6 4 PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA,
TUESDAY, 9TH OCTOBER, 1973
PRIME MINISTER: Thanks. Are there any questions?
QUESTION: If the referendum on price control on December 6 is
carried, can you tell us what precise steps you intend to take
in an effort to control prices. You have mentioned that you
would intend to bring down a Land Stabilisation Act in
Parliament the following week but can you be specific on what
other steps, and also can you give me a ditto answer if the
referendum on incomes is carried?
PRIME MINISTER: I indicated that t he incomes referendum would
enable us to have the same procedure for determining non-wage
incomes as the Constitution has always provided for the
determination of wages. In other words, we would extend the
operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to
specified forms of incomes other than wages.
QUESTION: You announced a series of ministerial changes in the
House this morning. Could you tell us why you made each of them
and whether they indicate that you are unhappy with the
performances of some ministers in some portfolios?
PRIME MINISTER: Iwon't accept the second invitation but I
will deal with the first one. The principal reasons were that we
now have several ministers with experience in administration
which means that some of the senior ministers are able to of fload
some of their responsibilities. In particular, I will be
able to give Foreign Affairs to Senator Willesee, Dr Cairns has
been able to give Secondary Industry to Mr Enderby, Mr Barnard
has been able to give Supply to Mr Enderby also and I think it
will be announced this afternoon that Senator Murphy will be
able to let Senator Cavanagh carry out the same responsibilities
in the Senate as Mr Daly carries out in the House of Representatives,
i. e. the determination of the business of each chamber. That
means that the four senior people; myself, Mr Barnard, Dr Cairns,
Senator Murphy are able to share some of their responsibilities
with others. The other major reason is that by giving two
departments or more departments which are due for amalgamation
to the one minister we can accelerate that process of amalgamation.
Already, of course, Mr Jones has both Transport and Civil
Aviation and Senator Murphy has both the Attorney-General's
Department and Customs and Excise. As you know, it is our
intention to combine those two departments or at least to disperse
several aspects of one of them. Mr Barnard now has merely
Defence, Navy, Army and Air which are all to be amalgamated.
into one department. Then there are two minister who each
have two departments now, Mr Johnson has Works as well as Housing
which he's had hitherto and Mtr Enderby has both Secondary
Industry and Supply. Now that means there are five ministers
who all have two or more departments and those departments will be
amalgamated.
-2-
QUESTION: I -take it that Mr Enderby will also have the AIDC
as part of his Secondary Industry responsibilities?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: Who will have AIDC?
PRIME MINISTER: Dr Cairns.
QUESTION: Why? I mean it was Secondary Industry, it wasn't
Overseas Trade that AIDC was connected with?
PRIME MINISTER: No, that's not necessarily so. AIDC is really
to marshal resources in regard to trade and investment-so that
they will not be as much in foreign hands as they have been up
till now, so AIDC will be Dr Cairns, Minister for Overseas Trade.
QUESTION: On Supply you speak of this rationalising this with
Secondary Industry. Is that all of Supply?
PRIME MINISTER: No. I haven't gone into detail there. I have
already made a statement about various aspects of Supply being
allocated to different departments. So I have got nothing to
add really to the statement I made on that about a month ago.
Similarly, Customs and Excise will not be amalgamated with any
one department as you realise. To give the two principal
features; there are revenue, there are law enforcement aspects
of Customs and Excise. Well they will go to different
instrumentalities. QUESTION: Are you prepared to make any comment on reports
that Mr Bryant gave up his portfolio only very reluctantly?
PRIME MINISTER: No of course not.
QUESTION: Will Dr Cairns retain authority over the Industries
Assistance Commission?
PRIME MINISTER: No, that is Prime Minister.
QUESTION: The Special Minister of State. Will that department
continue or will
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
QUESTION: You talked about divesting yourself of additional
responsibilities. Do you plan to divest yourself from
responsibilities for the Arts and the Industries Commission which
you have just referred to?
PRIME MINISTER: I have no present intention of divesting myself
of either, but probably never of Arts.
QUESTION: But what about tariffs?
PRIME MINISTER: Well that is protection in general isn't it.
But certainly for some time I would be wanting to retain
-3-
protection, i. e. the Industries Assistance Commission because
there has to be somebody to co-ordinate the various aspects
which will now come to the Industries Assistance Commission
from various departments; Secondary Industry, Customs and
Excise, Primary Industry.
