PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA,
TUESDAY 13TH NOVEMBER 1973
PRIME MINISTER: Well ladies and gentlemen any questions.
QUESTION: The Singapore Foreign Minister, Mr Rajaratnam said
that he wants to raise with you the question of the defence of
South East Asia and the Five Power Arrangement. He suggested
that relations between Singapore and Australia could break down
if the Five Power Arrangement collapsed. Do you see any
differences of opinion with Singapore over the defence of the
South East Asian region?
PRIME MINISTER: The Five Power Arrangements are supported by
the Australian Government, I expect that they will continue.
Any differences that there have been between Australia and
Singapore were raised by Mr Lee Kuan Yew at Ottawa early in
August, with one exception, they were all matters of differences
of view which had arisen under the McMahon or earlier Governments.
I am looking forward very much to seeing Mr Rajaratnam, I've
known him for many years. I will be happy to discuss any matter
he chooses to raise.
QUESTION: Unclear
PRIME MINISTER: The repatriation of students.
QUESTION: In your interest to have your concept of an Asian
co-operative grouping formed, would you give way on the membership
of the United States and the Soviet Union if necessary. Would
you accept their admission?
PRIME MINISTER: I won't speculate on membership as extensive
as that. I have never suggested it.
QUESTION: I would like to ask a question on Parliamentary
Privileges, particularly in view of the fact that an increasing
number of Australians will be coming before Parliamentary Committees
and being subject to these archaic laws. On the 9th of December
1971 in the House of Representatives, your said: " My own Party
is committed to the proposition that Procedures and Privileges
of Parliament, we used the term in the plural because we think
it should apply to State Parliaments as well and their committees,
should be adapted to contemporary standards of efficiency and
justice." Will you continue along this line?
PRIME MINISTER: I am committed to that proposition, because I
think I helped to frame it when it was put in the Australian Labor
Party's Platform at the Conference in mid-1971. I have already
raised many of the matters in the Platform concerning Standing
orders of the Parliament in the Standing orders Committee of the
House of Representatives. I think the Speaker is trying to arrange
a meeting of that committee this coming week.
-2-
QUESTION: Will you raise the Privileges matter at that meeting?
PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that I will be raising that.
offhand, one of the matters I have asked them to consider and
I asked them to consider this some months ago is procedure for
rostering ministers in one House to answer questions without
notice in the other House. As you know, this is done in the
Indian Parliament, where Ministers have to be members of Parliament,
and obviously it happens in many of those parliamentary systems
where Ministers can't be members of Parliament but are rostered
to answer questions in each House of the Parliament. That
happens in the Low Countries and in France. So I raised this
at a very early meeting of the Standing Orders Committee after
we became the Government. I forget the other matters. That
particular matter I mentioned there ' is specified in the Labor
Party's Platform.
QUESTION: Just of this privileges matter, sir, you did describe
the present privileges position as archaic in 1971, but what
are youf doing about not making it archaic?
PRIME MINISTER: As I have told you, I have raised one matter
that I can recall, one matter which I raised at the earliest
moment, a matter which is specified in the Party's Platform,
specified largely on my initiative. I believe Mr Chalmers is
referring to the fact that it is a breach it is a contempt
of Parliament for a newspaper to publish a report of a
parliamentary committee before it has been presented to the
Parliament. This is a matter which is concerning many Members
of Parliament at the moment. As the Standing Orders are at
the moment, and I believe as they always have been I think we
get it from the British too -it is a contempt of Parliament
for a newspaper ( and in this respect the position of a journalist
or an editor of a newspaper is the same as any other citizen)
it is a contempt of Parliament for the report of a parliamentary
committee to be published before the Parliament itself has
received the report from its committee.
QUESTION: Sir, would you agree to appear in a face-to-face
debate with Mr Snedden on the prices and incomes referendum?
PRIME MINISTER: This matter was raised with me at the National
Press Club Luncheon, which I attended at the invitation of
many of you, last Thursday. The suggestion was that in the week
before 8 December referendums on prices and incomes, the National
Press Club should have a luncheon to discuss those issues, as
it always does on the eve of a House of Representatives elections
and I think, the. Senate elections. The proposition was that
instead of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition
appearing separately at luncheons before the club, as happens
on the eve of elections for the House of Representatives or the
Senate, they might appear together. I said I would be happy to
do so. I made the suggestion that whoever gave an opening speechwhatever
order that was there should be a summing up in the
reverse order. Presumably, the order would be Prime Minister,
Leader of the opposition, then questions from all of you, then
Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister summing up.
