' THIS WEEK'
TELEVISION INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER,
THE RT. HON. WILLIAM : IcMAHON, CH, MP, ON
HSV7, . ELBOURNE August 1972
Interviewers: John Boland
" ax Grant
Q. Well, Prime " inister, it seems that the
Government stock-: s were consid'erably restored after the
Budget on Tuesday. But I am wondering whether some of
this didn't fall awav when Sir Alan Hulme attacked the ABC
and you, yourself, subsequently lent your support to that.
This particular situation was likened by some journalists
this week to the situation in wartime when Mr Calwell, the
then Minister for Information, closed down certain papers
in Sydney. Now, did you feel that this may have detracted
from your efforts on the Budget, this particular conflict
that you had during the week
PM: Not a bit. Surely we are entitled to comment.
What I did say was this. I wa:, asked a simple question:
Do you believe that the ABC or the people of the ABC should
be permitted to ask any question in any way they like?;
And I said, " No, I don't. I believe they have to act
responsibly. I believe they have to act upon the truth."
But if I could take it a stage further, I don't believe,
as it were, that they should consistently put one set of
ideological principles and not put the other. But I
also believe very, very strongly that the ABC, that is, the
Commission, like the universities, must not be subject to
interference by a government outside the law. If the law
provides for something, then it is the responsibility of
the Commission to observe it. Having said that, I have to
make this one other comment. So far as I am concerned, this
is a problem for the Postmaster-General who has had a lot
of experience in these matters. He has not brought it to
the Government, and I certainly don't intend to take it any
further.
Q. Do you think, though, that Sir Robert Madgwick was
put in a terribly embarrassing situation when he had to
repudiate the Postmaster-General over his statements on the
Commissioners and the ABC? / 1
2
PM: I said I don't want to take this anyfurther because
there were differences of opinion within the ABC, and as I have
said, the Post '' ter-General has not brought this to a Government
level, so I think it is appropriate that I should leave
it at his level.
Q. I would like to ask you this, though. Who really
runs the ABC, Prime Minister?
PM: Well, this is where there is some difficulty. We
believe that Parliament must oass the law, and it devolves
certain authorities on the ABC. It is then for the Commission
of the ABC to decide what the devolution of authority shculd
be, and this is where there is some problem, I believe, with
the Postmaster-General. But, as I said, he is handling it,
and until he decides if he does decide tat it is a matter
of Government policy, then I can't go any further about it.
I have some doubts as to whether he will bring it to the
Government.
Q. At the moment, is the ABC being vetted in any way
except for their current affairs programme?
PM: Not so far as I know. It may be done by the
Postmaster-General, but if it is being done by him, he hasn't
conveyed this information to me.
Q. You have indicated in what you just said that you
believe that the ABC is politically slanted.
PM: I didn't say that at all.
Q. Ygu did use those words but....
PM: I stated certain qencral principles, and I said
that I believed that in the act of Parliament under which it
operates that it should be indenendent and free. But I also
believe that it should observe certain canons. I can't go
further into those because I have informed you of what my
views are.
Q. Prime Minister, I think very few peonle could argue
about the Budget. It has been called a bonanza Budget and
described in all sorts of other glowing terms. It must be
very tempting to go to the nolls straight away.
PM: Yes, it's tempting, but at the mment and I can
give you an assurance of this as I have given it to other
people U? to the moment, I have not made up my mind. In
fact I have not considered on what date we should have an
election. I did on Friday have the professionals in the
Party meet me in Canberra, and they discussed the limit
the earliest and the latest date we could go. Beyond that
I haven't given it any further consideration.
What is the latest date you could go?
-3
PM: If you don't mind, I have gnt no intention at all
of answering that-sort of a question.
0. Well the earliest would probably be a month away.
PM: About a month, yes. That is all the information
I will give you at the moment.
0. W. 7uld you considcr that, though? I mean, is that
a live possibility?
PM: It's not possible.
Q. What about Octo~ ber 21?
PM: I will go no further. I have given you all the
clues I intend to give you, because as I said, I haven't
given it deep? consideration, aind 1 am not the kind of person
to answer a question without a considerable amount of thought
beforehand.
