THE PRIME MINISTER, MR E. G. WHITLAM, ADDRESSING THE
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, HOTEL CANBERRA, CANBERRA,
THURSDAY, 8 NOVEMBER, 1973
QUESTION: Following your conversation in Peking with Prince Sihanouk,
can I ask you what is the Australian relationship now with the
Royalist Government in Cambodia? Has Prince Sihanouk been given
any assurances? Has he been told, for instance, that his Government
will be recognised if the Lon Nol regime were to fall?
PRIME MINISTER: Australia maintains relations with the Lon Nol
Government. As I said in Peking, and many of you were there when
I said it, it will continue to do so as long as that Government is
in the United Nations and Pnom Penh. Prince Sihanouk knows that
that is our attitude and that while he is the Government-in-exile
he can't, of course, expect to be recognised as the Government of
his country by the Australian Government.
QUESTION: What are the areas about which there is'still
speculation following your visit to Japan. Is your statement that
we would aim for and desire 100 per cent ownership-of our four
energy resources. Could you clarify what you meant by that? Are
we intractably wed now to a policy of developing those resources
without foreign equity, and do you believe we can do that?
PRIME MINISTER: I hope that we can do it; we will certainly try.
It ought to be possible to strive for that objective, i. e. for
100 per cent Australian ownership of uranium and oil and natural
gas and black coal.
QUESTION: In the last twelve months you have travelled more than
any other Prime Minister in a similar period; you have achieved
possibly all your major immediate policy objectives. I understand
that next year you intend to visit South-East Asia early in the
year and also Europe later in the year. Do you think now that
Senator Willesee could be given these two missions while you
concentrate on domestic matters at home?
PRIME MINISTER: I would add that I expect to visit the United Nation
in about September. I will be making these visits and Senator
Willesee will be continuing to make no fewer visits than he has
been making throughout the year. A head of government these da-,' s
inevitably has to make a great number of visits. I don't believe
that I will be making fewer visits that I had intended to make
in any case.
QUESTION: My question follows on that asked by David Barnett
and it is in relation to a statement that was issue3d in Pcking
by Prince Sihanouk. To clarify the position one step further,
Prime Minister, has Australia cut military and econor-Fi-I t~ o
the Lon Nol regime, has it limited its diplomatic nr-s-ice therc.
and are you looking forward to Prince Sihanouk beinr1 installed
back in Pnom Penh?
-2-
PRIME MINISTER: In respect to the last question, it is not for
me to express a view. It is for the people of Cambodia, I hope,
to choose their government without outside interference. I will
read what I said in Peking at the press conference in answer
to your question on this subject:
While I was in Peking where Prince Sihanouk resides, I
welcomed the opportunity to have an exchange of views
with him. He is the acknowledge spokesman of GRUNK AND FUNK.
He is the only representative of either who is known to
me or to the ambassador or to Australians in general.
It was a valuable opportunity to hear at first hand his
views on the situation in his country and in the region.
I was asked: " It doesn't suggest any change in our
recognition of the present Lon Nol Government". I answered:
" No, as long as the Lon Nol Government is in possession
of the capital of Cambodia and is ' in the United Nations
the present Australian attitude towards it will continue."
I was asked: " How are we voting in the United Nations".
I answered: " We have been abstaining on the procedural
issues." I was asked: " Will we continue to abstain?"
I answered: " When the question of the seating of the
Government arises, we will vote for that Government with
which we have relations but we-are abstaining on the
procedural matters. We did not oppose the inscription
of the item. our concern in Cambodia is that the people
of Cambodia should have a government of their own wish.
We will do all we can to put an end to the hostilities
and to deter any supplies from outside. It is the only
part of Indo-China where there has not yet been a ceasefire
or an agreement or an accord. This is all the more
deplorable since, for so many years, from the Geneva accords
of 1954 until the invasion of Cambodia by and from South
Vietnam in March 1970, Cambodia had enjoyed an undiminished
peaceful identity."
There was one specific question you asked me about military
and economic aid. The military aid ceased last year within a
couple of weeks of our coming to office, as it did throughout
Indo-China. The economic aid, in the sense of support for the
currency, will end at the end of this year. Colombo Plan aid
continues, and will.
QUESTION: May I take your mind of f foreign affairs? The Senate
has rejected, unacceptably amended or unreasonably delayed items of
important Government legislation. The prospects are that it will
deal in a similar fashion with the National Health Scheme or the
Schools Commission. In this sense, the Senate is preventing your
government from implementing important matters which you pledged
in your policy speech. How long can your Government tolerate a
hostile Senate, and what do you propose to do about it?
