EMBARGO: 9.30 PM, WEDNESDAY 18 NOVEMBER 09r
TELEVISION INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER
MR. JOH GOTONON BTQ 7, BR ISBA NE
Recorded on 13 November for replayonWded~ 8Nv~ r17
Chairman Reg Leonard
Panel John Wakefield
Alan Underwood.
Good evening to you. In a few days we will be voting in the Senate Election.
In this the last of four interviews with Commonwealth Party Leaders, it is my privilege
to introduce the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, Mr. John Gorton. Good evening
to you, Sir. Now, the Prime Minister obviously has a very wide field to cover, and I
suggest we might start off with defence with the first questio'nfrom John Wakefield.
Q. Mr. Gorton, you contend strongly that our presence in Vietnam is essential.
Why then isn't the Eighth Battalion being replaced, and can you explain, please,
your chanige of policy or, replacements?
PM Yes, I contend that our presence in Vietnam is escential and thatai
American presence in Vietnam is essential until such time as the South
Vietnamese will be strong enough to be able to look after themselves. Before
the last general election, I stated that should the situation reach the position
where significant withdrawals of American troops could take place, the'n I would
expect to see that some Australian troops were phased into that withdrawal.
Well, there were significant American withdrawals, and because what wie
promise we perform, Australian troops were phased into that withdrawal.
Q. DoeS this mean, Mr. Gorton, that we are now approaching some ai the
goals vie sought when we first went into Vietnam?
PM I think we are much closer to the goals. The goals we sought were a
situation where South Vietnam could defend itself and its people could decide
what kind of a government they wanted to elect. I thinkc that we, as a result
of building up the Vietnamese Forces, as a result of building up Vietnamese
morale, I believe, on all the information t hat I have that we are closer to
these goals.
Q. Senator Gair said on this programme about ten days ago that we should
bomb Hanoi you may have read that. Now do you agree with Senator Gair
on that or, alternatively, do you think it makes sense for us to allow the
enemy ships to come in there, into the ports down along North Vietnam, twelve
of them a day sometimes, to bring in all these war goods?
PM Well, we wouldn't be bombing Hanoi, of course. It would be the United
States who bombed Hanoi if anybody bombed Hanoi, and I have no doubt at all
that the United States is -not considering carrying out any bombing raids on
Hanoi. Now you asked me a second part of that question, and I think in the
narrow military sense, it probably doesn't make sense not to flatten your
enemy altogether, but in a broader sense, looking at the possibilities of what
might occur if that escalation took place, then I think that it does make
perhaps overall sense.
Q. Sir, the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong have had no hesitation wihatever
about pummelling Saigon.
PM No.
Q. You don't believe ' in reprisals?
PM Well, I wouldn't want to go-that far. I do believe in doing what one can in
those circumstances, provided and this is after all, a judgment for the
United. States to make who will eventually have to bear the great burden, of
this that kind of retaliation doesn't lead to an escalation which leads to a
really great conflagration.
Q. Prime Minister, a couple of seconds ago you mentioned that one pos. sible
course in the war in Vietnam was to flatten the e-nemy. Well, if you don'tdo
that, can you see any early end to the war, and how will it come about will
it be by military means or by negotiation?
PM Well, I am not able to put an answer to your question about an early end,
or any particular time scl
Q. Well President Nixon says 1972. He doesn't say why.
Pm. Well I am not saying why, either nor commenting on President Nixon.
I am just saying I am not prepared
Q. You are not even saying 1972 now?..
PM I am just saying I can not put a time scale on with any confidence. But you
asked me how it would end. Ncw the basic fact that will bring it to an end will be
military victory. You will find Mr. Whitlam and Mr. Barnard and their
supporters wandering around this country saying there can't be a military
victory fcor either side. But you don't find the NLF or the people from North
Vietnam saying that because they know a military victory will eventually
decide this matter. I don't mean that it alone will decide it, but out of the
military success will grow either negotiations, which I think is possibly less
likely, or just a dribbling away of the war and a cessation of it in the way
we sawin the Malayan Emergency.
