THE PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 19 DECEMBER 1972
PRIME MINISTER: Ladies and gentlemen: there is a matter which
will be interesting in the next few days, it concerns diplomatic
relations with East Germany the German Democratic Republic.
I have instructed the Australian Ambassador in Moscow to
have discussions with his East German colleague there, about
the early establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia
and the German Democratic Republic. These discussions are in
progress. Following the recent moves between West and East Germany
to normalise their relations, I consider it is important both
for political and commercial reasons to normalise Australia's
relations with East Germany. Apart from facilitating trade in
both directions, Australian recognition of East Germany would,
when agreement is reached, make people in Europe more aware that
there is a new government in Australia which is not concentrating
on South East Asia and the Pacific to the exclusion of our highly
important relations with Europe.
I would also make the point that in opening discussions
with the German Democratic Republic I am seeking to avoid situations
in which Australia takes general decisions in international affairs
late. I would rather see Australia in the vanguard then in the
rearguard in coming to its own foreign policy decisions.
MR. BARNARD: Mr. Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen: the
Government has decided that because of the heavy burden of
defence policy which will fall on the Defence Minister, a second
Minister under the policy of higher management direction of the
Minister for Defence should be appointed to whom the three services
may look for political guidance, and who will answer questions in
parliament relating to their parti cular sercice interests.
He will participate along with the Minister for Defence himself
in discussions in the Ministry when the interests of servicemen
are involved in matters coming before the Government. The
Minister assisting will exercise many of those functions which
under existing legislation are conferred on the Minister for the
Navy, the Army and Air.
The Government intends, at the second stage and before the
end of 1973, to merge into the Department of Defence the three
service departments and, if deemed practicable, at the same
time the Supply Department. Legislative amendments will be
introduced after the plans for organisational change have been
prepared by the Secretary of the Department of Defence in
consultation with other responsible authorities, and after the
Government has made a decision on them. There will be other
innovations; the Government will establish standing machinery
for assessing the pay and conditions of the armed forces and
it will come into effect after the Woodward Committee completes
its work. An Ombudsman for the members of the armed gervices
will be appointed after his mandate has been drafted and his
relationship with the military disciplinary and command system
-2-
has been clearly laid down. As soon as the re-organised Department
of Defence is ready to assume the responsibility, the Civil Defence
Directora te will be transferred to it from the Department of the
Interior, and there will be created a National Disaster Organisation
in association with it to cope in co-operation with other civil
authorities in Australia with the effects of natural disasters
like droughts, floods, fires and cyclones to which Australia is
subject. The appointments reflect the Government's intention to
give an important priority to maintaining efficient fighting forces
controlled by modern administration under a senior Defence minister.
The Government intends to break down the separation of service
administration from each other and from the Department of Defence
in which respect a number of countries have moved far ahead of
Australia. PRIME MINISTER: Ladies and gentlemen: the last two Conferences,
the first two of the three Conferences given by the present
administration, were given in the late afternoon. We tried to have
the last one in time for the afternoon papers to have it in the
morning. You remember, that that wasn't posiible, but we have
been able to arrange this one this morning. It might suit your
convenience best for the representatives of the afternoon papers
to ask the first questions.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, in the field of foreign affairs, has
it been made clear to the United States government that your
government does not follow the same policy on Vietnam as your
predecessors did and are you at this stage, prepared to deplore
the resumption of American bombing of the Hanoi/ Haiphong area?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, naturally we regret that the negotiations
for a cease-fire, leading one would hope to a peace settlement,
have broken down. There have been no communications on this subject
between the United States and the Australian governments.
Australia is not a party principal in any way in Vietnam.
As you know, the last Australian combatant or training forces have
now left the country. obviously, we hope that the negotiations
are soon resumed.
Prime Minister, what about the bombings?
Q. Riave you any comment on the bombings to Mr. Matthew's question?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I don't think a comment would help. we would
like to have the negotiations resumed. That's all that I feel I
should say.
Q. Have you at last received the communication from the
Queensland Premier about the Torres Strait Island border problem?
