MIS
PRESS, RADIO AND TV CONFE~ RENCE GIVEN BY
THE PRIME MINISTER, MR JOHN GORTON, AT
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA, A. C. T. March 1970
PRIME MINISTER Well, gentlemen of the Press, I understand you
have a predilection for press conferences and now for the next thirty
minutes I am in your hands while we have one.
Q. David Solomon from the " Australian". In Sydney
today the Federal Treasurer described the way the economy was shaping
as sufficiently menacing to be taken very seriously. Last Thursday,
you said that in raising interest rates the Government had already taken
the action necessary to control the economy. Do you still believe that
no further Government action will be necessary?
PM: I don't think you are quite accurate in saying what
I said last Thursday. I think this was in answer to a Question in the
House, if I remember correctly. You will remember that in the
Governor-General's Speech, I said that the economy had been, over the
past, kept well under control " reasonably under cont rol" I think were
the words, but that it needed constant and close attention, and that this
raising of interest rates was one of the methods indicating that it was
getting close attention. The speech made by the Treasurer today
pointed out, as you will know if you read it, a number of the indices
which indicate a possibility of too much pressure. It also had in it,
as you will have read, that there were countervailing factors, that
there was grcing to be much less liquidity in the next three months of
this year and that he described the position as, I think the word was
" ambiguous" not completely clear which way it would go. This, I
think, is where the position is at the moment.
Q. John Commins, ABC. In short, is the Government
conteamplating s supplementary Budget?
PM: No.
Alan Barnes, Melbourne Age. Prime Minister,
Mr. Bury in his speech referred to the effect of public sector spending
as being one of those major pressures. Do you intend to take this into
account when framing your Budget and your spending for the rest of
the year? / 2
PM: Mr Barnes, we always take into account the question
of public spending, of public requirement, of expenditures on education,
on grants to the States, all these matters are taken into consideration
along with the prognostication of the likely private demand and the
Budget is framed accordingly. I am sure you wouldn't expect me to give
any indications of how it would be framed at this stage, except that we
believe it will be framed in a way that will see that inflation does not
occur.
Q. Frank Chamberlain, AFP and Macquarie. Mr
Prime Minister, could you elaborate on what Mr Bury has said about
the economy? Would you use the kind of words he uses as " menacing"
and, further, would you associate this with the rural march in
Melbourne earlier this week?
PM: No, I wouldn't associate it with the rural march in
Melbourne because Mr Bury indicated, right at the beginning of his
speech, that the economy had been progressing well and there had been
growth and prosperity in all sectionij, except for the rural section.
He made that clear in the speech when he gave it. And I don't think
I can elaborate very much on what he said. He pointed to the indices
which are now appearing. Ther'e is a very tight labour market. Thero
is housing construction running at record rates. There is a number
of indices which I would not describe, myself, as menacing, but as
potentially menacing, but they have to be set up against the effects of
the domestic surplus for which we budgeted this year and for the
declining liquidity which is going to take place for the next three months
of this year at least so I am informed by the Reserve Bank and the
Treasury.
Q. You knew that the speech was to be made, did you?
PM: Oh, yes. I read it.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, on the rural march in Melbourne.
Mr. Malcolm Fraser was reported as saying that he advocated compulsory
acquisition of the wool clip as the only satisfactory method of running
the wool industry. Is this Government policy, or is it your view on it?
PM: Well, according to NU Malcolmn Fraser, it is not
even an accurate report. / 3
Q. Peter Samuel, Bulletin. Mr. Gorton on wool,
could you give us an indication of your attitude towards the proposal
for a subsidy for wool.
PM: Yes, Mr S muel. I don't believe that a subsidy
for wool can be any long-term solution for the problems the wool industry
faces. There is a lot of things which could be done to help wool, such
things as core testing and sample selling and the wool villages of which
you have heard, and trying to cut down the number of times the wool
is handled. All of these things can save a certain amount per bale.
I doubt whether they would save more, in aggregate, than perhaps
6 cents a pound, maybe a little bit more. I am not setting anything
definite. But that is not going to be sufficient to be a real solution to it.