Q. just so all Australians will be clear, Mr. Gorton, you think suff icient
pressure is now being exerted by the Allies to win a military victory in
Vietnam?
PM I think the military situation is improving and that as pressure is kept on
in the way it is, there is a real opportunity that the South Vietnamese willi be
able to continue to build up their forces so that they can deny military
success to the enemy.
Q. Do you subscribe to the contention of some of Mr. Vlhitlam's critics as
you know he has advised young National Servicemen who oppose the war in
Vietnam not to serve there. They claim this is treaso: L. Would you go that far(
PM I can--' t give you a legal opinion on whether it is legally treasonable or not.
I am not a lawyer so I can't answer that. But I think it is thoroughly
reprehensible and extremely irrespo, sible advice for a man who aspires to
be Prime Minister to give. You can't confine this to saying to people " Don't
serve in Vietnam if you don't like it. You have got to say " Don't serve
anywhere where you feel that you don't like it. And what is more, that would,
of course, make it almost impossible to run our military forces. What's
mnore it is absolutely rotten advice because it puts a chap in a situation where
he can disobey an order, get a dishonourable discharge, get punished, and the
reasonable advice is to say " Join the CM1F if you don't want to go somewhere."
Q. During this campaign, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Whitlam has referred many
times, and particularly on this programme, to the role which he would lik.-e
Indonesia to play in Australia's defence. Now, quite frankly, I can't
understand it. Can you?
PM Nor really, because I am not sure whether he wants it as a bulwark of an
umbrella. As I read what he said, he said Indonesia would be a bulwark against
Communist China. the best bulwark there was. I supo. pose against Communist
China attacking down this way. Then he said Indonesia would be a bulwark for
Communist China presumably to protect Communist China against attack
from Hong Kong or somewhere: And in the intervals, it was going to be an
umbrella for us. So I an-i not quite clear just what role he has cast the Indonesians
for. But may I add this. It is a strange role because just last year, I think it
was, the Victorian Labor Party came out with an article violently attackNing
the Indoriesians and the present Indonesian Governmeuit, and saying anythipg
Australians can do to get rid of this violent and reactionrary government
ought to be done. Now that is a strange way to win friends and influence
umbrellas.
Q. What do you think, Primr Minister, might be the reaction of Indonesi-ans
that they shculd be the bulwark in other words the ham in the sandwich?
Pm Well if they notice at all what Mr. Whitlam says, I think they would treat
it with the regard due to what he says.
Q. Mr. Gorton are you worried about reports that the Russians, if they do not
control the situation in the Indian Ocean, are very well on the way to controlling
it.
PM I don't think any Australian, or anyone else in this part of the world can
regard with equanimity the increase In Russian strength in the Indonesian
Ocean, and I think that our attention must be more directed towards that area.
That is why Learmonth has been built, that is why the naval base is being built
in the West.
Q. Well, it has been very freely stated and I don't think it has been denied
that our arrnagements with the Americans regarding W~ oomera and Pine Creek'
at Alice Springs, is that we give them ground facility -for the receptio , n of
photographs which are taken by satellites which show possibly military installations
in Aisa, ir-luding China and Russia, 1"' hich are relayed back to America. Now
for that privilege, what do we get in return from the Americans?
PM Well, can I first make it clear that I am not agreeing with your statement
of what function these bases carry out. I have no right to say what they carry
uut, other than to say that they are entirely defensive and have no off ensive
capacity at all. They are joint bases. They are built according to Article 2
of the AN'ZUS Treaty which provides for this kind of mutual help. Did you say
did we have a cast-iron guarantee that the Americans would.
Q. For that privilege, what do we get in return?
PM Well this is done really under the terms of the AN'ZUS Treaty, and I thinl.
Australia gets a great deal as a result of the ANZUS Treaty. Let us put it
another way. If we didn't have the ANZUS Treaty, or if we had it and didn't
adhere to it and ignored it, then I think we would be in. a much worse situation
than we are having the ANZUS Treaty and adhering to it.
Q. Have you, or have we Australians any firm assurance that the Americans
will stand by us if we are in trouble?