Have you had any representations from the Islanders themselves that
you should visit there or see some of their people? What's your
latest attitude on this?
PRIME MINISTER: I : might have received a reply from Mr. Bjelke-
Petersen. I haven't seen it. You can understand that yesterday
and today I wouldn't be very much up to the minute on my
correspondence. I don't know if he's replied. I did write to
him last week on this subject. He must have the letter by now.
Q. Has he said that he's replied?
-3-
HAWKINS: I understood that he had written back to you again,
but I'm niot 100% sure that it was in reply to your letter.
PRIME MINISTER: I don't I haven't seen a letter from him on
this subj-ect.
Q. Sir, will there be a Cabinet meeting before Christmas and
what do you see as the most pressing problems or questions to be
discussed by the first Cabinet meeting?
PRIME MINISTER: I hope there'll be a Cabinet meeting tomorrow.
Ther-e will not: . be many matters that can be dealt with at this
notice, but one that I have in mind is the application pending
on Thursday before the Public Service Arbitrator about four weeks
annual leave for the Public Service. I would like the full
ministry to consider the attitude that should be taken on that
application. Q. Mr. Whitlam, I'm told that the Chinese, in the discussions
on recognition, are demanding that your government expropriate
all the assets of the Taiwan Ggvernment and hand them over to
them and, secondly, that we remove even our trade representatives
from Taiwan. Are these things that the Government is prepared
to negotiate with because they seem to go beyond the Canadian
formula that you have laid down as the key to recognition?
PRIME MINISTER: You've been told more than I have. There will
be no official representatives in Taiwan once relations are
established with Peking. There are there never have been
official representatives of Canada in Taiwan.
Q. Aren't there trade officials?
PRIME MINISTER: I thought not.
Q. Appropo to that particular subject. Could you say what
stage has been reached in the negotiations with the People's
Republic of China through our ambassador to Paris?
PRIME MINISTER: The discussions are proceeding statisfactorily.
I expect that there will be another meeting between the ambassadors
quite shortly.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister. If Mr. Barnard can handle five previous
portfolios, admittedly with the assistance of an Assistant Minister,
how hard will Senator Cavanagh work in Works? Could not the
Ministry have, in fact, and the general administration, been cut
considerably? PRIME MINISTER: The pra ctical fact is that no Commonwealth
Ministry from now will have less than 27 ministers. I would
imagine that Senator Cavanagh, as Minister for Works, will be
much more fully engaged than his predecessor in that portfolio.
-4-
Q. Sir, have you opened any negotiations with the French
Governme. t regarding nuclear tests in the Pacific?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Q. Prime Minister, you indicated prior to the elections that
the one minister would control both the Departments of Labour
and Immigration. In the Ministry you announced last night this
was not so. Why have you now appointed an individual Minister
for Immigration? Does this involve a re-thinking of your
immigration policy?
PRIME MINISTER: There have been three or four ministers who
I have said, from time to time, would have two portfolios but
who will now be having only one. The reason is largely the
reason I've just given, that there have to be portfolios for
27 Ministers. I also had said that Mr. Uren would handle both
Urban and Regional Development and Environment and Conservation
but he agreed to take only one. I had also said that Mr.
Hayden would take both Social Security and Health. He has agreed
to take only one and the change in Mr. Cameron's position of
taking only one of the two that I'd previously suggested was one
which was also taken with his agreement.
Q. This doesn't represent any changes in your thinking on
immigration the change in immigration policy?
PRIME MINISTER: No. No, I'm not quite sure what you mean there.
Q. The fact that immigration will be running down?
PRIME MINISTER: No, the emphasis will be, as you can well see
from Mr. Grassby's appointment, in making people who have
migrated to Australia happy in this country, and the prime
means of bringing other migrants to this country.
Q. Do you intend to give assisted passages to coloured migrants
in the near future? If so, when and how many per year?