-3-
PRIME MINISTER: I won't put our opponents out of the position
where they have to wonder about this. The situation has arisen,
as you know, that whenever we like we can have a double dissolution.
The objectionable feature of the Australian constitution and of
most of the State Constitutions it has never been applied in
Australia is that the Upper House can send the Lower House to
the people without going to the people itself. The Upper House
in the Australian National Parliament can do that twice a year.
It can do it before the end of November when the Budget for the
financial year has to be passed; it can do it before the end of
June when the interim supply up until the end of November has to
be provided. I can do that at any time. If it does it, it will
go to the people not only the House of Representatives. That
position is available to the Australian Government.
QUESTION: On page three of your stat-ement,-you said in illustrating
your foreign policy, that you start with the basic thesis that
the crucial factor governing the well-being. of the West Pacific
region is the relations between China, Japan and the* United States.
There is another great power, sir, which has a. . coastline in this
particular area, the Soviet Union. It also has a great deal of
shipping in the Indian ocean region tand in * the North West Pacific.
To what extent do you take the role of the Soviet Union into
account in this basic premise of yours, and whet role do you think
Australia should and does have vis-a-vis the Soviet Union?
PRIME MINISTER: I' am speaking of the passage you quote about
the relationship between Australia and Japan. It is there that
Australia can help very greatly in relationships between Japan
and China and between Japan and the United States. When we were
there over two years ago, relations between Japan and China were
almost-as bad they were between China and America and China
and the Soviet Union. Also, in the interim, relations,
particularly on economic matters, Australia's relationship with
Japan can help relationships between all these three. Australia
does not have the same leverage or influence with the Soviet Union
as it has with Japan or as it has with the United States. However,
there is the situation that a detente to a considerable extent has
been established between the United States and the Soviet Union.
It might have been badly shaken by the Middle East war but it seems
to have been restored. The centre of Soviet power and influence
is not in the Pacific. Obviously, the centre of Chinese and
Japanese influence is in the Pacific. The fact that Russian
shipping of both naval and maritime kinds is to be found in tc
Pacific and in the Indian Oceans is a completely natural and
expected development because the Soviet Union is the second largost
economic force in the world.
QUESTION: Why did you feel it necessary to st: lc own -as Foreig4n
Minisc'-er. Do you regret the decision?
-4-
PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the second one is yes. Of course,
I would have liked to have been Foreign Minister; I have been
the greatest that they have had in the last generation! The fact
is that it is not just the paper-work that takes up your time,
which is what people usually say; it is the number of calls that
one has to receive. Quite frankly, if you look at the number of
visitors coming to Australia -many times as numerous as has
happened in any previous year -it is just beyond me to receive
as Foreign Minister the number of foreign ministers who call.
Senator Willesee was doing an immesne amount of this work but
QUESTION: May I clarify what appears to be some ambiguity in your
central statement in Tokyo concerning foreign investment in our
energy resources, mentioned by Mr Barron uranium, oil, gas and
coal? You spoke of the possible need for more foreign money
for exploration. Will foreign capital be permitted to explore all
those energy resources in Australia and-* if they find these energy
resources in Australia will they be permitted to own and develop
them? PRIME MINISTER: It may be necessary or desirable to have overseas
interests participating. It largely depends on the cost or the
skill of finding resources. We don't really need much assistance
from outside to discover uranium or black coal resources. We
obviously could not by ourselves have found all the oil or
natural gas resources. This much is clear: that whatever
participation there may be required, permitted or desired in
exploration, there will be Australian control in the exploitation,
the development; and that is understood. I wish those who so
easily fall for handouts from public relations people in Australia
or from some companies in Japan would face up to the fact that the
Japanese have wondered why we have taken so long to do in our
country what they long ago always, in fact had determined to
do in their own.
QUESTION: In the areas where the Commonwealth, quite clearly,
asserts control, in the Northern Territory in the off-shore oil
region, when these leases expire, is the Labor Government going
to impose conditions that those who tender for it will have to be
Australian owned? In other words, where you do have unquestionable
control, are you going to insist upon, at this stage, 100 per cent
Australian control and ownership of exploration of our energy
resources? PRIME MINISTER: I don't think I need add anything to what I said
in Japan, handed out there and tabled in the Parliament yesterday.
