
increase it for this purpose and we have got to remember that some
per cent, around 25 per cent of all the university students have
their fees paid by you and other taxpayers anyway. Now I don't
really see why the ordinary taxpayer who has say his own children
to bring up, his own house to pay off should be charged extra in order
to provide for those who can't get Commonwealth scholarships. It
is a matter of where you levy your imposts and for what purposes.
Thank you Prime Minister.