I THE PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFFRFTJCF:
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 1974
PRIME MINISTER: Welcome back ladies and gentlemen.* There are a
couple of things that I can announce to you because the telegrams
to the Premiers concerned will have been-. received by now.
Today Cabinet considered the Universities Commission's Report
on the Victorian Governent's proposal for a multi-campus university at
Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo. We decided that we ' were'not prepared to
support the Victorian Government's proposal, but we will establish a
university at Geelong. The Geelong University will incorporate the
. theaxti sting College of Advanced Education and the Teachers College in
city. This is in line with the proposal by the Universities
Commission in its report to the Government. I advised the Premier
of Victoria of our decision and I suggested to him that in Ballarat
and Bendigo the existing College of Advanced Education and the Teachers
College in each city should be merged to form a major College of
Advanced Education in each city. With respect to the provision of
opportunities to university study in Ballarat and Bendigo, I believe
that this could be met by the establishment of regional study centres
in association with such institutions as may be recommended by the
committee for an open university. Mr. Beazley, the Minister for
Education, will be providing further details of the Government's
decision. The report of the Universities Commission on the multi-campus
Cnuiversity at Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo and its recommendations
for Geelony) were sent to Mr. Hamer a few days ago.
Also, I have told the Premier of New South Wales that we shall
be happy for blue Pole6 to be displayed in the art galleries of New
South Wales. It will arrive in Australia at the end of March and it
. Soouugthht to be available for exhibition there in the Art Gallery of New
Wales, to coincide with the opening there of the exhibition of
recent American art. The Government of New South Wales would, of course,
be responsible for indemnifying us against any damage to the painting
during the time it is on exhibition and in the custody of the Art
Gallery of New South Wales. Provided this poses no problem, details of
the exhibition of the painting and security arrangements can be kept
to be settled between the Director of that gallery Mr. Laverty, and the
Director of the Australian National Gallery, Mr. Mollison. Afterwards,
we would be willing to have Blue Poles exhibited in Melbourne and
Adelaide which have air-conditioned galleries. Are there any questions?
F QUESTION: Was it your wish, Sir, that Mr. Charles Perkins should
not be charged under the Public Service Act?
PRIME MINISTER: Whether it is my wish iz relevant because the Head
of the Department in which Perkins serves, the Department of Aboriginal
Affairs, Mr. Dexter, tlic3 Secretar~ y of the Department, has the
jurisdiction and, in some circumstances, the duty to charge Mr. Perkins
or some other person, any other person in his Department, who he believes
has contravened the provisions of the Public Service Act. / 2
-2
Now that is something which is the statutory function of the Permanent
Head of the Department. Neither the Minister nor the Cabinet can direct
a Permanent Head as to the discharge of his duties in this respect.
If the Permanent Head believes that a charge should be made against an
employee of his department he suspends that employee, he reports the
suspension to the Public Service Board and the Public Service Board
can then appoint a Board of Inquiry to try the matter. That Board
makes findings which then go to the Governor-General who acts on the
advice of the Government at that stage in implementing or rejecting.
or varying any recommendation finding that the Board of Inquiry makes.
I have a copy of the charge against Mr. Perkins. I could say that if I
was a Permanent Head I would not have laid the charge. The charge is
that Mr. Perkins was guilty of improper conduct in criticising certain
political parties represented in the Parliament.* I don't know what
evidence Mr. Dexter, the Permanent Head, would have of the nature of
Mr. Perkins criticism other than the evidence that all of us have
reading the newspapers. All that I can say for myself is that no
leader or in fact member of any of the political parties criticised
mine has been among them has complained to me or to anybody in my
Shearing of those criticisms. In particular, I gather, the basis of the
Vimproper conduct in Mr. Dexter's view, I assume this, I have not discussed
this with Mr. Dexter directly or indirectly. The basis of his view is
that Mr. Perkins was guilty of improper conduct in criticising the Liberal
and Country Parties. If I was a Permanent Head I would wait for the
leader or some persons acting on behalf of those parties to complain of
the criticism and to state the nature of the evidence that he would
give or call. If a Leader of a political party made such a complaint
and was willing to give or call evidence in support of the complaint
-then I can well understand that a Permanent Head would suspend the
pea-son. After all, the Act says Section 56 that any person can
cha; 3: ge a Public Servant any person and that would include Sir
Chctrles Court or anybody else who may feel himself aggrieved but
whose own manner of political comment on other political parties might
well have inspired Mr. Perkins.