QUESTION: The indications are that your Government has suffered
a severe drop in support since the election. Do you accept that
this has happened? If so, how do you account for it and what
are you going to do about it?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, there has been some drop in our support. If
there is an election, whenever it is, we will regain it. Anybody
reading or listening to the censure motion a couple of weeks ago
will see my grounds for optimism and assertion in that respect.
QUESTION: It would not have escaped your attention, sir, that
Mr Barton has offered you membership of the Australia Party. Have
you got any observations on this? Also, can you confirm or deny
the very strong and persistent rumours that the Liberal Party has
also offered several of its leading members membership of the
Australia Party?
PRIME MINISTER: I have to answer no to both of those questions.
QUESTION: Did you discuss in Peking with ei -ther Mao Tsetung
or Chou En-lai the question of Sino-Indian relations?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
QUESTION: What were the discussions -what was the'-tenor of
the discussions?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't want to go into any detail about what
was said there. It was a general course of informing each other
of our respective attitudes over recent years and at the present
time but I don't feel free to go into any further detail on such
matters. I think we discussed every country in Asia except, thinking
over it, Iraq.
QUESTION: Can you explain why you see a need to have a senior
party official on the staff of the Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: I need and welcome the best men to work for
me that I can get. I believe I have got them.
QUESTION: Your joint communique issued after your talks in
Peking suggested that Australia and China regarded all nations,
small and big, as equal and respected their rights to maintain
their territorial integrity. Well, with your Middle East policy,
one could be forgiven perhaps for believing that some nations
are more equal than others, particularly if they have oil. Do you
regard that as a fair interpretation?
PRIME MINISTER: It is not a fair interpretation, and I wouldn't
have believed that anybody covering the scene in the Australian
capital could hold that view. The Australian Government has been
neutral in the Middle East, and preceding Australian Governments
were neutral too. I am not reflecting on McMahon, Gorton, Holt
or Menzies because they were all neutral their Governments also.
The Australian Government has maintained the policy, traditional
in Australia, of neutrality in the Middle East dispute. Wc. were
in a position to be of particular effect because the Australian
ambassador to the United Nations was in the chair -in thie Security
Council during the crucial month of October an ' d I i,-) ald like to pay
tribute to him for what he did, because the final solutior, it
will be remembered, came from the non-permanent members of the
Security Council and he was instrumental very largely in bringing
about that solution.
-6-
QUESTION: Were any of the United States bases in Australia at
North West Cape, Pine Gap or Woomera put on a normal alert prior
to the general American alert of its overseas bases? If so, were
you told and when were you told? Secondly, when all the American
overseas bases were put on a higher level than normal alert, when
were you told and was it before the NATO partners were told?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know if they were put on alert. I wasn't
told. I believe the announcement was for domestic American
consumption.
QUESTION: Both Bob Hawke and Dr Coombs have suggested that an
increase in direct taxation would help curb inflation. Are you
considering this, and do you regret that you made an election
promise that you wouldn't increase taxation?
PRIME MINISTER: I will not be drawn on-. making promises, yes or
no., on any fiscal matters. Dr Coombs, as is'well-known, did
suggest an increase in taxation as a means of curbing inflation
as far back as June or July. His advice was not accepted.
Mr Hawke's advice was not sought; it will not. be sought.
The Government makes up its mind on this matter. The President
of the Federal Executive of the Labor Party does not determine
such matters; he is not consulted in such matters; he doesn't
speak for the party on such matters; I doubt if on this matter
he speaks on behalf of the trade union movement.
QUESTION: Can you tell me why you have offered a post on your
personal staff to the former Federal secretary of your party,
Mr Mick Young?
PRIME MINISTER: I answered a previous question on this. I said
that I want on my staff, working with me, the best people available
in Australia, and I believe I have them. The combination of
Young and Whitlam was superb, and it will continue to be.
QUESTION: Many people would think it was unfortunate that you
used the term " final solution" in relation to what the United NationE
was doing. I wondered if you could say something more about what
you claim is a neutral policy. Firstly, why is it necessary for
you to so carefully refuse to condemn what was quite clearly the
Arab initiation of warfare on Israel? Secondly, I wonder if you
would answer a question about whether Australia had urged the
U~ nited States not to re-supply the Israelis with arms and
equipment when the Russians were re-supplying their allies there?
