THE PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS, CONFERENCE
AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 3 APRIL, 1973
PRIME MINISTER: There are a very considerable number of
decisions which the Cabinet made this morning. Most of them
you can get details about from my colleagues, and I've told
them that you might be asking them details.. There are some
however which come within my responsibility so I'll give a
bit further detail about them.
We decided on two significant improvements'in the
conditions of service for Australian Government employees.
The first deals with maternity leave and the second with
furlough long service leave. Legislation to implement these
decisions will be introduced as soon as possible but the
improved conditions will be effective from 1 January last.
I'll be issuing press statements which will give the details.
They'll go to some pages. They include however, in the case of ( a)
maternity leave a minimum of 12 weeks paid maternity leave
and up to one week's leave with pay for employees who require
it to care for the mother or children. In the case of
furlough an increase in the accrual rate of long service leave
to half a month for each year of service after 10 years,
reduction in the qualifying periods for long service leave
and for payment in lieu. These decisions are consistent with
my Government's policy that as the largest single employer
in Australia, we have a duty to advance the cause of all
employees by establishing new and improved standards of
employment for our own employees. The maternity leave provisions
in particular, of course, have been ILO standards since 1919.
Cabinet decided to establish a task force to apply close
scrutiny to continuing policies of the previous Government so
that room may be found for our own higher priority programs.
The Chairman of the task force will be Dr. Coombs who will
be responsible for the final report. To assist him I have
sought and obtained from their respective ministers the release
of the following officers from their normal departmental duties
so that they can serve on the task force in a personal capacity:
Mr M. A. Besley, First Assistant Secretary, Department of External
Territories, Dr. S. F. Harris, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Overseas Trade, Mr R. D. Phillips, Deputy Director-General,
Department of Civil Aviation, Mr J. 0. Stone, Deputy Secretary,
( Economic), Department of the Treasury. They will be joined on
the task force by Mr P. V. McGuinnes of Mr Hayden's office and
Mr J. J. Spigelman of mine. Mr Walsh will be releasing to you
the letter I've sent to Dr. Coombs.
We have decided to set up a National Commission on social
welfare. The Chairman will be Mrs. Maree Coleman, the Deputy
Chairman will be sought by advertisement. The part~' time
members will be Professor R. G. Brown, professor of Social
Administration at Flinders, Mrs. Sadie Canning, Matron of the
Leonora Hospital, Western Australia, Mrs. Edna Chamberlain,
Head of the Department of Social Work in the university of
Queensland, Professor Harris, Professor of Economics at
James Cook University, Mr Tom Roper, Lecturer in Education
at La Trobe University, Professor E. G. Saint, Dean of the
Faculty of Medicine in the University of Queensland, the
Reverend Keith Seamnan Superintendent of the Adelaide
Central Methodist Mission, Mr Greg Sullivan, of the
N. S. W. Bar, and an A. C. T. U. representative who will be
nominated by the President of the A. C. T. U. Mr Hayden can
give you more details of the terms of reference I have got
them here actually but I don't suppose you want me to take
up time in reading them to you. Now to the other decisions.
Mr Barnard, as Minister for Defence, and I as Foreign
Minister, will be referring to the Joint Select Committee on
Foreign Affairs and Defence any Foreign Affairs and Defence
aspects of the Omega Navigation System. The Attorney-General
will draw up a bill to repeal those sections of the Crimes
Act which permit the deportation of citizens who were born
overseas and the declaration oil organisations by the High Court
or a State Supreme Court. These sections have been in the Act
I think since 1926. Mr Uren can give you the details of the
inquiry into the leasehold system of land tenure. Mr Justice
Else-Mitchell will preside over the inquiry and the terms are
being settled in consultation with him by Mr Uren and Mr Enderby.
Mr Uren will give you the details of the establishment of
Australian-State Land Commuissions. Dr Patterson and Mr Enderby
can give you the details of a survey into a regional township
in the Aligator River area. Dr Patterson can give you details
of our suggestions on a Burdekin River Authority. Mr Crean can
give you details of a technical bill to make defence expenditure
a charge on loan funds. Mr Jones can give you details of the
reappointment of the Select Committee on Road Safety which the
House of Representatives established last year. Senator Wriedt
can give you details of the Wool Research Grants which we've
approved for next financial year. Senator Wriedt is leaving
for a meeting of the International Wool Secretariat tomorrow.
He can also give you details of our proposals for a national
brucellosis and animal tuberculosis campaign, and Mr Morrison
can give you the details of a bill to amend the Marine Science
Institute Bill and details of the Ord River Research Program.
Are there any questions?