PRIME MINISTER: I would. The general attitude is, as has been
stated for quite some time, the emphasis on who comes here will
be not what the Government determines, but what is determined
by people who are already living in Australia. Principally,
that is the people who are close relatives and close friends of
existing residents in Australia will be the migrants who will be
coming here. No numbers have ever beeh stated, but I would
think that the number of migrants of all categories will
continue, I emphasise continue, to fall.
Q. Will you give assisted passages to the Taiwanese?
PRIME MINISTER: I'll consider that.
Q. How do you regard Australian and British relations now that
you're Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: Better.
Q. Prime Minister, following the split between Social Security
and Health, will Dr. Everingham. and Mr. Hayden both be involved in
negotiations, for example with the doctors, or will the Social
Security Minister be solely responsible for those negotiations?
PRIME MINISTER: The Social Security Minister will be mainly
responsible. There may be occasions when the Health Minister
would also be involved in bringing in the new form of health
insurance. There will be other matters in which Dr. Everingham
would be principally concerned in negotiation with the doctors
such as hospitals and clinics.
Q. Would he be involved in discussing with the doctors fees, the
question of doctor's fees?
PRIME MINISTER: This would be primarily Mr. Hayden's. I don't
say that Dr. Everingham mightn't be involved but this would
primarily be a matter for Mr. Hayden. You will appreciate
that the Department of Social Security will deal not only with
cash social services: it will also deal with health insurance
and with the introduction of national superannuation and
national compensation.
Q. Sir, do you intend to encourage your Ministers to take up
residence in Canberra and do you intend to review the policy of
the last government on Ministerial housing?
PRIME MINISTER: This will be considered by the new
administration to be sworn in at half past five this
afternoon. Where Ministers live will depend, as it always
has, on the two considerations of looking after their
electorate, which is their base after all, and best performing
their administrative duties.
Q. The Hospitals Commission you proposed. When do you envisage
setting that up and who will be administering it, Dr. Everinghamor
Mr. Hayden?
PRIME MINISTER: It would be responsible primarily to
Dr. Everingham.
Q. When do you envisage setting it up?
PRIME MINISTER: I think, in an interim form. I would hope
quite soon.
Q. I want to clarify a question I asked you last week about
a statement you made in July, of which you were apparently
unaware, about rehabilitation assistance to people who
suffered in the name of conscience under the National Service
Act. I've since looked up the reference. I don't know
whether you have.
PRIME MINISTER: No I haven't.
Q. It was a telegram you sent to the Reverend Roger Wootten
of the Melbourne Presbyterian Church.
-6-
PRIME MINISTER: My communications from clergy usually come
from othe-rquarters.
Q. Well, this telegram was quoted in the " Age" on the 11th of July
1972. The telegram you sent to him in which you promised
rehabilitation assistance for those who had suffered in the
name of conscience under the National Service Act. Again, what
form will the rehabilitation assistance take. Will it be
financial compensation and is financial compensation being
considered for draft resisters who went underground?
PRIME MINISTER: I would guess that the answer I sent to this
gentleman would be quoting the resolution at the Launceston
Conference last year. I would doubt if I went any further than
that, but I've given no further consideration to this matter.
It's obviously a matter for the new Government to consider if
it's to be considered at all.
Q. In view of Mr. Cameron's rather gloomy forecasts about
the future employment situation and the high priority which
you gave to this in your election campaign, what remedial
action can you take in addition to the action already tak en
through the States? Is there any program in your mind for setting
up plans to absorb the unemployed persons?
PRIME MINISTER: I've received a letter from Sir Robert Askin,
along with several proposals for employment which can be rapidly
increased in various fields through public expenditure in New
South Wales along the lines that have been arranged with the
four southern States already. I think this letter came yesterday
and I'll be discussing it with Mr. Crean today, but the form
of Commonwealth assistance to get people back to work will largely
be in the form that's already been taken.
Q. With regard to your own area: of responsibility, could you
explain specifically your responsibility to the Tariff Board and
how this fits in with the functions of the Department of
Secondary Industry and, the second question, do you know at
this stage when Parliament will meet?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I don't know when Parliament will meet.