QUESTION: The reasons you gave earlier, sir, don't seem to
cover the reason why Mr Bryant
PRIME MINISTER: I have twice refused to answer any specific
questions like that.
QUESTION: Well you did agree to outline the reasons for the
changes? PRIME MINISTER: I have given the general reasons. I do not
comment on individuals.
QUESTION: You said earlier that you wouldn't make any changes
until after the Senate elections and the question is why have
you? PRIME MINISTER: Did I?
COMMENT: Yes, at a press conference.
PRIME MINISTER: Did I. I don't remember having said so.
QUESTION: Well could you give a particular reason why you felt
it was necessary to make the changes now and not say wait until
after Christmas or during the Christmas recess.
PRIME MINISTER: The two reasons I have already given. There are
now several ministers who can take responsibilities which at
the time we became a government, 10 months ago, there was a more
limited number of ministers able to discharge. Secondly, I
want to accelerate the progress of amalgamating some of these
departments. QUESTION: What part did Dr Coombs play in any of the reshuffling?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, none.
QUESTION: Like Mr Bryant he didn't have anything to say to you?
PRIME MINISTER: Dr Coombs had nothing to do with this.
QUESTION: Did he advise
PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not.
QUESTION: Will you now go overseas next year, I think it's
South East Asia and to the European countries?
PRIME MINISTER: Of course, I will be making no fewer trips than
hitherto.
-4-
QUESTION: You have made some tentative approaches to attempt
to resolve the power dispute in New South Wales which is basically
within the New South Wales competence. What steps are you taking
to resolve the airport dispute which is more closely within your
competence? PRIME MINISTER: I expect the Public Service Arbitrator will.
be calling the parties, including the Public Service Board, into
compulsory conference this afternoon.
QUESTION: On your initiative sir?
PRIME MINISTER: I was aware.
QUESTION: When, if at all, are you going to recognise Chile?
PRIME MINISTER: Thursday.
QUESTION: Do you expect that Thursday's Premiers' Conference
will discuss anything other than Loan Council representation
for local government?
PRIM4E MINISTER: The Conference is being called as was forecastas
was announced by me at the Constitutional Convention five
weeks ago to discuss the participation of local government in
the Loan Council. You know, of course, that the Labor Party's
program since the 1971 Federal Conference has provided that local.
government in each State should have a voice and a vote on the
Loan Council. You will remember that I emphasised this in the
policy speech last November. You will remember also that the
Australian Government insisted that local government should have
delegates at the Constitutional Convention as a condition of
the Australian Government itself attending the Constitutional
Convention. Now it is for that purpose, the discussion of that
program, that the Premiers and I are meeting in Canberra on
Thursday. I doubt if we will have time to discuss other matters.
If so, it would be in quite general terms. In light of the
officials' report which was made about three months ago,
wasn't it I have asked the Premiers to comment on the suggestions
that the officials from the seven Treasuries made. Many of the
Premiers have not yet commented on those suggestions. In
particular, there is, I regret to say, very little activity in
the stabilisation of land prices which is one of the worst
inflationary aspects in Australia and which is completely within
the jurisdiction of the States.
QUESTION: On the subject of prices. Did Cabinet make a decision
yeste! rday not to make a decision on meat?
PRIME MINISTER: It did make a decision not to institute any
tax on the export of meat. The Parliamentary Commiittee on Prices
had by majority made such a proposal; the Calbinet is not
attracted by it.
QUESTION: You haven't announced the decisions Cabinet took
yesterday. Do you intend now to make all these announcements to
Parliament first, or didn't you make. any decisions?
PRIME MINISTER: Well take this one here ( on meat). This is a
matter from a Parliamentary committee; it's not a Government
matter. The Government considered, naturally enough, the
recommendation of a Parliamentary committee. Parliamentary
committees are free to make recommendations as they wish.
The Labor Party doesn't, and I don't, believe that any of the
other parties considers what recommendations Parliamentary
committees should make or that the members of each Party on a
Parliamentary committee should make; so the Government considered
the report of this Parliamentary committee. The Government's
attitude will be reported to our party meeting tomorrow. There
aren't, however, any other decisions which I would think it is
appropriate to mention here. There is the membership of one
of these consumer bodies, but I think Mr Morrison has given that
to you already hasn't he the Interim Commission on Consumer
Standards. You have got the membership of that, haven't you?