I think we need, and I believe Gunn's Committee set up is exam ining
into these aspects we need to know just what is, the grade of wool
which is bringing us the greatest amount afe overseas exchange, just
what is most in demand, and in the long run a subsidy, I believe, mould
not meet the needs of the wool industry, it is a palliative rather than
a solution. Q. Rob Chalmers, Chani-, el C. Prime Minister, mh ile
on the rural question, last month, the Leader of the Country Party said
in a public statement that the position of primary industry was so serious
in economic terms that the Country Party had resolved to apply a new
measure of determination and boldness in followiing measures of
support in the coming Session of Parliament,..~
PM: This was a statement by whom?
Q. By the Country Party Leader, Sir?
PM: Oh, yes.
Q. Have you yet seen in Cabinet any of these new
measures of support in this Session?
PM: Do you think I could just continue with the question
that you asked, because it might, hanging in the air, leave a slightly
inappropriate situation. 1 think you will remember that the Leader of
the Country Party made it clear that this was not an indication that the
Liberal Party was in any way hanging back, and th-at Liberal Party
Members representing rural seats were also disturbed, and we / 4
were all disturbed about it, and I think that is where the situation rests.
There has been, I think, a significant attack on the wheat problem. A3
you know, quotas were introduced, and quotas are going to be considerably
less next year than they are this year. They are going to be
per cent less and this has been recommended by the wheat people, and
this is very responsible. And I am sure we will -progress to a situation
A 0 which one wishes to arrive at. The Dairy & i ae Scheme is still
running into difficulties with the States, but in the last two days, I have
reason to believe that those difficulties might begin to be resolved
quite quickly, but I can't say because it is not entirely within my decision.
The rural industry which you have mentioned is, in my view, in a
very horrible situation. I have known what it is vhen I was on the land
in the early days to sit waiting for the telephone to ring and not ' Know
whether it would be somebody saying, " You owe me for the fertiliser!
you bought to put on the orchard. Why don't you pay it?" " You owe
me for the spray, why don't you pay it?" Or perhiaps it was the bank
manager saying, " You have gone over your limit"', and you were
struggling to put enough into your land to 7produce the next crop, hoping
the next crop would pay offf. I know what this is, and this is a great
social problem for the -woolgrower today not all woolgrowers, but
far too many of them, and the solution to it is not easy to see; but
certainly matters of handling, and quite probably matters of selling
methods of selling could be the solutions. At the moment we are
waiting for some indication from a quite significant Committee vh ich
has been set up by Sir William Gunn, and we are all discussing it in
Cabinet quite " seriously" is not a strong enough word but
attempting to decide what we can see as the best solution for this.
Q. Laurie Oakes, Melbourne Sun : Prime Mnister
on Vietnam. You said in December that the Australian Government
wanted some Australian troops phased into the next major US withdrawal.
Are you in a position to say, Sir, how far plannin~ g for withdrawal has
progress in the last four months2 Can you tell us how many troops
are likely to come home and when, and can you also give us some idea
of the relevance of Mr Fraser's trip to Vietnam next week with regard
to withdrawal?
PM: Well, this trip would be a part of the discussions
that have been going on. I don't believe that I could go any further than
than other than to say that our position has -not changed, indeed it wasn't
only last December it was in the Governor-General's speech, and I
think in a Question in the House since then, that the position has been
made clear that if it is regarded the situation enables a significant / s
further withdrawal of Anrcit roops, then we will expect some
Australian troops to be phased into that withdrawal. Now, the discussions
have been going on about this. Mr Fraser's trio will have sonething to
do with it, but I don't believe I should go any further than that at the
moment.
Q. Hugh Armfield, Melbourne A-. ge Was the New
Zealand Defence M-nister, Mr Thompson correct when he said here
recently that the South Vietnamese were ready and willing to take over
from Australian and New ZEealand Forces in Phuoc Tuy?
PM: I haven't seen anything to substantiate that. If the
suggestion is that the South Vietnamese are ready and eager and willing
to take over all the activities in Phuoc Tuy Provi-nce, I have seen nothing
to substantiate that.
Q. Cameron Foro'es, Newsday Prime Minister, does the
Australian Government view with any disquiet such actions by the Saigon
Government as arose in the case of the gaoling of the representative
Chou and the disquiet this evidently caused in sorne sections of the
Vietnamese population?