PM We have got the provisions of the ANZUS Treaty which I suppose, legally,
since it provides in the case of attack for the two Governments to consult, could
be held out to be not a legally binding contract. But insofar as treaties between
two countries can go, this treaty goes. And, again, if we didn't have it, we
would really be in an infinitely worse situation; and damaging it, as I believe
the Labor Party would, is to damage Australia.
Q. Sir, I will invite you now to transfer your thoughts to some of the local
problems domestic problems.
Q. Prime Minister, you have condemned the 35-hour week proposal. What thein
must happen in our economy before it could become feasible? 0
PM I think we should be producing sufficient to ensure that from that production
we are able to provide the materials for the schools and the hospitals and the
water supplies and the other public facilities that are required, and providing
enough so that the real wages could rise. We don't want to reach a situation
where we are producing the same amount as we are now with fewer people or
with a shorter week. Surely Australia wants more and more production to be
channelled into all these fields.
Q. Do you think that production at this present level is inadequate?
PM Well, it is inadequate to meet our needs as quickly as we would like to
meet them.
Q. Mr. V htilam when he was on this programme, seemed unusually embarrassed
when we started to talk about Mr. Hawke's 35-hour week. Now, Sir, do you
personally believe that the political wing of the ALP would support a
week?
PM Well, not let us leave my personal beliefs out of it. I would like to read
you an extract from a letter Dr. Cairns wrote in 1968
" At a special conference of the Party, Mr. Whitlam did two things.
He apologised to the Federal Executive for his public attack on it and
said ' I now undertake to work within the framework of the Party and
to accept the decision of its properly-constituted authorities.
So he has accepted that binding. And the last Conference of the Labor Party, held
in August last year, said
" Conference considers that an effective political campaign be
undertaken in conjunction with the ACTU to achieve our objective
of a 35-hour week.
So leave my personal opinion out of it. He has promised to do what this says
he has got to do.
Q. Mr. Hawke challenged you to a debate on the 35-hour week. Why don't
you accept it?
PM I don't think he challenged me to a debate. I think he dobbed Mr. Whitlam
in, really, although Mr. Whitlam later said he knew about it. He say, " Yes,
yes, yes" when he answered that question on the grounds that " what I tell you
three times is true". But I think Mr. Hawke actually said he would like
Mr. Vlhitlam and himself to debate with myself and xr. Snedden. I am not
going to provide a forum for either Mr. Hawke or Mr. Whitlam. But
Mr. Snedden said he would be glad to debate it with Mr. Whitlam. We haven't
heard from Mr. Whitlam since because the last debate he has was on his call
for mutiny with Mr. Malcolm Fraser and he got done like a dinner' / 6
Q. Isn't it a singularly futile exercise to get up and spout
PM I'm quite sure it is interruping each other. There is a certain amount of
debate about the 35-hour week going on right now out in the hustings.
Q. Mr. Gorton, in this programme last week, Mr. Whitlam emphasised again
that he could abolish the means test within six years, or in six years, arnd the
cost would be peanuts. Those were his words. What do you feel about that?
PM Well, I think it a typical Whitlam statement. If you regard $ 300 million
as peanuts, then I suppose fair enough, it's peanuts. But it would, ever. on
his ownr figures, cost $ 300 million to abolish the means test, and that only if
the pension didn't move up in the meantime. Now you could do an awful lot
with that money for people wvho have got nothing but the pension.
Q. We all appreciate, Prime Minister, that questions o. n, pensions are generally
associated with the House of Representatives election. But there has been so
much talk about it. Can, you elaborate at all?
PM I don't think even in a House of Representatives election, in my experience,
people have really gone around saying " I propose to raise the pension by this
much or that much or anything else. I haven't heard it there. All I can say
on this field is that I believe, and I think the figures show it, that in all1 fields
of social welfare, including the base pension, we hav2-done more than any other
government has done in a comparable time. And I am determined to go onl
doing it.
Q. Wh-at the pensioner wants to hear tonight, in view of sharply-rising costs, is
some hint that he is going to get relief.