QUESTION: Since the National Press Club has become something
of a shambles because of seven million outsiders attending it,
would you be prepared to do the same thing in a television
studio instead?
PRIME MINISTER: Let me see what happens with the National Press
Club invitation. I think I can say it was an invitation it
was certainly a suggestion to which I responded positively.
In other words I suppose, to put it in ordinary English, to which
I said yes.
QUESTION: My quest * ion is in relation to the referendum. In an
address to the Australian Electrical Manufacturers Association
in Canberra on September 17, you said that if the referendum
on prices was carried, the first move would be against land
prices, and you continued that by Christmas legislation would
be passed to stabilise land prices. Could I ask you, sir,
that in view of the time it takes for writs to be returned, is
this going to be possible and, if not, do you think the House
will be able to get up on December 6 which was proposed earlier
on? PRIME MINISTER: You have a good point there. I did say that.
Subsequently, I realised that there would have to be time for
the return of the writs or any challenges I don't think challenges
are likely but we have to await the return of the writs before
the Parliament can pass bills under the new constitutional power
conferred at the referendum. You asked me also when the Parliament
would be getting up. I doubt if the Parliament will be getting
up on 6 December. I can't be certain when the Senate will get up,
but I doubt whether the House of Representatives will get up
*. on the 6 of December.
QUESTION: Will it still be possible to get it through before
Christmas? PRIME MINISTER: The return of the writs takes longer than
Christmas. QUESTION: It is not generally known, but I hope you won't mind
it being made known, that you are a fairly learned bloke in
matters of theology, with as good a knowledge of doctrine and
Church history as any man I know who is in holy orders. Can you
tell us whether in this post-or sub-Christian country in which
we now live but above all in this post-conciliar period when
people have arrived at the idea of God which I think you arrived
at many many years ago, where we are getting to the essence of
what Christian belief is would you agree that in China there is,
in fact, a spirit of applied Christianity which is obvious
throughout all Chinese life economic, social, political and
the kind that we in this decadent, bourgeois, western democratic
state--
PRIME MINISTER: You can call me bourgeois but you are not going
to call me decadent.
QUESTION: The point I would like you to say something about,
although I realise there are more interesting political matters
-4-
than this, is whether you would agree that there is an
extraordinary parallel between Chairman Mao's dictum " We must
be modest and prudent, avoid arrogance and rashness and serve
the people"
PRIME MINISTER: I follow that myself.
QUESTION: Well, not yourself actually, but another -' the Lord
Christ, who said 2,000 years ago, " He who shall be chiefest
among you shall be the servant of all". Would you care to give
us your thoughts on this parallel if, in fact, there is one
between Chairman Mao's somewhat lengthy thing and Jesus Christ's
somewhat pithier--
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know that I would respond to questions
on this subject to anybody other than yourself. It is about
years since we last spoke in Canberra. I want to make it
plain that I don't hold myself out as an expositor of Christian
doctriLne or ethics. I find them interesting and I wouldn't be
altogether unacquainted with them, but I do not assume the role
of explaining or propounding them. Also, you will realise
there are risks in making any comparisons between communism and
Christianity between Mao and our Lord. Nevertheless, I would
think it clear, as many of you have now had the opportunity of
observing for yourselves in China, that there is a degree of
dignity accorded to individuals whatever their calling, whatever
their age, which we do not find in countries which have been, and
still claim to be, Christian. There is a r . espect for one's
fellow man and woman to be seen in China which, I believe, is
admirable.
QUESTION: Last week in Parliament you said that you expected
that ministers would answer in the spirit of the answers which
you had given to questions. Since then in the last week
ten ministers failed to give an answer on' interdepartmental
committees in the same spirit that you did. Will you make sure
they do give an answer?