This will be a matter which will be discussed by the new
Ministry. About the Tariff Board; you'll remember that the
proposal that we were making earlier this year was that the
Tariff Board should be extended and perhaps renamed " Protection
Commission" in order to have references, not only in respect
to secondary industry from the Department of Trade and Industry
which is now being abolished, but also from the new Department*
of Bed-ondar y Industry and from the continuing Department of
Primary Industry and from the continuing Department of Customs
and Excise, the whole idea being that the Tariff Board, or its
enlarged and maybe renamed successor, would inves tigate and,
if it sees fit, recommend the forms of encouragement for protection
by way of tariff or subsidies or grants research grants in both
primary as well as secondary industry.
Q. ' Prime Minister, have you had a chance yet to have a look
at the proposed Cabinet Committee system? How many Committees
will there be, what will be their names and to what extent will
they be able to make decisions on behalf of the Cabinet? And, also,
could you explain why you've transferred Prima ry Industry from
the Reps to the Senate?
-7-
PRIME MINISTER: I haven't considered yet the Cabinet Committee
system. I've done a little study of it for instance, on the
Canadian model. All I can say at this stage is that it's unlikely
that the Cabinet Committees will make decisions on behalf of the
Cabinet. What may happen is that the Cabinet Committees would
make a recommendation to the Cabinet and that would become the
Cabinet decision if no other Ministers objected to it and asked
for the matter to be re-opened. You also asked me about the
transfer of Primary Industry from the House of Representatives.
to the Senate. There is, of course, no requirement for any
Ministry to be in either House except, I suppose, the Prime
Minister and the Treasurer have to be in the House of Representatives.
Any other Minister can be in either House, and I would think every
Ministry, hitherto, at one stage or another has been represented
in each House.
Q. Prime Minister, some pensioners have complained a little
that they haven't received an immediate increase as you had
promised in your policy speech, and I would like to ask how it's
possible that youlre able to find a loophole in terms of getting
dra ft resisters out of gaol and not being able to give a pension
increase?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I'm sorry that any pensioners have made
that compl'ant because I never made any promise in the Policy
Speech of an immediate increase. I said there would be in Autumn,
and there will be in Autumn quite early after the House sits.
However, I never said there would be one before Autumn. I said
that, thereafter, there would be twice a year, Spring and Autumn
thereafter. Q. Reading the policy speech thouigh it does, in fact, say
an immediate increase?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't think it does. There was no suggestion
that there would be any increase before the Parliament met.
There can't be, can there?
Q. If I may just supplement that one. You were able to find
a loophole in terms of conscription, and draft resisters were
let out of gaol.
PRIME MINISTER: There was no expenditure of money required there.
You can't expend money on social services except by authorisation
of the Parliament, and payment of social services comes out of the
National welfare Fund I think it is to which the contributions
are made under amending social services acts. I haven't got a
copy of the policy speech with me but I never came across any
misunderstanding on this matter at all. The promise was that
there would be an increase of $ 1.50 when the Parliament met next
year and thereafter every Spring and Autumn until the pension
reached 25% instead of the present 20% of the avera ge weekly
male earnings.
-8-
Q. Mr. Whitlam, a question on your announcement at the weekend
of a scheme to favour Australian-owned companies in the allocation
of government contracts?
PRIME MINISTER: That was in the policy speech.
Q. Do you envisage the situation of tenders equal in price and
availability arising very often? If tenders equal in price and
availability do arise often, this is not a matter for the collusive
tendering provisions of the Trade Practices Act?
PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be.
Q. If they don't arise often what benefit real benefit will
the scheme have for Australian-owned companies and the second
point; have you any details of the criteria for determining
Australia ownership? If those details haven't been worked out yet,
why was the scheme announced by the interim administration and
not announced in full detail so that companies who could
be affected by it can find out all the details by the second
Whitlam Ministry?