PM. Yes, but I have said all along that I think it quite wrong to give indications
of any kind inthe course of an election campaign. It wouldn't be right.
Q. A Se;:.. iate election campaign, you mean?
PM Well, really
Q. They could be given in a House of Representatives campaign
PM Well, possibly. But after all, the Budget came in just a little while ago.
Q. just talking about inflation, Mr. Gorton. We have asked Senator Gair and
Mr. Whitlamn and Mr. M/ cEwen just exactly what they propose to do about
inflation. Not one of them seemed to have the answer to it. Now, have you?
/ 7
PM I have got a partial answer to it and a suggestion. The partial answer is that
we should continue Budgets as we are budgeting, which provide for a very large
domestic surplus in order to be a weapon against inflation, and that we should, as
we have done, lower the expenditure on new expenditure for the Commonawealthi.
We have given the Stater, more this year but our expenditures on new things has
only risen by $ 70 million, I think, in the Budget as agaiinst $ 130 million last
year. But over and above that, I have got a suggestion, and that is that if the
Arbitration Court would bring down its decisions having regard to the rise in
productivity, that would be one of the greatest blows that could be struck against
inflation.
Q. Nowi, let's get that one. That is a statement of momentous importance. Ann
I right, Sir, in saying, that you think the Arbitration Court should mould its
decisions in the light of the level of productivity at the time it makes its awards?
PM I believe it should take into accoL'-it when it is making decisions or awards
of one kind or another the level of productivity, the increase in productivity, arid
the effect on the economy of the country.
Q. Prime Minister, do you feel this isn't being done now by the Commission?
PM Well, I don't think I should answer that question in set terms. But I was
asked a question of what cculd be done about inflation and I suggested.
Q. On inflation again, just before we get off it, Prime Minister. What is
your Government doing to set an example to the private sector?
PM Well, as I said, we have budgeted for quite a large domestic surplus this
year. That, I suppose, is not setting an example, so much as using a weapon.
But we have reduced t he new expenditure in this year's Budget as compared
to last year's Budget. But you can't reduce it too much because so much of
the B udget is taken up with things that people really must have. For example,
the second highest item in the Budget is social welfare, and so on help for
schools, for the States....
Q. In your Budget, you increased things like sales tax and petrol tax a-. Id company
tax and interest rates and PMG charges. Now how can you argue, Mr. Gorton,
that these things are not already adding to our inflatio. n' 1
PM I don't think we did increase interest charges in the Budget. We introduced
them as. a weapon against inflation incidentally, as a classic weapon against
inflation.
Q. just to slow things down
PM Before the Budget came in. Yes, to slow demand down. To slow down the
amount of money borrowed and therefore the demand that money would generate.
Well, we did that before the Budget, although the long-term bond rate was raised
in June and that might be what you are thinking of. I don't think that company
tax an increase in company tax would have any effect on inflation, or rising
prices at all. I just don't think anybody would say it did.
Q. What about as an effect on company returns?
PM It has an effect on company returns, I admit, but I don't think on the
general level of prices. Sales tax, yes, on those items on which it is imposed,
but we didn't impose it on the whole level of sales tax. Only on things which
are mostly sort of luxuries well, there were furs and jewels. But there was
perhaps one item of necessity, that was cosmetics. I must admit that. But
by and large it wasn't on staple items really itemshat are required. Sales
tax, petrol tax would have some effect not a great deal because most of the
petrol is used by private motorists. But it undoubtedly must have some effect.
Q. Don't you consider liquor and cigarettes essentials"
PM Well, I like them.....
Q. For most people. Not for you, but for every Australian, or the majority
of Australians?
PM Not-as essentials. No. I don; t. But of course the major Australia u drink
is beer what is consumed most and nothing was done to raise the excise obeer
or on spirits. V-1ine was the only excise that wa s imposed, . and that ils
scarcely an essential.
Q. You know, years ago, when Harold Holt increased the sales tax o_ cosmetics,
there was such a row he had to withdraw it. You may remember that. There
hasn't been any such scream this time when you do it.
tM Perhaps Australian women are getting much better looking without
artificiai aids.'