PRIME MINISTER: They have not failed to answer questions in the
spirit in which I have answered questions. I will take you back
to the position which applied before the elections. Preceding
Australian Governments, in answer to questions about what they
were doing on certain subjects, would answer: " We have established
an interdepartmental committee". After Mr McMahon became
Prime Minister, no answers were ever given to questions about what
departments were represented on those committees, when the
committees were appointed, when they had reported or when they
were expected to report. What the Labor Party in Opposition and,
not least, I myself constantly complained about was that the
Government was hiding behind interdepartmental committees. It
was using them as an alibi for failing to act or deferring action.
I have made it plain and all my ministers have also made it plain
and there has been a complete set of questions put to all of them
we have all made it plain that if any question is asked about
the membership or the timetable or the charter of an interdepartmental
committee it will be answered.
QUESTION: Would you accept that it is difficult to ask a
question about any specific interdepartmental committee if your
ministers will not enable you to know the names of any committees
that exist?
PRIME MINISTER: No. We have frequently announced the matters that
are being considered by interdepartmental committees. I take you
back to the earliest conferences that I held with you, when I
referred to the appointment of interdepartmental committees
to consider revaluation assistance. You asked me what departments
were on them; I told you.
QUESTION: Before any mining licences are granted for uranium
mining in the Northern Territory, will local Aboriginal groups
be asked whether or not they want such mining and, secondly, if
they do want such mining will that mining be on their terms and
conditions in regard to Aboriginal equality and Aboriginal
financial return from that mining?
PRIME MINISTER: This matter is still being considered.
QUESTION: The Queensland Premier has blamed Canberra, or your
Government, for its attitude towards foreign investment rates
for the failure of a foreign group of companies to go ahead
with an aluminium smelter at Weipa. Do you accept that criticism?
PRIME MINISTER: We don't propose to down-value the Australian
dollar in order to accommodate the foreign companies interested
in a smelter at Weipa.
QUESTION: Following on from the interdepartmental committees,
I understood from what you said in the House that you would
instruct your ministers not to give the answer which they have
all given so far on interdepartmental committees that you would
instruct your ministers to tell the Leader of the Opposition, if
he asked, which interdepartmental committees each specific
minister, or each specific minister's department, was represented
on. Do I understand from this answer that this is no longer the
case? PRIME MINISTER: You are not correctly quoting what I said about
my ministers. My ministers have said precisely what I said;
they have quoted what I said. I believe I said it on 20 September.
I have repeated the gist of it now to Mr Farmer: namely, that
any questions about particular interdepartmental committees,
their composition, their charter, their timetable, will be answered;
and my ministers have done that in respect of any that have been
named. They will do it in respect of any that are named.
QUESTION: But with respect, you yourself gave an answer to
Mr Snedden which described which interdepartmental committees the
Prime Minister's Department was represented on. Your other
ministers have not.
-6-
PRIME MINISTER: No, let's be precise. I went further than the
undertaking I gave on 20 September by giving, in answer to a
further question Mr Snedden asked about which interdepartmental
committees had been established since we took office on which
we were represented, by giving him that information. He then
asked some further questions about the membership of those
committees and I answered that. But I gave no undertaking that
my ministers, or I myself, in general, would answer such questions.
The original undertaking I gave on 20 September has been followed
by my ministers. It will continue to be followed by my ministers.
They have quoted it; they follow it.
QUESTION: What progress has been made in renegotiating the
agreement on the U. S. communicationq base at North-West Cape?
Can you say when Mr Barnard will be visiting Washington for talks
on joint control of the base, and could you say whether members
of Parliament have asked to see the bases in accordance with the
terms laid down by Mr Barnard earlier this year?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr Barnard will be going to the United States
in the recess.
QUESTION: If my memory serves me right, you told Mr Anthony
that decisions relating to tariffs would be announced in the
Parliament before they were announced to the Caucus.
PRIME MINISTER: No, on a matter of substance. I told Mr Chipp that.
QUESTION: But that was the gist of what you were saying?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, of course, in general.
QUESTION: It was my understanding from a Caucus briefing that
Caucus could ask to consider these matters before they went
to the Parliament. And my understanding -is that you have before
you the colour. television report of the Tariff Board and the IDC.
Could you tell me what procedures will be followed at this stage?
Will the Cabinet make the decision, then tell the Parliament,
or will it go to Caucus first?