PM: I wouldn't want to interfere or to express opinions on
the actions of another government which, after a'il, I would remind you, is
an elected government, and one vi ich has been elected under probably the
most difficult conditions that any government has had to face during an
election. Let us not forget that this government is in a coun try which is
in the throes of war, and before we place too much emphasis on the
sort of thing you have mentioned, let us remember that England in the
last war when it was in the throes of war -Aound it necessary Mr Churchill
found it necessary to put into gaol somebody who either was or had been
a Member of the Parliament.
Q. Max Grant, Melbourne Herald and 3DB Mr Prime
MInister, there has been some speculation about the provision of the
Nimmo Committee Report which suggests that doctors may be excluded
if they don't co-operate with the common fee scheme. Would you like
to say how you feel about that at this stage?"
PM: The suggestion in the N-Immo Committee Report was
for a participating doctor scheme and all it recommended was that it
would wish doctors to hang up in their consultiing-rooms placards, as it
were, saying " This is what I charge This is the ccmmon fee. / 6
and that only those doctors who did that should be participating in the
scheme and that patients who went to doctors who did not do that mould
not have their bills paid. We have decided not to accept this recommendation,
and I think that is all I can say on that at the moment.
Q. Would you reconsider that one day, Mr Gorton, if the
scheme were running into difficulties?
PM: I have strong hopes that the scheme will not run into
trouble, but clearly all things can change,. and at the monment we have not
adopted that.
Q. Alan Barnes. I understand Dr Forbes reported to
Cabinet yesterday on this matter. Can you tell us how you are going to
make the health scheme work when doctors in three States repudiated
the AMA leaders on whose advice you based the scllaeme?
PM: I You tell me how you understand that Dr Forbes reported
to Cabinet on this matter? He made no statements about it.
A. I read it in the papers, Sir:
PM: You asked me whether I thoughit the scheme mo uld wourk
if what you described as " doctors were against it". I think it should be
made clear that there are divisions in the medical profession. To the
best of my knowledge, I don't know of specialists who are opposed to
the scheme which we propose. There have been suggestions that general
practitioners are opposed to it. I don't believe that general practitioners
would refuse to treat patients. I don't believe that general practitio * ners
would refuse to take such action as wo uld enable their patients to be
reimbursed by the Government and the Fu-nds for tae treatment the
general practitioners give them, I think that the greneral practitioners.
will find that their fears are unfounded and I hope and believe that the
scheme will work. You know what the problem is here. There is only
one real area of disagreement. We want to introduce a scheme which
will protect the patient against the higher charges that a specialist
now makes. At the moment he is not protected. 1i order to do that it
will be necessary to give, from the insurance funds and from the
Government, more reimbursement to a patieint who goes. to a specialist
than is given to a patient who goes to a general practitioner. This protects
the patient. This ensures that there is no economic bar to a patient who
needs to get specialist attention and this is whiat wie want to get, but the
general practitioners are fearful that this will 1 end to all sorts of people
who don't really need specialist treatment. This is their fear. It is
just a fear. We don't think it will happen, but if it did happen, we mould / 7
be just as interested in Beeking to stop it from a Government point of
view as they are, because our objective is to see thiat those who need
it get it, not those who don't need it. That should be able to be worked
out.
Q. What is the Government's timetable, Sir? on
legislation on introduction of the scheme?
P M; We should be introducing this scheme very soon
after the next sitting of Par-liament, that is, whe. 2 wie meet after April 7,
Q. Arising from Cabinet, are there any compromises,
any watering-down of the Government's proposals71
PM; No, we haven't got any, but it is a scheme which we
have indicated, If it is shown that there are anomnalies in the scheme after
it is introduced or when it is in operation, then oZ course we would be
prepared to look at them and seek to overcome them, but not to the extent
of abrogating our main objective which is to protect the patient against
specialist charges.
Q. Laurie Cakes : On the same subject, Prime Mlnistpr,
have you yet chosen the membership of the National Health Insurance
Commission?
PM:' No, not yet, Mr Cakes.