May I ask you two questions please: one is on the
Rhodesian Information Centre and the powers of the Government,
the Foreign Affairs powers, to close that if the New South Wales
Government doesn't deregister it under the Companies Act.
I'm not clear about those powers, Sir, and the other question
was legislation being introduced by Senator Murphy ultimately
with regard to the integration of law enforcement authorities.
I think some people are worried that this could put too much
power of the law enforcement of an investigation and of a
prosecution character into the hands of one man, and I wonder
how you see this particular problem in terms of a free society?
PRIME MINISTER: First of all, the Rhodesian Information Service.
There are proceedings pending in the Supreme Court of New South
Wales to strip that shop of its title. if it turns out that the
New South Wales law is not adequate to deal with the situation
then we would introduce in the Parliament a bill to implement
the United Nations Security Council resolutions. We would under
Foreign Affairs power have the jurisdiction to pass such a
bill. At present we are supporting the application to take
the title away in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The
other legislation about, say, a Federal Bureau of Investigation
or a bill to unite or co-ordinate the Commonwealth Police
forces the Commonwealth Police Force, the Australian
Capital Territory Police Force, the Northern Territory Police
Force and various law enforcement agencies in different
Federal departments that bill has not been discussed by the
Cabinet at all. There can be no question, however, of any powers
given to any agency exceeding those to which we are accustomed
and to which in particular the Australian Labor Party gives
weight. There can be no question of there not being a due
process of law in all these matters. Not only would we not
wish to diminish in any ways these civil liberties, but the
Constitution probably wouldn't let us.
Can I follow this up with one more question: it's a
question of using these powers at a particular political time
in the. country. Now yesterday the homes of a number of
Croats were in fact entered by police forces with warrants
legally, but these acts did happen at a time when the
Attorney-General was under criticism for not producing enough
evidence in the Parliament of Croat terrorist activities. The
Government has been in power for something like four months
and it could be asked why these visits didn't take place say,
two months ago
PRIME MINISTER: or four years, or two years ago. These
questions can be well asked.
I am particularly implying to this Government. Why
PRIME MINISTER: It would be fair to ask why weren't these
actions taken four years or two years ago. I don't propose to
answer questions on that subject because there are Court
proceedings pending.
Prime Minister, could I ask you about your statement in
the House concerning a conspiracy by some public servants. You
indicated that some action was pending and about to be taken.
Would you say what action?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Could you say how many people were involved?
PRIME MINISTER: No. I didn't raise the word'conspiracy'
Mr Snedden used that word. On the face of the document as I
said, and I quoted it, there would appear to be conspiracy
between representatives of two Departments at this meeting on
2 March. As I said in the House, I will not say who the persons
were who attended that meeting, and as I said also in the House,
I'm not going to cast dispersions on people who, it might turn
out, don't deserve to have dispersions cast on them.
Sir, will you be making an ultimate report to Parliament
on this, the subject having been raised in the fashion it has been?
PRIME MINISTER: PIRI'MlEMlIN ITsERe: e what happens.
Would you explain why you believe it's a conspiracy,
Mr Whitlam?
PRIME MINISTER: This is being televised and the people who
see it mightn't have had the advantage of listening to
Question Time so I'll read the passage from the report which
I read at Question Time. You'll remember that this was a
passage from a report made on 5 March by the ASIO representative
at a meeting of representatives of several departments which
was held in Canberra on 2 March apropos of a statement
which the Attorney-General made on 1 March to the effect that
he'd be making a statement on Croatian terrorism, and this is
the extract which I read at Question Time:
" The Department of Foreign Affairs made two points
on the proposed statement, that is the statement which the
Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, said that he would be
making in the Senate. The first was that the statement should
not be at variance with the interim reply given to Yugoslavia
in response for the aide memoire presented to Australia
following the Bosnian Incident in 1972. The Bosnian Incident
you will remember was that in which nine former residents of
Australia ( six naturalised Australians) had been picked up in
an incursion into Yugoslavia. The second was that unless there
were reasons to the contrary, they prefer the statement to be
deferred until after the visit to Australia of the Prime
Minister of Yugoslavia from 20-22 March 1973. The Attorney-
General's Department accepted the first point, but argued on the
seconid point that the Attorney-General might find it necessary
to table the statement at an earlier date."
Sir, on such Inter-departmental Committees does the
representative of the various departments have responsibility
to report to the Head of the Department or the Minister in each
case. In other words, would the Foreign Affairs ñ epresentative
there have a responsibility to report to the Head of the
Department or to report to you as Foreign Affairs Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know what his responsibilities are
to the Department. There are of course a very great number
of Inter-departmental Committees having meetings all the time
and I would imagine there is only a small number of those
meetings which are ever brought to the attention of the
ministers concerned. on this occasion, it is somewhat surprising
that none of the ministers concerned were told about the meeting.