PRIME MINISTER: The former.
QUESTION: Could you say why the Cabinet has not yet considered the
question of four weeks' annual leave for employees other than
Commonwealth employees in the Australian Capital Territory,
particularly in view of the decision of the Queensland Industrial
Commission that workers in that State should have four weeks' leave?
PRIME MINISTER: The Cabinet has considered this matter and it
believes, as appears from the Australian Labor Party platform,
that this matter should be determined by arbitration, and, as you
point out, it has since been determined by arbitration in
Queensland.
-7-
QUESTION: Have you had time to confer with Senator Willesee on
the offer by 33 South Australian medical students to go to
Ethiopia? PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: Do you know when you will-be able to confer with him?
PRIME MINISTER: I said I would have the matter looked into.
I didn't undertake to confer with Senator Willesee directly.
This was a question asked by Mr Hurford, the M. P. for Adelaide,
yesterday afternoon. I'm certain it is being acted on already.
I am certain that the department is investigating the matter
already. I hadn't heard about it bqfore Mr Hurford asked his
question without notice.
QUESTION: Figures released in a Question on Notice answered by
Mr Grassby today indicate that of 26,013 migrants who came to
Australia on assisted passages for the first six months of
this y~ ar, only 80 were from Asia. Given Mr Grassby's answer
on no applications for migration from Japan, but in the context
of the fact that there is great interest to migrate to Australia
from Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines, do you agree
with allegations that Australia's immigration policy still has
a bias in favour of whites?
PRIME MINISTER: There is no official bias on racial grounds at
all. There is an inevitably greater number-of Caucasians coming
to Australia than people of other racial origins because the
basis of the immigration program has been switched from official
recruiting to family reunion.
QUESTION: Do you give the Labor Party any chance of winning
the New South Wales State elections and, if so, by how many
seats? PRIME MINISTER: I'm not going to comment on that.
QUESTION: I'm confused and a little bit disturbed by your answers
on IDCs, and I would like to ask a very brief and blunt question.
Why shouldn't your ministers tell Mr Snedden which interdepartmental
committees their officers are members of. What is the difficulty?
Is there such a vast number that it would take the Public Service
months to work it out?
PRIME MINISTER: It is just the degree of time taken up, money
spent in compiling answers to questions when there may, in fact,
be no particular point that Mr Snedden wishes to establish. If
he wants to name any committee he will be told what departments
are on it and what its terms of reference are and what date it
did report or is expected to report.
-8-
QUESTION: Can't you agree with the point made by Mr Spigelman
of your office that it is impossible to ask questions about
committees when you don't know whether the committees exist or
not? And it is surely reasonable in the interests of open
government that people who are outside the Government should be
entitled to know what interdepartmental committees exist?
PRIME MINISTER: No; primarily, we are concerned in what
decisions Governments make and how they reach those decisions.
If there is any departmental committee which the Government sets
up, and somebody wants to know about that particular committee,
he will be told. But it has never been suggested, and I don't
propose to initiate, publishing all the interdepartmental
committees which the Government may jestablish. I have pointed out
in answers to questions by Mr Snedden that there are some matters
of international or commercial relevance where it would be quite
wrong to identify the existence of a committee or its membership.
There have never been so many reports to Parliament by bodies
advising the Government never.
QUE STION: I understood that in the early weeks of your
Government you did have inquiries made for a consolidated list
of the interdepartmental committees. Have you ever been given
that consolidated list?
PRIME MINISTER: I forget.
QUESTION: What are we going on about? I mean there are all sorts-
I don't understand, you see, all this curiosity about
interdepartmental committees. Ever since we were boys here in
Canberra there have been committees, interdepartmental, formal
And informal, and all the rest of it. Surely what matters is
what comes out in the end. What is the reason for being so
testy about it I don't think it matters two hoots.
PRIME MINISTER:. The important thing is that people ought to know
what the Government decides and why it has decided it and that has
been done to a degree that has never been done by any Australian
Government before.
QUESTION: When you were in Opposition did you find it frustrating
that you were unable to get the information that you are now
denying to Mr Snedden?
PRIME MINISTER: No. I would have been very pleased indeed to
get all the information that I now give.