0. It would seem though, Prime Minister, that with
the legislative ? rogramnc you have got in front of you to
wind up this year, it would he fairly difficult to do this,
and also you hava got the unemployment situation, to go
to the peonla before late November. Would that be a reasonable
sort of assessment?
PM: These are matters that every porson would take
into consideration when he is making up his mind what he
should do. But there are many other considerations as well.
And I can assure you of this, you will not be able to get a
precise date, or an indicain of a nrecise date from me
tonight.
Q. Do you think that if President Nixon is successful,
and it looks as though he will be, in re-election for
President, that this would help the Government?
PM: It would be some help, yes, but it wouldn't be
decisive.
0. Prime Minister, I wonder if I can, without trying
at this print for a specific date, put it this way. Are
there scme other things that you would like to do before
you go to the polls?
PMl: Yes, there are some other things. You menticoned
first of all the legislative programme. The essential
features of the Budget mnust be -asse d by the Parliament
before we can go to an election. We also have the problem
of administraticn of the election by the organisations of
the Party, whether the Parties themselves are ready and
on what date they will have the organistion in a fit state
for an election. These are but two of the problems. There
are others as well. As I said, you won't get any more out
of me tonight, so I personally believe it would be far
better if we moved on to something else
4
PM:
Q. PM:
0. Unemployment, then, is a problem that you might
like to rectify before you went to the nolls.
I have said over and over again, and as I said on
this programme the last time I was he-e that full employment
is with us a cardinal princinle of policy. We have strenuously
since September of last year taken measures to ensure that
unem* loyment was kept as low as we could keep it, and if we
find that the measures we are taking are not sufficiently
strong enough, then we will take more. But we do believe
the big area the area where there was a tendency to
stop the growth of employment in the way we wanted-was
consumption expenditure, We have made it a feature of this
year's Budget to increase the capacity for demand, and through
that method to be able to work its way back through the
wholesale shops ito the factories, and through the fartories
to increased employment. In other words, a moment ago, just
before I came onto this orogramme, I listened to an economic
reporter, and he said the Government has now put a lot of
money into circulation. He was talking of a total deficit, I am now
talking about an internal deficit we have turned a big
interral surplus last year into a $ 60 million internal
deficit this year, That is a vast amount of purchasing
nower to put into circuiati If it gets into circulation
quickly, then I have no doubt it will have an impact. So
as the previous commentator said, it is up to you, it is
up to the viewer, it is un to the people in the community.
I believe this is an occasion when they can spend and they
should spjend. I believe now that most of the doubts have
been sweot away, and we want a happy economy and a happier
people and not one that is worrying too much.
You must be concerned, though, that the movement
of unemployment hasn't really shifted very far from 100,000
in recent months. Have you been disappointed that there
wasn't a big decrease, particularly last month
I have said, and in fact, if you look at the
words of the Budget, I said that even though our or
the Treasurer said that even though our unemployment is
low by international standards and it is it is too
high for us. And the views expressed there are my own.
In fact the words " for us" were specifically introduced
into the Budget by me.
Now getting on to the Budget. The Budget provided
million in long-term loans to farmers. Now is this the
start of a $ 350 million rural develonment bank for farmers
as the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated?
PM: There is too much made of this nroblem. It is
correct to say that the objectives of the Liberal and the
Country Parties are identical. They can be summed up in these
words. We both believe that there should be better opportunities
for long-term finance on a commercial basis for some sections
of the rural industry. That is our objective. Where the
problem arises is as to how achieve that objective. As
for establishing a rural bank, my colleague, Tony Street, who
is the Assistant to the Minister for Labour and National
Service, some time last year presented a paper on behalf of
the organisation the Liberal Party organisation
recommending to the Government that we should have a national
rural bank. I, in fact, promoted that idea many months before
so that it is not new. The real difficulty that arises here
is as to how you do it, and whether you will cause greater
problems by the known methods than you will cure. At the
moment, I think it is fair ko say that we do not know how
we can overcome the problems associated with a separate
rural bank. But we are looking at it, and what we did in
this Budget was to provide $ 20 million for the Development
Bank to permit it to go ahead with the provision of long-term
finance for some of the rural industries.