Q. Do you think they are necessities for women? Cosmetics?
Chairman We are getting on to awfully dangerous ground. Let us get on to
Commonwealth/ State relations.
Q. Mr. Gorton, can you see any alternative to the present Commonwealth/
State relations and this annual bartering, and now it is becoming even
more frequent don't you think it is almost denigrating the Premiers the
way they have to go cap in hand / 9
PM I don't think it is denigrating the Premiers. But I think we all have to
understand that the overall responsibility for managing the economy is the
Commonwealth's and I think the Premiers themselves would unquestionably
agree to that. It has been suggested that an alternative might be to lay aside
a certain field of income tax or income tax for the States. I would not support
that. I don't believe Australians would be at all happy to have two income
taxes which one Government could raise and another Government could drop
and varying between the sections of Australia. I really think that would be
retrogressive. Indeed, the abolition of uniform income tax would not be good
for States like Queensland.
Q. What is the Government doing for the farmer? Why are we in this parlous
price throughout all our primary industries.....
I think we are in the parlous price for two reasons one because of the
cost increases which you mentioned that the farmer has to bear, and the other
because world markets seem to be closing down on their requirement for our
produce or the money they are prepared to pay for it. Dairy produce the
European Economic Community has got running out of its ears. There has
jeen a green revolution going on in the growing of cereals, and so on. Beef
and sugar are not bad so far. Tobacco is all right, but wool is an industry
that has been really badly hit and this because of the drop in prices. What
are we doing? Well we have had a long programme of subsidising superphosphate,
of taxation concessions, of zone allowances, of things of that kind, quite a lot
of things of that kind, and we are now tackling the wool one as best we can by
setting up the Wool Commission which, as you know, is designed to see that
people will pay....
Q. It started only two days ago, it is too early to say how it went.
PM It is indeed, but sirce it was announced, and maybe fortuitously, the price
of wool did begin to rise. Now it won't solve the problem, we have got to do
more than that.. And one of the things we have done..,. promised to is
to set up this Rural Finance Insurance Corporation to insure long-term loans
for farmers who are good credit risks, the way there ic a Housing Insurance
Corporation.
Q. Canada has recognised Red China now. Do you think that will cost
Australia any big wheat orders?
PM I doubt it. Red China seems to be singularly unconcerned about whether
countries recognise it or not. It buys where it thinks it is cheapest.
Q. Can you see any sense in our continuing not to recognise Red China?
PM Well, one thing that immediately comes to mind is Red China's insistence
that Taiwan should be recognised as a part of Red China. I don't believe it would
be right or proper or moral to take 12 million people.....
Q. That didn't worry Canada, did it Mr Gorton?
PM Well, I am not responsible for what Canada does...
Q. No, but if they can do it, we can do it.
Chairman The United States did last week did modify its attitude about
Communist China's admission to the United Nations. I think it would accept
now both Chinas. Does that influence your thinking at all?
PM We haven't altered our own gove. nmental attitude on this.
Q. Why can't we recognise both Chinas?
PM I have always understood one of the reasons is that Communist China has
strong objections to both Chinas being recognised.
Chairman -Gentlemen, can we get on to something as we have only a few
minutes some of the Party problems that face leaders in the country?
Q. We presume, Mr. Gorton, that one of the great worries that you have got
in the Senate election is that you might finish up with a hostile Senate. Wv~ hat
do you think the chances are for that?
PM I think it is unlikely, but until the numbers go up, it is always possible.
It is a possibility. I think it is unlikely, but it is a danger and I do thinlk people
should know it and should realise the difficulty this would cause.
Q. Do you think you car, get a clear majority without having to be propped
up by the DLP?
PM We would have to be very lucky.
Q. Since the last time you mentioned it has Mr Whitlam told any more
what did you say " a string of falsehoods" or something?
PM A string of falsehoods exactly that is what I said.