Prime Minister, Senator Murphy has told the Senate that
you in fact are conducting the investigation into this subject.
Can you tell us what procedures have been adopted. Are you
questioning people personally? Have you delegated someone to
do it?
PRIME MINISTER: The latter.
Can you tell us who?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
What's the aim of the investigation? is it just to confirm
that that report is accurate and what action is open to the
Government if you find that it is accurate?
PRIME MINISTER: Most of these men would be public servants
and, if this were true, and I'm making no assumptions, I would
assume there has been a breach of duty by one or more public
servants. What will be the penalty if there is a breach?
PRIME MINISTER: Whatever the Public Service Act requires.
If any action is taken against any public servants
would you make that action public?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know what the procedure is. In some
cases, action against public servants has to be gazetted.
I wouldn't be conducting the investigation or, if it is
appropriate, imposing any penalties. It's not for me to do.
Sir, is it a member of your staff who is conducting the
investigations?
PRIME MINISTER: I won't answer any more on this.
Sir, one more question. When do you hope to have the
findings of this investigation?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know.
Sir, you referred in Question Time to the previous
Government having lied to the Yugoslav Government?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Are you convinced that such a strong statement is
justified and might this not just have been normal diplomacy
to try and avoid trouble between the Governments?
PRIME MINISTER: No. I think what I said was accurate, it was
strong, and deservedly strong. For many years the Yugoslav
Government has been protesting to Australia bringing it to the
notice of the Australian Government organised activity
against Yugoslav missions and representatives. The previous
Government always said that there was no evidence on which to
prosecute individuals. It always avoided the question that
there was organised activity. Nobody reading or listening to
the ministerial statements last Tuesday would doubt that there
was organised activity. The former Governments of Australia
did not accurately put the position to the Yugoslav Government.
Prime Minister, could you have known publicly about some
of these organisations like J. I. O. and ASIO and D-S-CCould
I ask you about the Australian Secret Intelligence Service
which comes under your ministerial control if you could tell
us who heads that operation, where it has its headquarters and
what its operation is?
PRIME MINISTER: I will answer no questions on security matters.
Nobody in my position has and I won't and I'm certain you know
that.
Sir, on the March 2 meeting, did ASIO have any
responsibility to report either to yourself as the Head of
the Government or to the Attorney-General as the Administrator?
PRIME MINISTER: I've already said I don't know what the
duties are in this case. I would have thought that a meeting
which, among other things, discussed a pending statement by
a minister would have been brought to the notice of the
ministers who had departmental officers at that meeting.
I don't know what the duty of the ASIO representative was.
All I should perhaps add at this stage is that from now on
meetings of this character will have agreed minutes.
When did the investigation which you refer to begin?
PRIME MINISTER: Immediately after Senator Murphy discovered
the document from which I have quoted this extract. I heard
of this on the 16th, yes.
Prime minister, Senator Murphy rests his case on visiting
the ASIO headquarters in Melbourne on the basis of the discovery
of this document at the ASIO offices in Canberra. We still don't
know why he made a midnight visit to the ASIO offices in
Canberra. Can you tell us why?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know why, but you will see the result
of it and I think you'd be very interested that this information
about this meeting and such a report of it as I've quoted were
discovered as a result of Senator Murphy's visit to the ASIO
quarters in Canberra,
Sir, Senator Murphy has said that this document which
he discovered at ASIO headquarters in Canberra -the original
of it was in the ASIO headquarters in Melbourne -should have
been brought to his knowledge, but was not brought to his
knowledge. Is that not prima facie evidence that the Head of
ASIO has not carried out his responsibilities to his Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know what the duty is this is the
third time I've said it. I do believe that ministers should
have been told of the meeting discussing this matter. I think
Senator Murphy should have been told, but whether it was
ASIO's job to tell him I do not know.
They had the record. They were the ones who kept the
record of it.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
He said it should have been brought to his knowledge
and was not.
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not saying whether ASIO should have
brought it to his knowledge. I don't know if it was their
job to do it. But I do think it should have been brought to
his knowledgje, yes.
Q: Mr Whitlam, you said that we would be interested in the
information that was found but why weren't we told about it.
We, meaning the public, when Senator Murphy spoke to the Senate
or prior to that the fortnight before, and had it not come out
the way it did, did you ever intend to release this information
which you released today?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I wouldn't have released it.