Q. So it is not on $ 350 million?
PM: No, I don't think it is on, not in the immediate
future. Certainly not.
Q. Not when Mr Anthony has indicated that it is?
PM: Well I don't think he indicated that it is
immediately. In fact we gave this very careful consideration
during the discussions on the Budget and we came down with
a figure of $ 20 million to go to the Development Bank for
this financial year.
Q. Prime Minister, it was rather unsual for the
Reserve Bank to come out quite as strongly as it did during
the week and virtually say that perhans the Government should
consider revaluing up to counter inflation. Is that a
softening up for a Government move in that area?
PM: I contest the words " so strongly". It is implicit
in it, but it didn't express it directly that it came out
strongly in favour of upward revaluation. What I can say to
you is that when we looked at revaluation on the last occasion,
I personally took the initial view that we should revalue
upward against the US dollar by 6.32 per cent. And I did that
for various reasons, and I can explain to you if you want them,
and I will explain some of them to you because I think it is
critically important that we understand this problem. We
haven't to think only of pure monetary theory. On that we
would have gone up to 8.57 per cent. We also had to consider
our rural industries and the way they would have to compete
against others who devalued. We had to consider the mining
industries they lost about $ 8 million for every one per cent
of upward revaluation. And above all, we had to think of
confidence. I am sure that if we had gone further than 6.32
per cent, confidence would not have been restored and we would,
I believe, have increased the prospects of greater unemployment.
So as a Prime Minister, I took a view right at the beginning of
/ 6
-6
( PM continued)
where we should go, and I finished up on that point, and that
is where we stand.
0. But now?
PM: Well, now, while I haven't been in daily contact
or even in regular contact with the Governor of the Resoerve
Bank, at least I know that on that occasion, he thought our
action was reasonable.
Q. Prime Minister, there are a couple of things that
I would like to get through just before our time is up, and
one is overseas investment and takeovers of good Australian
com anies by overseas firms. Now are we likely in this session
to see Federal l~ egislation to prevent this going on
selling off more of the farm, in other words?
PM: I don't like these takeovers, particularly of the
type associated with Kiwi. I don't like them at all and
while I believe in free flow of exchanges under, well, normal
circumstances, I believe that the sooner we can get Papers
from the Treasury based upon the in-depth survey they made
of the effects of capital inflow private capital inflows
into the economy thie l~ etter it will be. They are preparing
about five different neers and I do not know at the moment
how far they have gone ir cnmpleting them.
Q. Would you like to have le';-islation before this
Session closes?
PM: Yes, I would.
Q. So you aim at doing it?
PM: It depends how much we have got and when we have
the election which you pressed me so hard about at the
beginning. I want it as soon as I can get it, but it is a
mammoth task and there is a tremendous amount to be done,
particularly associating with those measures in the Budget
that will relieve poverty and will give incentive to people
in the middle and lower income brackets and that will also,
I believe, establish very solid! foundations f-r future
growth somewhere about 5 or 5h per cent.
Q. Prime Minister, national superanruetion. Peo~ ple
are still exnecting some move in the Government area in that.
What is the latest an that?
7
PM: That was explained in the Budget, too, and is a
matter in which I have taken a very deep and personal
attention. We did say in the Budget that we would abolish
the means test within three years and I took a very decisive
part in seeing that that went into the Budget. But I have
also had to look very carefully at a national superannuation
scheme or some other means of ensuring that we would be able
to finance sensibly finance the measures that we have
adopted. I have given this matter at least eighteen months
consistent attention, but I have not felt satisfied that
wo were getting the right answers, so I had no other
alternative but to say that we would appoint an individual
or a committee to examine this problem of a national
superannuation scheme. Already I have got several people's
names in mind and I believe that it won't be long before we
will be able to get quidelines for the individual or the
commission. I hope to be able to announce this quite soon.
Q. What form will the poverty enquiry take, and when
will it get under way?