And, finally, could you tell us whether you raised with the Chinese
the question of their wholehearted support for the Palestinian
terrorist movement by way of propaganda, training and armaments?
-7-
PRIME MINISTER: I discussed the question of the Middle East
in Peking. You have been told that that was so; I was asked a
question in Parliament about it yesterday. The attitude of the
Australian and the Chinese Governments is known and it is unchanged.
It was discussed; it is unchanged in each case. Now it is quite
spurious than one can come to any sound view or one can produce
any solution to the disputes in the Middle East by looking at
any one particular date. The fact is there is a situation which
has continued there for quarter of a century and there are certain
features of it which have to be solved if it is to end. One is
the question of recognition of the existence, the sovereignty,
of Israel.. One is the question of the occupation of Arab
territories by Israel. And the one which people mention least
is the Palestinian problem not just the question of Palestinian
terrorism, but of people who lived in what used to. be called
Palestine and no longer live there.
QUESTION: What about the other questions I asked you?
PRIME MINISTER: The attitude of the Australian Government was
made known before I went to Japan and China on this. I said at
question time there that there should not be supplies from
outside and that applies to both. The war would never have broken
out, it would never have continued, but for supplies from outsideby
the Soviet Union and the United States; and they both recovered
their sanity in time to save us all.
QUESTION: Some months ago you said you did not believe that the
Watergate scandal could happen in Australia, referring to the
fact that the Executive was answerable to the Parliament. Do
you believe that the machinery for mid-term elections under
parliamentary democracy would prevent such events happening in
Australia? PRIME MINISTER: I frankly don't see the link between the statement
I made some time ago and the position that you are now putting.
I don't see the link between them. What I was referring to some
months ago was the fact that I believe that the situation in
America, whereby the Head of State and of government is isolated
from the legislature and very often from the press and gatherings
like this, means that that head doesn't discern trends in public
opinion in time. I am under no illusions that questions that
you gentlemen and ladies ask me are your own inspirations, created
in isolation. It's very useful for me to know what you have in
mind. It warns me of things in time. I believe there are virtues
in the British system which save us from a position such as the
Watergate scandal.
QUESTION: Yesterday a Senate Committee was very critical of the
operations and limitations of the Government's much-vaunted Prices
Justification Tribunal. Could you tell us whether you intend to
take any action to overcome these criticisms and to make the
tribunal more effective?
-8-
PRIME MINISTER: I haven't read the Senate report on this matter.
There have been some criticisms made of the Prices Justification
Tribunal; I don't believe they are justified. I believe the
appointments we have made to the Prices Justification Tribunal,
Mr Justice Williams, President Chambers and the lay members, have
been excellent appointments and I believe the tribunal is developing
procedures which are of very great benefit to the Australian people.
There have already been many price rises projected or sought which
have then been abandoned because of the existence of this tribunal.
I admire the way the tribunal is carrying out its functions. I see
at this stage no reason at all why its statute should be altered.
If however, it is in any way defined, then, with the powers I
expect to get on 8 December we will reinforce the act so as to
buttress the tribunal. It is a very fine tribunal indeed. It
deserves our support and the support of the Australian people. We
are all very much better off because of its operations, already.
After all, it has only operated for four months; it has already
had a very salutary effect indeed.
QUESTION: You have visited almost every important capital in the
world except Moscow. Do you feel in view of the sensitivity of
relations between China and the Soviet Union, Soviet leaders might
feel justified in believing they have been left out in the cold
by the warmth of your welcome in Peking? Do you have any plans
to visit Moscow?
PRIME MINISTER: It has been brought home to me that the Soviet
Government does have some feeling that they are being neglected.
There are limitations even on the most active head of government.
I was asked earlier whether I would be visiting Europe. The capital
of the Soviet is in Europe; I expect to be visiting it together
with several otier European capital3 in the date mentioned in the
o;. o Jout next June. Perhaps it would be useful to
in-tor . tiir for you the pattern of the visits I have made this
_ ecar. T., e y Iargely dictated by geographic propinquity
or by particuJar events to which Australia would be expected to
subscribe. I first went to New Zealand; I then went to New Guinea
dnd Indonesia; I then went to the South Pacific Forum and for
various constitutional reasons to Westminster and Windsor, and
to keep the ecclesiastical balance to be completely ecumenical
I visited Rome, and on the Orthodox Good Friday, Rhodes. Then
North America because there was the Commonwealth Heads of Gcvernmen'
Meeting in Ottawa. Before that I visited Mexico the first Latin
American country ever visited by an Australian Prime Minister and
Washington and New York. I should have mentioned India just
before that. Then Japan and China. It will be seen, I believe,
that there has been regard paid to priorities of geography and
traditional associations.