What is the objection of the Government to releasing
the information contained in the document other than the
security aspects of it?
PRIME MINISTER: That is the reason, and it's a sufficient
one, but Senator Murphy said that in the Senate last week and
he said that it was on the advice of the Director-General of
ASIO. Having read the document I can well believe that he
would have given that advice and I would believe it sound.
But, Sir, surely there's no...
PRIME MINISTER: I think there's another gentlemen down there..
Prime Minister, can I ask you has the Government considered
the continued appointment of Mr Barber as Director-General of
ASIO? PRIME MINISTER: No.
Has it considered varying the terms and conditions
of his appointment?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Will it do-either of these things?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know.
You say you don't know. Would a decision on that rest on
the subject of your inquiry that you are carrying out now?
PRIME MINISTER: I wouldn't think that the inquiry which is
being conducted into the accuracy or not of the report of this
meeting would concern Mr Barber. Mr Barber was not there.
Prime Minister, why couldn't Senator Murphy have rung
Mr Barber in Melbourne and requested him to provide this
information? What is the reason for that?
PRIME MINISTER: You ask him.
Prime Minister, as it was the ASIO representative who
wrote the report in attendance at the meeting on March 2 as
an official representative of ASIO and if so to whom does he
report? PRIME MINISTER: I don't know.
Did he take part in a discussion?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know.
Prime minister, on a different topic, you mention the
task force examining the previous Government's expenditures:
is there any suggestion that this task force could also examine
your policy expenditures. Is there any suggestion that some of
those might be curbed in appreciation of this?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
This whole idea of a task force you said Eric's going
to release a letter on it can you give us an idea of the
structure. A task force's an institution we haven't heard of
before. Is it going to call for public evidence or is it
going to have access to departments?
PRIME MINISTER: It will have access to departments.
Full time? I mean the personnel you've got there are
pretty high-powered
PRIME MINISTER: Aren't they? It won't be taking public
evidence, and I doubt whether they can do it full-time. I expect
them to give a lot of time to it.
Have you set a time on when they report?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
When do you expect a report?
PRIME MINISTER: It would obviously be before we were discussing
the budget. Sir, it seems clear that one of the reasons for the
task force is concern about inflation. can you give us an idea
of the extent to which the Government is concerned about the
problem how serious it is at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't think I'll go into that here. Of
course we're concerned about it. This is one aspect of it.
Prime Minister, in view of the decision in the United
States and also in New Zealand to introduce price control on
the sale of red meat, would you consider taking similar action
here in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: I wish we could, but the Federal people can't
do it. As Mr Crean pointed out, the States have power in this
respect. Two-thirds of the Australian people live in New South
Wales and Victoria. There is nothing to limit those Parliaments
bringing in price control on red meat as has happened in the
United States and New Zealand. Nothing to prevent them. We
would obviously applaud them doing it, but we can't do it
federally. Will you ask them to do it?
PRIME MINISTER: No. But they really should be able to take
some initiative themselves in these matters.
There's fairly regular correspondence between yourself
and the Premiers..
PRIME MINISTER: Correspondence between the Premiers and me
relates to things that we do jointly. There is nothing that
we can do with regard to price control on such commodities.
Prime Minister, there seem to be now only two States which
the previous Government kept at a distance for ideological
reasons Albania and Cuba. Are relations with these two States
being considered? Has there been an approach from. Cuba?-Are our
considerations of this being swayed by in deference-to the
United States?
PRIME MINISTER: We recognise both Albania and Cuba. We always
have. We don't have diplomatic representatives in or from
Albania or Cuba. We're not discussing having diplomatic
representatives in or from either of them. There is a suggestion
that there should be a Cuban Consulate in Australia. There is
in fact quite a considerable trade between Cuba and Australia.
Prime Minister, the task force will be reconsidering
former Government decisions in a number of areas, but what
state is your review of the former Government's apparent
decisions. I understand you called for all-out standing reports
from the Board. Are you going to consider such decisions as the
decision to protect the Chain Factory at Benalla?
PRIME MINISTER: This is just what I'm not going to do go
into ad hoc imposition or demolition of tariffs. This is the
matter that Sir John Crawford's looking into.
Sir, on this inquiry, will Dr. Coombs, as the man who's
responsible for it, be mainly full-time on it?
PRIME MINISTER: No, he can't be full-time on this because he
is doing a lot of other things too as you know.
Prime Minister, in announcing the Cabinet decisions, you
said that yourself and Mr Barnard had agreed to refer to the
Joint Committee on Defence and Foreign Affairs any aspects of
Omega which have defence significance. Does this mean that
Cabinet has decided that Omega does have some defence significance?