PM: We have already drawn un the terms of reference
for the pcverty enql ry and we have one or two or possibly
three names under consideration. We considered this last
week in Cabinet, we will consider it again on Tuesdl, and
I believe on Tuesday we ought to be able
Q. Release the details?
PM: Well, no, the details have been finished. It is
the names we have to decide upon.
Q. Very quickly, Prime Minister, following the meeting
of State Secretaries and Federal President with yourself at
the end of last week, what will you campaign on? There was
talk about selling the nolicies between now and the election.
Apart from the Budget, what else?
PM: First of all, as you have said, we have got to sell
our nolicies, and I hope that is what I was coming here to
do today because there is so much in this Budget that is so
good, we must let the Dcople know what is contained in it
as politicians. But apart altogether from that, when the
professionals and that is the professional officers of
the organisations in the six States and in Canberra when they
met, they prepared some papers for us. They admitted they
had not given the papers to us until Friday morning at ten
o'clock and they couldn't possibly expect us to give any
decisions on them by the time we rose at one o'clock lunch
time. So we will have to consider it again next Friday
and then the professionals and I and the other two Ministers
will be meeting again next week.
Q. If you win the next election, would you consider
bringing John Gorton back in to the Ministry in the light
of recent Galluo Polls? ./ 8
8-
PM: I have never ever spoken about John Gorton one
way or the other since he left the Government. I have
no intenion of doing it.
Q. Could you give some indication if that may be
a consideration?
P. M: No, I would g~ ive none. q3ut I would not say
that he is ruled out.
Q. In terms of time to sell the policies, that
would tend to suggest November?
PM: You are a very persistent nerson, but you will
not get an answer about it from me.
Q. Well you haven't ruled John Gorton out, so that
is one interesting thing, Prime Minister. The other is that
it is being said that this year's Budget is a politially
designed Budget for the uncommitted voter. Now is that a
fair assessment?
PM: It is one of the ingredients, yes, but there are
many better ones, because I know what was in my mind and
what was in the mind of the Cabinet when we designed
the Budget.
Q. To win the election
PM: Well, no, the first one was that we realised there
were some nTe ople who had a fear of old age and that had to
be removed and it has been removed. We knew there were areas
of need that had to be covered, and I believe most of them
have been covered. There was the area of poverty I referred
to the Henderson Inquiry. And I believe in most of the areas
we have looked at, we have covered this question of poverty
and we have done it effectively. We have had the problem of
nursing homes and home nursing attention. I am sorry that
this hasn't been em; phasised and the benefits not known because
I believe it would be a help to a great number of people.
That was our number one concern.
Q. But it is also an election-winning Budget, you feel?
PM: Yes, it is an election-winning Budget, too.
They are both important. And the third one was that we had
to have sound economic and administrative reasons for the
change. And that is why we have a deficit a total deficit
of $ 630 million, and an internal deficit of $ 60 million.
This is sound economic manae., ement and will be the basis
of our success.
Q. Prime Minister, one final question. You mentioned
yourself when you were hero some months ago in March, you
talked about unemployment and you wanted to get it down
then. But it's not down, it is still up around 100,000.
Would you be happy to go to the polls with unemployment
at that level? / 9
9
PM: I dc-In't think it will be cuite at that level.
We have done so much that we should have achieved the
response that we expecte, by now. iut our expectations
have not been achieved. I believe this Budget, with a
deficit as I have said, of overall $ 630 million, internally
millicn should do the trick. But as I have said again,
our attitudes to Budgeting are not the hard and fast rules
of other days. We believe in flexibility, and while I don't
think it will. be necessary, it would take a little time before
we could make certain of this. But if we felt it was
necessary, of course we would act, as we have done, because
ever since the days when Sir Robert inherited government,
we have always been willing to take action whenever we have
thought it was necessary and we have never thought it was
a cast iron rule that you had to wait until the actual
day of the next Budget itself.
Q. So you think that this is an election-winning
Budget?
PM: Yes I do.
Q. Prime Minister, if I thought it was going to be a
case of third man lucky, I, too, would ask you when the
Federal election was going to take place, but I don't think
that theory is gning to work.
PM: I can assure you it won't work!
Thank you, indeed, for joining us.