Q. Factual falsehoods. ./ 11
PM tvThat is what he quoted, but actually in my initial opening speech, I said
" a string of falsehoods". Well, there was a statement that we had had a five
per cent rise in inflation last year, which wasn't true. There was a statement
that the Treasurer had admitted that which wasn't true. There was a whole lot
of them. I can't remember them. But since thep, he has added a few. Yes, he
has made a statement that nothing has been done to help South Australian
Railways, and there was no money in the Budget for it. In fact the money is in
the Budget for it, as I have pointed out, and it was stanted in the Budget speech.
That is one falsehood. There are a couple of other things which verge on it.
He indicated the other day there wasn't such a thing as a Five-Power Pact. Now,
I suppose legally it has'L-It been signed, but there is agreement between Five
Powers, and this I thinkr tends to be close to falsehood.
Q. I was wondering whether we could ask you two rather personal questions.
Do you feel that at last you have a united team behind you and that all the ruptures
of your earlier months of office are behind you.
PM I think that is becomning evident.
Q. Would you say that you personally have changed since you became P1rime
Minister? And could you tell us in what way you have changed if you havei
PM I dorn't know whether I have changed or not. Other people have to look at that
and say whether I have changed or not. I really can't an_-swer that.
Q. After Mr. McEweri has gone back to his farm, or taken this roving ambasSador
trade Job or whatever it is, what do you think is going to happen to the Country
Party? Do you think it will retain its present strength or it will be more docile?
PM I think it will be under good leadership whoever they choose to lead it. And
I think it will continue to be a good partner in the Coalition Government. I doin't
expect it to be either docile or aggressive. I expect . it to be a co-partn~ er.
Q. just another word, personally from you, on Mr. McEwen. Have you any
plans for him as a sort of senior Trade negotiator?
PM No, I haven'tt. But the way this whole question arose is that somebody asked
him at a press conference if he were asked to do something, would he do itI and
he said, yes, he would. Now, when I say I haven't got any plans, it doesn't meanl
that I am saying he wouldn't be useful. It is just that we had never discussed it
all.
Q. Why do you want the Commonwealth to collect offshore mineral resources
royalties instead of the States? ./ 12
12.
PM I do it. I made it perfectly clear that the legislation we brought in and I
nean clear to all State Premiers, and publicly clear that should this legislation
pass, then any minerals discovered, the States would get 60 per cent of the
royalties of, just as they do, or perhaps a bit more than they do from the offshore
petroleum legislation. So the short answer is I don't.
Q. When do you expect this legislation to be through? Undoubtedly it is going
to be challenged, I suppose.
PM I wouldn't like to put a timetable on it, but sooner or later this question
has got to be resolved one way or the other. The question of where the real
legal responsibility lies. But royalties.... the States have, and indeed the
running... the way their Mines Departments work...
Q. All the hard work, yes.
PM For 60 per cent of the return.
Q. Prime Minister, you are a Victorian. Can you explain to us nobody on
the Labor side can why Mr. Whitlam can't settle the issue of the Victorian
ALP State Executive?
PM Well, I suppose because first of all he has been insulting the people In
the Victorian ALP Executive perhaps with reason. Then he has bee: n, saying
the most intemperate things about them for quite a lo-: g time, including that he
is going to stop them runn: ing on unity tickets, which he has never done. So
there is a lot of bad blood there. And I think that the people on the Victorian
State Executive are probably stronger than Mr. Whitlarn.
Q. Do you think that the last week's criticism by Mr. Griffith of Shortland
will have any lasting effect in New South Wales?
PM I don't know whether it will have a lasting effect or not, but it is a most
interesting window into the Caucus room because you will have noticed
Mr. VMhtlam, quite belatedly in the campaign has sudde: ly become a great
champion of an immediate pension rise, and now this little glimpse of what
happened inside Caucus that Mr. Griffith has given us is very interesting. You
remember he said " When I ( Griffith) urged higher pensions he ( Whitlam accused
me of featherbedding the pensioners." Well, thereit is.
Q. Well I am sorry we cannot pursue that a little further. It would have
been a most interesting subject I think, but our time has run out. We are
grateful indeed, to you Prime Minister, for having spared the time.
Thank you very much and goodnight.