W~ dlace Brown, Courier Mail Prime Minister,
when do you hope to work out the aspects of the , Iimmo recommendations
that require State co-operation. In particular, what do you think of the
particular Nimmo recommendation that says the Commonwealth should
pay the full $ 2 a day benefit in respect of public ward patients in
Queensland, instead of the 60 cents it pays at the moment for uninsured
patients?
PM: Well, I think that these matters, being the subject
of discussion between Dr Forbes the Minister for Health and our Govern
ment and the State Governments, and being in the course of discussion
between them, are not ones that I should express opinions on at this
time. But I hope that they will be worked out. inaeed, it is
necessary that they should be worked out. e / 8
Q. Max Hawkins, Brisbane Telegraph Mr Fraser
is making a trip not only to Saigon, but to Washington to talk about the
Fill1 plane and its problems. How soon after he returns do you expect
the Government will be able to announce a firm decision whether we get
it, cancel it or want to take another plane?
PM; 1 would expect that soon after he returned we would
be in a position where we could start looking to see whether there were'
alternate planes that were available. I wouldn't like to give you a specific
answer to your question of how soon after his return would it be
possible to make a really final decision because there have been so many
changes in rogard to the F IlIl coming unexpectedly. everything seemed
to be all right and then it turns out that it is not all right, that it might
be chancing my arm a bit to say, " Well, in a week or a fortnight" or
something of that kind, but you can be quite sure that we mould be seek~ ng
to do it as soon as we possibly could on our judgment of the facts as
presented. Q. Peter Samuel of the Bulletin again During the election
campaign you said, I think, that you were very strongly against the Russians
getting a naval base in the Indian Ocean area. There have been reports
that Singapore is offering its naval base facilities to the Russians. I
wouder if you could tell us what the attitude of your Government is to that?
PM: Well, I don't believe that we could by force majeure
stop it but we would not like to see it, and would express our opinions
that we would not wish to see it. I don't thinkc you could go any furt..-
than that.
Q. Have you done that alreadyr
PM: Oh, I think if you read the statement of the Minister
for Defence, and the Minister for External Affairs, you will see a pretty
clear indication that we don't wish to see a military presence of that
kind by the Russians in this area.
Q. Have you made any move to speak to Singapore about
it? The Singapore Government?
PM: I haven't spoken to Singapore about it. I doubt
whether it has reached a situation where it would be necessary to do that.
/ 9
Q. Alan Reid Sir, reverting to wool. Whether Mr Fraser
was reported accurately or inaccurately, have you or your Government formed.
any opinion on the desirability or otherwise of a Wiool Acquisition Scheme,
and if so, what are these views?
PM: Well, I think I told you Mr Reid, that there was a
Committee looking into the question, a whole number of questions in
relation to wool. I wouldn't say that we had form-ed a view for an
acquisition shceme. An acquistion scheme, a variation of the present
method of selling, a temporary subsidy, a whole variety of possible
courses is open, and I can't go any further than that at this stage.
Q. Sir, on the question about Singapore, did you, as
some commentators did, read implications in the statement of the
Minister for External Affairs regarding his desire to see Britain return
or remain in the area? W~ as there any implication in this that in the
long term we would need them to be there before we stayed in the
long term?
PM: No, I didn't read that into it at all. I just read into
it a plain statement that it would be a lot better anad a lot more militarily
acceptable to us if they stayed than it would be if they left. This is in
fact what we have been saying from the start, but they seemed to have
made their minds up, unless of course there is a change of government
in Britain.
Q. Have you any official news you can give us, Sir,
about the situation in Cambodia and South-East Asia's unrest in general?
PM: I don't think I can give you anything more than I have
read in the newspapers. I have had a report today from External Affairs
on it, but the situation seems to be that the Government there is now
describing itself as a Gi rnbodian Government, instead of the Royal
Cambodian Government just what that means you can read into it
what you wish and they are indicating they wqish the Vietcong and the
North Vietnamese to leave their country. They horpe to be able to
do this by negotiation, by discussion. Well, whether they will be able
to do it by negotiation or discussion or not, time w~ ill show. But of
cou rse one of the difficulties in these situations L-that the North
Vietnamese always refuse to admit that they are there in the first place
and therefore don't feel they can discuss getting out.
Q_ Bob Baudino, Sydney D-: ly Telegraph Sir, could I
take you back to Mr Bury's speech. You have mnentioned that you did read
the speech. Could I ask you did you read it before or after the event?