QUESTION: Would you say Sir, that the implementation of the Labor
Party's Aboriginal policy has been a disaster?
SP RIME MINISTER: No, but it has been suggested by my colleague, I
Wgather, that that is the headline that members of the National Press
Club might like to use.
QUESTION: How would you describe it?
PRIME MINISTER: , It is making progress in a very difficult field.
We have the first Australian Government in office now which has ever
tried to do anything directly in the Aboriginal field. It is the first
Australian Government which has tried to exercise the Constitutional
powers which were conferred on the Parliament by the overwhelming
vote of the people at the referendum in 1967.
QUESTION: Both Sir Charles Court and Senator Withers have complained
about mr. Perkins statement in Perth there was a press statement issued
by Senator Withers.
PRIME MINISTER: In that case Sir Charles Court could write to me and
Senator Withers could. Senator Withers has on many matters concerning
his own perks, at least he could about the people. I do want make the
point that any person can charge a Public Servant, any person, including
Senator Withers or Sir Charles Court. ./ 3
-3
if, furthermore, Senator Withers or Sir Charles Court were to state the
nature of the evidence that he would give or call, I would think it would
be a reasonable proper thing for the departmental head concerned to
suspend the Public Servant concerned.
QUESTION: Senator Cavanagh has been under frequent attack ever since,
for Aboriginals that he is supposed to be helping
PRIME MINISTER: Who he is helping.
QUESTION: ever since you appointed him to the position. I wonder
whether you think that any other Minister would also . be under attack,
and if you don't think that, do you think that your appointment was a
mistake? PRIME MINISTER: I think that anybody who holds this portfolio will be
subject to attack; it goes with the job. I believe-Senator Cavanagh
is doing a very good job, he has my complete support.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, is Section 56 of the Public Service Act one
which you wquld repeal if the Freedom of Information Act ever gets off
the ground? Do you feel yourself, that is is not in accordance with
the policy of your Government that Public Servants should be prohibited
from speaking out when complaints are made against them by private
citizens, politicians or anybody else in this sort of area?
PRIME MINISTER: The Freedom of Information Bill will be introduced by us,
There is a very great deal of legislation, as you know, to which we are
committed. ' We are committed to this legislation. Already I can say,
it is clear that there will be more Bills introduced this year than last
year. Section 56 and similar cognate sections of the Public Service Act
are being reviewed by the Public Service Board in consultation with the
various Public Service unions. I have thought for a long time, and I
still think, that Section 56 is too vague. I think that like so many
of the provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Law, for instance, the
amendments of the Crimes Act in 1960it is aimed to be A deterrent,
it's so vague that it's not a proper law. The Public Servants don't
know where they stand, in fact I suppose it could be said that the
Sections and the previous one, Section 55, are so wide that I wouldn't
* be at all surprised if a Board of Inquiry were to find the charge not
proven and I would be surprised if the Governor-General would be advised
by the Government to implement any adverse finding against a Public
Servant charged. I don't know what the evidence is, but if the evidence
which is to be brought against Mr. Perkins consists of no more than his
remarks about and reposts to Sir Charles Court I would regard it. as
fantastic for an adverse finding to be made by any Board of Inquiry
appointed by the Public Service Board.
QUESTION: Despite everything that you have said tonight, have you taken
any steps whatsoever in the last twenty-four hours to influence a NO
decision on the Perkins affair?
PRIME MINISTER: No, no. I told you I have not spoken directly or
indirectly to the Permanent Head. I have-also told you that the
Permanent Head -has jurisdiction and maybe the duty under the Act to
lay charges to make suspensions. / 14
-4
QUESTION: What about the Minister, did you discuss that particular
point with him?
PRIME MINISTER: No. He takes the same attitude, the last time I spoke to
him which was some weeks ago on this matter. It is the Permanent Head
who . suspends, the Minister can charge but the minister has not charged.
No other Minister has charged, no political leader has charged, any
of them, or in fact, any person that's what the Act says, any
person can make a charge.