PRIME MINISTER: The present administration carried out as many
of the proposals in the party platform and in the policy speech
as it could do in the time available to it., T his was one of the
proposals in the policy speech. It was particularly mentioned
in the policy speech in connection with Commonwealth purchases
of petrol and oil. The present situation, as I understand it,
is that if tenders are equal then they go to the company which
previously had the order, the contract. Presumably, therefore,
there have been cases hitherto where people have made the same
tender. Now, in that case, there may be in the future. If
this happens in the future, instead of going to the old supplier
it would go to the Australian supplier. As you will remember in
the press statement I made two days ago, current contracts for
petroleum products will not expire before the end of 1973. I.' ve
been investigating this as regards the Department of Supply by
way of questions in the last Parliament, but there are a
considerable number of instrumentalities where I was unable
to find the position in the last Parliament. It now appears
that all the contracts go on until the end of 1973. Now, if by
1973 some of the other oil companies achieve the favourable
position of Ampol or even H. C. Sleigh then they will continue
to get some of the Commonwealth contracts which hitherto they
seem to have been largely monopolised.
Q. The question of the criteria of Australian ownership. Has
that been resolved?
PRIME MINISTER: No. There are various criteria which have already
been laid down in Commonwealth legislation. Ampol would clearly
comply with this and maybe H. C. Sleigh but it would appear that the
other companies which have Commonwealth contracts at this stage do not.
Q. May I ask, through you, Mr. Barnard a couple of current issues on
defence? First of all, the Woodward Committee reported to you, I
think last FRiday, on the outstanding items which included possible
pay rises. It was mentioned that these pay rises could cost $ 70 million.
How soon do you expect to be able to implement these last matters and
also, on the DqF, R. B., you had meetings also last week on the D., RB
which I believe are being
-9-
tidied up this week. Are you encountering any unforeseen
difficulties in carrying out the policy promise to implement
the D. F. R. B. Jess Committee's Report as quickly as possible?
MR. BARNARD: Well, first of all on the Woodward Committee Report.
I received it last Friday afternoon. That allowed me some time
over the weekend to look at it myself. Now, it's a very
comprehensive report. It is true that it will involve the Government in
additional expense but it is in line with our policy undertakings
to improve the conditions of serving members ' of the armed forces.
Naturally, I want sufficient time to be able to carefully consider
the proposals before I have further discussions about the Woodward
Committee's report with the Prime Minister. Now, I hope to do that
as soon as possible because we have said that we will provide
improved conditions for serving members of the forces as soon as
possible. I believe this is a very valuable and significant
report and, therefore, I hope to have the discussions as soon as
pos. รต ible and then the decision will be one for the new Government
to determine when legislation is introduced into the Federal
Parliament. But we have also said that we would want to make
reports available to the public and those interested in them as soon
as possible. I can assure you that I'll be moving, as soon as
practicable, to have the report made available to the media after
consultation with the Prime Minister. Now, the second part of
the question was on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefit Fund. Again,
it was a policy decision during the last election that we would
implement the recommendations of the Jess Committee. Now, I began
last week by having discussions with those concerned; with the
Treasury Department and from the armed services. I have indicated
to them that I would hope to have legislation ready for the first
session of the Federal Parliament. This, of course, will depend on
some administrative matters, the availability of the necessary
machinery to provide the legislation. But, I will be having further
discussions again this week on matters concerning the D. F. R. B. and
it will, as I have said, be introduced as soon as it is practicable
to do so.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, on the subject of primary industry again.
Only the second time since Mr. McMahon became the first Minister
in the early fifties has this job fallen to a non-farmer. In
view of the fact that the previous farmer representative in the
previous government was ranked about fourth or fifth in the
Cabinet with due respect to Senator Wreidt why has the
position been so downgraded?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know where primary industry has ranked
in the Ministerial list hitherto. I think the highest position
it ever reached was in the last Government and that was merely
for the reason that it was held by the Deputy Leader of the
Country Party. It was not because of the Department, it was
because of the party position of the Minister.