PM: I read it before the event.
Q. Fred Brenchley, Newsday j-t the declaration of the
poll, last November in your electorate of Higgins, you said that in view
of the Government's losses in the election, its policies had to be reviewed.
I would like to ask you if this review has now been completed, and do we see
the results of it in the Governor -General's Speech to Parliament or is there
more to come? In other words, should we have more policy initiatives like
the Industry Development Corporation?
PM: I believe that you have a Government which will never
run out of policy initiatives or new forward-looking, steps forward-looking
eyes and advancing steps. You have certainly seen some of the actions
which we foreshadowed at the time.
Q. Tom McNeil, Australian Associated Press In your
Policy Speech you said the Government's aim was to reduce the burden
of income tax on the lower and middle inconne ear-ners. In the light of
the economy situation at the moment, is this aim still capable of achievement?
Is it still your Government' s aim to do this, starting from this
next Budget?
PM: In my Policy Speech, I said that we would aim during
the life of this Parliament to reduce the burden of income tax on lower and
middle income earners so that at the end of three years they would be
paying a given sum I think $ 200 million or words to that effect less than
they would normally be paying. This is still our aim, and this is an
aim we will attain. I don't propose to go any further than that.
Q. Warren Duncan, ABC: Getting back to Cambodia.
Prince Sihanouk is reported to be trying to form his own private army
to try and get himself back.-to power. What wou. ld our attitude be towards
the Prince in this move?
PM Our attitude toward the Prince in that move?
Q. Yes, in his forming a private army?
PM: I should think that we would quite properly leave it
to the Cambodians to decide. / 11
Q. Have we any Australians there at all, apart from
diplomats?
PM: Absolutely none that k-now of.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, followin-g up the question on the
income tax distribution, I know it is not the policy of the Government to
reveal what is coming up in the Budget, but bearing in mind that it was the
subject of your Policy Speech, could you tell us at least if you have in
mind to do something about it in this coming Budget?
PM: What we have in mind to do, Mr Willesee is to carry
out the intention which was expressed in the Pciicy Szch.
Q. In this Budget?
PM: W-hat we have in mind to do is to carry out the intention
expressed in the Policy Speech.
Q. Gould I ask you specifically if you intend to do anythiing
about it in this Budget?
PM: I heard you ask that but I am sure you didn't expect an
answer.
Q. The Governor-General's speech, though, did contain
a suggestion that you would start action in the current Budget, in the next
Budget. Will that be changed?
PM: I don't know which part of the Governor-General's Speech
you are specifically talking about, Mr Solominon, but I am not going to answer
questions as to what is going to be in the next Budget.
Mr. Eggleton: I think we have time for-just one more question.
Q. A related subject, Sir, Some of the economists tell
us that the present t roubles in the economy date baick to your rather
generous Budget last time, and they forecast further problems in your
election promises and the promises you made to the State Premiers. In
view of the economic situation, or perhaps if it gets worse, would you
be prepared to delay some of your promises to ease the economic situation? / 12
12.
PM: I think it is a very interesting question because I
remember at the time some of the economists writing quite strongly about
the terrifically inflationary Budget when it was brought in " economic
vandalism" I think was a headline I remember. Then about a month
or so ago I remember the same economists writing how wrong they had
been and how I think the quotation was " Gortoa' s got the laugh on us."
I believe and I have reasons not of my own but from the economists
who have the responsibility in the Reserve Bank of Australia and in the
Treasury that in spite of the indices which are now appearing for the
rest of this financial year the fears that the economists showed at first,
and damped down at second, will not be realised. Now the second part
of your question was Would we, should inflation appear more likely,
seek to do something about it in the coming Budget, and the only answer
I can give you is tLat. the Government would in the future, as it has in
the past, have as one of its main objectives the balanced growth of the
economy and the avoidance of significant inflation.
Q. Do you think, Mr Prime Minister that the Treasurer
is crying wolf rather too strongly?
PM: I think what the Treasurer is doing is drawing atteriion
to potentialities and to possibilities, and I thinkc he is right to point that
out.
Mr. Eggleton MTr. h angkgl eyoonu: gentlemen and thank you Prime Minister.