QUESTION: You were reported to have sid th.-t the Chinem crow-d
that spontaneously greeted you on your arrival in Peking reacted
with rapture to the strains of Waltzing Matiidno I wonder 0. et: er
you would consider extending the sample of inii. o 1 that tho -' ria
of Census and Statistics is going to take out ' n lke Art-an
population on our National Anthem to Po-ing,. o \. hther
personally favour Advance Australia Fair?
-9-
PRIME MINISTER: I'm only one voter in this respect. I doubt
whether I will be among the 60,000 polled in February by the
Statistician on the matter. I find it very difficult to make up
my mind between Advance Australia Fair and Waltzing Matilda.
Waltzing Matilda I would think is very much the more exciting tune
but a very great number of people seem to be worried by the words.
I don't think they understood them in China, although realising
the economic and ideological basis of the words, it would probably
have been even more rapturously received. Many people think it is
quite indecent in fact, subversive to have a song. with words
such as Waltzing Matilda. There apparently are people who, whenever
they hear God Save the Queen played, decide to sing it. Anthems
are mainly for t1e music alone, not the words, and it is possible
to create other words. There are lots of different words for
God Save the Queen, the Americans have one set and the Hohenzollerns
used to have another set; and it is the same tune.' Now what I'
said in China in the House yesterday -about Waltzing Matilda
being more rapturously received than Advance Australia Fair may be
due to one or other of two factors. The one is that when Advance
Australia Fair was played in Peking, we all stood to attention;
it would have been unseemly to cheer. That-broke out immediately
the tune finished it might have been for the tune or it might
have been for the Premier and Prime Minister. Trhe other reason
may be, of course, that when Waltzing Matilda was played in the
Great Hall of the People there were equal numbers of Chinese and
Australians present. I couldn't discern which section was more
rapturous. QUESTION: Accepting that you want the best people working for
you and accep,,; ng that you believe you have them, could I ask
you specifically what will Mr Young's role be when the brilliant
' Yt-. r-Young :~~ esi: is re cons tituted? Could you tell us
lm~ y what job will be, what his title will be, what his
u~ ary wiill hu ~ fyou can) nd, what you hope to see him achieve?
you see him as the miracle w-. orker who will recover that lost
popularity? PRIME MINISTER: I don't know how to describe the role that
Mick Young performed last year and the year before he did it
thiough. I don't know how I will describe his role from now on
but he will perform similarly " superbly" was'the word I used,
not " brilliantly".
MR OAKES: It was my word.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I will accept it if you say it is your
word, but I'm too modest to apply words like that to myself and my
closest partner. It was a great combination the best in Australia
political history for the last quarter of a century and I believe
it will prove a similarly superb combination unt'll the next House
of Representatives election when, I expe. 2t, Nick Young will bc
a Member of Parliament and, I hope, a inister.
QUESTION: At any time did you invite either Chairman Mao or
Premier Chou En-lai to visit Australia and, if so, did either
of them accept it?
PRIME MINISTER: I answered this question in Peking and I suppose
I could read it out to you but the gist of it is this: Premier
Chou En-lai knows quite well that he would be very welcome in
Australia as he would be in any country in the world. I think
there are over a hundred pending invitations. Our invitation,
of course, is less than a year old he wouldn't have been
invited before that. But other people got in ahead. There are
some office holders in the world who can't reasonably be expected
to accept all the invitations extended to them. It's no courtesy
to press an invitation, say, on a President of the United States
or the Premier of the People's Republic of . China. They can't
be expected to accept those invitations. They would, obviously,
in each case, be very welcome. There will be visits each way
by ministers, and senior officials between China and Australia.
We have overcome those inhibitions of the last twenty-three years
that lost generation. At last, relations between Australia and
China are as warm as they should have been throughout.
QUESTION: Did you get the impression in China that the Chinese
attitude was " You come to us, we won't go to you"?
PRIME MINISTER: Not in the least. As a matter of fact, it was
a Chinese minister who visited us before an Australian minister
visited China, and there will be just as many visits each way.
The Chinese are courteous people. This is not a matter of
ideology; it is a matter of historic habit and they don't
patronize other people. k*