Q. Mr. Whitlam, I'd like to know who's going to authorise
the tapping of our telephones? Could you tell us about the
relationship of ASIO to the government, and are there any new
arrangements there?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Q. It stays with Senator Murphy does it?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Q. Sir, on tariffs. Which department will now carry
the overall responsibility for moulding general tariff courses?
PRIME MINISTER: This is probably one of those matters which will
be discussed by one of the Cabinet committees. Tariff Board
matters will only be defused to use your term because there
will be, for the first time, an investigation of protection in
various forms for primary products, not, as hitherto, secondary
products alone. The administration is already pretty defused
because two Ministers hitherto have been able to refer matters
to the Tariff Board for enquiry and report, the Minister for
Trade and Industry formerly I think it used to be Customs and
Agriculture wasn't it? Commerce and Agriculture and then,
of course, Customs and Excise can do so.
Q. Sir, will we have an early increase in members' pay and,
if so, will this mean an increase in ministerial pay?
?' RIME MINISTER: I do like the lilt in your voice!
This has not been considered by the present ministry. As you
probably know, their emoluments have not been increased for years.
Mr. Barnard and I are drawing the emoluments, and I've seen that
Senator Murphy and Senator Willesee continue to receive them
although they would otherwise have lost the emoluments we were
all receiving in the last Parliament and no more at this stage.
PRIME MINISTER: Incidentally, on this I forget the calculations
but tech-nic-aly Mr. Barnard and I could have taken, for this
fortnight, the whole of the ministerial pool.
Q. On that subject, Sir, at the moment there are senior ministers
and junior ministers who receive differing pay scales. I think
you are going to be an egalitarian minister, you're receiving
the same salaryA
PRIME MINISTER: You are quite right.
Q. Will your salary drop or will the others increase?
PRIME MINISTER: They might.
Q. There is a point, Sir, related to that. What sort of
staffing facilities do you think the Government will provide
for the Liberal and Country Parties so that they can carry out
their mandate to oppose?
PRIME MINISTER: I'll have to they will get better staffing
facilitie~ s than the previous Opposition, and they'll probably
need it. This is a matter where, clearly, the new ministry will
have to discuss the matter and the method of communication in
the first instance is between the leaders of the various parties.
When the Liberals choose their new Leader then, presumably, he
and Mr. Anthony and I will have a discussion on this matter and
then the Ministry will have a discussion upon it.
-11-
Mr. Anthony did approach me about this. He was very quick
off the mark but I told him that he could go ahead on the basis
that his staff should be not smaller than that which Mr. Barnard
enjoyed in the last Parliament, and he has taken up residence.
I hope the Speaker approves of it.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, in view of the meeting, I think early
next month, with Mr. Hamer and Sir Robert Askin on the development
of Albury/ Wodonga. Have any instructions been issued cancelling
or deferring the transfer of departments to Canberra and, in
particular, the building of office blocks further office blocksf
or the Public Service in Melbourne or Sydney?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
I'm not sure that there wasn't I said no oders had been given.
I'm not sure there wasn't something on the proposed Woolloomooloo
Commonwealth building. You'll remember that the Public Works
Committee reported against it. Now, I if you're interested in
this matter perhaps I'd better look it up and see precisely if
anything has happened since then, but otherwise there hasn't been.
Q. Will Dr. Patterson be answering for Primary Industry union
representatives and, if so, what will be the inter-actio n between
Northern Development and Primary Industry?
PRIME MINISTER: Of f hand, the principal relation between the
two will be in sugar and in cattle but administratively they
would be sepa rate departments. You ask me if Dr. Patterson
would be the Minister in the House of Representatives representing
the Minister for Primary Industry. I haven't discussed the
question of representation in either House with any of my colleagues
but I would expect that Dr. Patterson would be the Minister in
the House of Representatives representing the Minister for Primary
Industry.
Q. Mr. Whitlam, can you name the new Permanent Heads of the
departments you outlined last night and, if not, when can we
expect to have the names of the new Pe rmanent Heads?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter where the new ministers will
be having ' discussionwsi th the Public Service Board, and then
when they have recommendations they'll make them to the Cabinet
which will then make the appointments. I don't know how soon
this can be done but it may be possible to do it more quickly
in some departments than in others. Some of the new departments
are ones where it may not be possible to find a properly qualified
person in the Commonwealth Service.