PRIME MINISTER: No, it hasn't discussed it whether there are
Defence or Foreign Affairs aspects of Omega. There are many
people who assert it has. They'll have the opportunity to
ventilate their views and to have those views examined or
exposed in public before the Committee.
And will this delay any decision on the future of
our Government until that Committee has reported?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't think we would be making a decision
until the Committee has reported but how quickly the Committee
reports is up to the Committee. All these Parliamentary
Committees, listeners and viewers may not realise are composed
of representatives from all the political parties in the
Parliament.
Have you or the Government considered the abolition
of the D Notice system?
PRIME MINISTER: This has never been considered. You must
be from the Nation Review. They're the only D Notices whose.:
existence I would ever acknowledge.
May we take that seriously, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: You'll take it as it was meant, I'm sure.
Prime Minister, in the Cabinet decision or endorsement
to refer the Omega question or defence aspects of it to the
Joint Parliamentary Committee, was there any wider discussion
by Cabinet on the question of defence facilities in this
country? PRIME MINISTER: No, not at all.
Prime Minister, did you discuss Senator Murphy's proposed
divorce legislation today?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Prime Minister, the Treasury would normally be the
Department that would exercise continuing scrutiny over past
government commitments wouldn't it?
PRIME MINISTER: It would be one of the Departments, and a
very senior member of that Department is on the task force
Mr Stone. I was going to ask you do you think that the job it was
doing in this respect was deficient so that you had to set up
this Committee two personal staff representatives from the
Government on it. Unusual, the point I'm trying to make
PRIME MINISTER: You're referring to Mr McGuinnes from
Mr Hayden's staff and Mr Spigelman from mine?
Yes, it's unusual to have a mixed committee like that.
PRIME MINISTER: The fact that it's unusual doesn't make it
improper or undesirable. Mr McGuinnes is not disqualified from
the fact that he used to write perceptively for the Financial
Review, and Mr Spigelman is a well-known author.
Speaking of which, Sir, what is the Government going to
do about the question of open government?. What's happening to
all of the reports that were reviewed by Mr spigelman and by
other Ministers?
PRIME MINISTER: We're waiting for some of them to come in
from the Department.
I take it from your answer to Mr Lombard previously that
you don't intend to discuss security matters.
PRIME MINISTER: PNRIoME MINtIThERa: t's right.
11.
That you include Secret Intelligence Service within this
on the basis that it would appear to impinge upon the security
of other countries. What harm could be done to the national
interest by entering in general questions such as are you
satisfied with the operation of the Australian Secret
Intelligence Service? Are you satisfied that it fits in with
our foreign policy and does no harm to it?
PRIME MINISTER: V. 11l repeat I'll not answer questions
in Parliament or here or anywhere on security matters. That is
a procedure which is followed has been followed by all my
predecessors. It is a procedure which I shall follow too.
Some of you have mentioned some organisations by name. I will
not confirm or deny or correct any such names. The reason is
obvious. By asking sufficient number of questions and then
getting denials or confirmations or corrections people can
find out about the security procedures of this country. I will
not answer questions on these matters.
Prime Minister, may we ask a question on the role of
Australia on South-East Asia?
PRIME MINISTER: Could you limit the question?
What new possible role can Australia obtain in South-East
Asia after Labor took over?
PRIME MINISTER: It's a very wide subject. I've written a lot
of articles on this. You don't want me to to expatiate on this.
The general historical context is that we want peace to be
established in this area. We do not want arrangements such as
were made after the end of the Korean War or at Geneva in
1954 to miscarry a second time. We are therefore in active
consultation diplomatically with all the countries of that area
in the hope that the latest agreements ( ceasef ire agreements)
in Vietnam and Laos will succeed and that such agreements can be
made in the Khmer Republic. Secondly in the overall economic
or social context we want to see that the great disparity
between relatively developed countries such as Australia,
New Zealand and Japan and all the countries in between is
reduced. And there again internationally, diplomatically,
we are doing what we can to see that developed countries help
to raise the standards in developing countries. Even Japan
can't do it single-handed. we can make some impact, but a
marginal one. obviously the countries of Europe east and west
and of North America must also contribute to that end. And a
concluding thing I could point out is that we are the only
country which has never been ruled by another people, except
Thailand. Every other country within thousands of miles has
within the last generation been ruled by other countries. We
ourselves have ruled some other countries, conspicuously
Papua New Guinea. So therefore our policies are designed quite
deliberately to rid Australia of any colonial or colour policies.
I think that was German T. V. wasn't it?
I thought you were going to ask me about the Mercedes.