We have also decided, if you want to know, to introduce
legislation to enable us to ratify the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological Biological) Weapons and Toxin Weapons and of
their Destruction. We also approved a statement by the Minister
for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, in relation to
the development and management of Australia water resources.
You can get the details of that statement from Dr Cass. We have
also decided to accept the amendment that the Senate made in
the A. C. T. Representation Bill. I would imagine that there
will-be a motion to that effect in the House today. Those
would be the decisions apart from the matter that Mr Chalmers.
asked about the meat.
QUESTION: With respect, you didn't answer my question on what
specific measures you intend to bring in if the price control
referendum is carried?
PRIME MINISTER: You mentioned one; the stabilisation of land
prices. There is one other I have mentioned and that is that
in the meantime, there is any change to the jurisdiction of the
Prices Justification Tribunal obviously legislation will be
brought in under the new prices power in the Constitution to
validate the inquiries and the recommendations of Chat tribunal.
I think that was included however in the resolution of the
Federal Executive last Saturday which I drafted and which
I think the Federal Secretary gave to you on
Saturday, so I didn't go into it again.
QUESTION: Would you see that before Christmas you could put a
freeze on a whole range of foodstuffs or other items?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I don't see that.
-6-
QUESTION: It seems rather odd for a Labor Government to
exclude the only people they exclude from higher interest
rates are people with less than $ 4000 in savings banks?
PRIME MINISTER: No. This has been left to the banks to
administer and Mr Crean can give you the details there. I think
this was announced by Mr Hayden a week ago.
QUESTION: Is it correct that Senator Bishop was considered for
a position in the Cabinet reshuffle?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
QUESTION: Did his illness over the weekend have any effect
on the final decision?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, of course it did. I don't want to say
any more about it at this stage until he comes out of hospital
and I have been able to speak to him directly.
QUESTION: Are you not embarrassed that the Federal President
of your party has indicated that he will campaign against you in
your referendum to gain federal control over incomes?
PRIME MINISTER: If he does campaign there will be some
embarrassment but I will not be deterred by it. I will support
the Government's proposals. I deplore sonic of the things which
are said by some people in the union movement about what use any
federal government would make of the incomes power if it is
given to the federal Parliament. There has been a very great
deal of irresponsible extravagent talk on this subject and I
will play my part in repudiating it. It is quite absurd that
the only incomes in Australia that can be regulated are incomes
which take the form of wages, and there have been stages, for
instance, in the early 1950s when the Commonwealth Conciliation
and Arbitration Court as it then was did, in effect, bring in
a wage freeze under existing powers. But the statistics will
show that the proportion of the gross domestic product represented
by wages and salaries has gone down. It is clear, therefore,
that other incomes have amounted over the last 20 years or
years to an increasing percentage of the gross domestic product.
In other words, there hasn't been a regulatin of other incomes
non-wage incomes that there has been of wage incomes. This is
quite unfair. It produces a great deal of social tension and
economic distortion in the community. The Australian Parliament
ought to have this power over incomes. The States have it of
course, except for people covered by Commonwealth awards they don't
use it. They have done nothing to produce a better balance;
socially and economically in the community. It's about time for
the national parliament to have that power..
QUESTION: Will our Ambassador to Chile be returning to his
post?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: Do you intend that Mr Bryant should remain Minister
for the Capital Territory for very long?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't want to say any more on this until I
have been able to speak with Senator Bishop. I don't want
Senator Bishop to be reading about things before I have been
able to speak to him directly.
QUESTION: On the incomes referendum. Mr Hawke has said that he
expects the A. C. T. U. Executive, next Monday, to make a decision
contrary to that of the Labor Party's Federal Executive, i. e.
opposing the incomes referendum. If the union movement does
oppose the incomes referendum, do you really expect that it
will succeed?
PRIME MINISTER: I know how difficult it is to carry any
referendum. I believe that some unions will there will be
differences of opinion within the union movement there may be
differences of opinion in different cities on this matter.
The way some unions talk it looks as if some of them will be
spending more money on trying to defeat an incomes referendum
than they will in trying to carry a prices referendum. Sheer
sabotage.