Q. Have you given any thought to the invitations you might like
to extend during the coming period to heads of governments or heads
of State from other countries we've talked at previous press
conferences about yourself visiting China, do you intend to invite
anybody here? In terms of a European Leader, might you be
thinking of the Chancellor of West Germany who is the Head of
the fraternal party?
PRIME MINISTER: It's too soon to say. It's a happy thought.
I apprec'ia-te your reference to the Leader of our brother party
-12-
in West Germany.
Q. On the question of Mr. Cameron's ra ther gloomy predictions
for unemployment, do you expect now that you will quickly bring
in higher unemployment benefits? If so, when and what do you see
as a reasonable figure for unemployment benefits?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter where the new Ministry will make
decisions.' Higher benefits will have to await legislation. I
think that these are benefits which have remained unaltered
longer than any except maternity allowances and child endowment.
Q. I believe Lord Carrington, Britain's De fence Minister,
is coming out in January. Can you indicate what might be
discussed with him?
PRIME MINISTER: I've said that we I think I said this a.
fort-night ago but there has been further correspondence and
I have repeated the fact that we'll be very happy to have
discussions with him on the whole range of matters which he
likes to bring up on behalf of his Government.
Q. You said a fortnight ago that a question on the Honours
list was premature. Do you now confirm that there'll be no
Commonwealth list in the coming New Year's list, and are
you seeking or have you received any proposals from your
department on an alternative Australian system of recognition?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter of some delicacy. All I want
to say i1s : no persons were sounded on their willingness to
receive Awards in a New Year's Honours list on the nomination
of the Australian Government. I say that because some people
have suggested that there's been a breach of faith or a
humiliation. No persons were sounded about any honours from
the Australian Government.
I'm assured that no soundings were made. I've read reports
that some former ministers had been recommended for honours.
I have not asked to see any civilian honours lists. I'm assured
no soundings were made. There was one former private member
I noticed, according to thepapers, had been recommended for a
Knighthood. Q. Who was that?
PRIME MINISTER: I'd only be repeating newspaper speculation.
All I can say about it is that it would have been the most
remarkable knighthood since Sir Toby Belch. A fortnight ago,
I did say that I was seeking a report on appropriate recognition
of long service or gallantry in the armed forces or in the
uniformed services. This would I've not received it, but
I didn't ask for it as a matter of urgency. I would not expect
it to come to hand for quite some weeks. There would be no
recommendations by this Government, accordingly, for people
in the armed forces or the uniformed services I mean people
like fire brigades and police forces.
-13-
Q. Can you report on the progress of moves to close the
Rhodesian Information Centre in Sydney, and also following'
the latest and yet more stories of Francis James' imminent
release from China can you give us any information about
this? Can you tell us the latest situation?
PRIME MINISTER: I wrote, you may remember, to Sir Robert
Askin about the registratio n of a so-called Rhodesian
Information Office under a New South Wales Act. He wrote
back to me, in effect, acknowledging the letter. Now, I might
have had a letter yesterday or today but due to the pressure
of work, as you can imagine, I'm a bit behind with the letters.
I've not seen a substantive reply. On Mr. Francis James,
the answer is exactly the same as it was last time.
Q. Could you give us your tip for who might be elected Leader
of the Opposition by the Liberals?
PRIME MINISTER: I've had some big problems on my plate in
the last fortnight but none as great as this. Gentlemen,
this apparently is the last question at the concluding press
conference of this ministry. Therefore, may I take the
opportunity of saying that we will try to follow the same
procedure in the new Ministry. In the meantime, we wish
you as we wish ourselves a restful holiday.
Q. And prosperous?
PRIME MINISTER: I hope so. I hope it's a prosperous
New Year but this will require quite a deal of Government action.
In the meantime, a Happy Christmas for us all.