QUESTION: But the Minister told us at lunch time that he had spoken to
you about this this'morning, and that whether your attitude was right or
wrong, as he said, he thought it would be wrong-of him to reveal it
because it might influence what he insists on referring to as the trial
of Mr. Perkins. Have you any comment on that?
PRIME MINISTER: No. As I have said, I haven't heard what was said
so I am not going to comment.
* QUESTION: But you did speak to him about this this morning?
PRIME MINISTER: I take the attitude, and he knows I take the attitude
that it's the Permanent Head's job. Now look, can I be clearer than that?
QUESTION: Did you speak to Senator Cavanagh about this this morning?
PRIME MINIST * ER: I spoke to him about this ritatter in general terms,
but not about any charge.
QUESTION: What view did you express then to him?
PRIME MINISTER: You don't expect me to talk about conversations of this
character, do you. We have conversations sometimes, and I don't reveal
them. QUESTION: In view of what happened tonight?
SPRIME MINISTER: My own attitude is pretty clear from what I have said,
WI would have thought. If I was Permanent Head you know what I would be
doing, but the fact is, this is the Permanent Head's job and it is not
my right to influence him. I don't come into it unless there is a
recommendation by a Board of Inquiry to the Governor-General. Then
if the only evidence that comes up is what I have seen hitherto in
the papers, you've got a fair indication of what my attitude would be.
QUESTION: Did you seek to make known your views to Mr. Dexter through
a senior Public Servant?
PRIME MINISTER: No. Gentlemen, I have already stated that I have not
been in touch with Mr. Dexter directly or indir;-ctly. Now I don't have
to answer each of you individually and repeat that.
QUESTION: Was the Perkins matter raised in Cabinet?
PRIME MINISTER: No. not at all.
QUESTION: Do you support Mr. Perkins comments which have now lead to
this charge?
PRIME MINISTER: I regret that Mr. Perkins speaks as strongly as he does.
But I do understand the situation that nobody in Mr. Perkins position,
the most important position that an Aboriginal Australian has had for
nearly two centuries could be expected to remain silent on subjects about
which he must know, to have views, and experience and responsibilities.
I make allowance for the fact that he has respQnsibilities in an area
where there have been very great wrongs and shortcomings and his own
effectiveness in doing his job is reduced if he is mute, when other people
speak or who are reported as speaking on some of these matters where he
is involved.
QUESTION: In view of what you have said, will you be taking any steps
to make your views known directly to a Board of Inquiry other than as it
may be reported in the Press Conference here today?.
PRIME MINISTER: The only think that I-would think that I could have
anything to do with the Board of Inquiry is whether legal representation
is to be made available for the person charged, obviously I think it
should be.
QUESTION: On a point that Mungo raised, on the Freedom of Information
Act, Mr. Perkins has drawn a distinction between Public Servants speaking
on issues involving social change and issues of defence and foreign
policy. Do you accept that there is a distinction and that Public
Servants ought to be able to speak on questions involving social issues?
PRIME MINISTER: In general terms I accept that. Mind you, in answering
your question, I don't want to endorse your summary of what Mr. Perkins
may have said. I haven't got in front of me a report, let alone all the
reports, , of what he said on this subject. I think that there must be
limitations on what a First or Second Division Public Servant says about
matters of policy where he is or could be involved himself. But I would
regard it as quite wrong and quite apart from that, quite futile to
silence Public Servants in respect of matters where they don't have an
0official responsibility themselves. Everybody knows that Public Servants
have political views; it would be extraordinary if they were the only
political muters in the community.
QUESTION: In view of your comments about what you wouldn't have done if
you had been Mr. Dexter, do you have confidence in Mr. Dexter's
administration as Permanent Head of the Department, and do you plan
to keep him on as Permanent Head of the Department?
PRIME MINISTER: I know of no moves I, myself, wouldn't contemplate
any move to transfer Mr. Dexter elsewhere. I believe Mr. Dexter is
a dedicated person. I agree with what Senator Cpvanagh, his Minister,
said about him.
QUESTION: Could you tell me whether the Government has received
applications from the Allwest and the BHP organisations waiving the
exchange control requirements, and if you have, could you tell me what
state they are at at the moment? Do you expect the Government to hand
down a decision before the West Australian elections?
-6
PRIME MINISTER: The parties to the Aliwest project sent submissions
on the 11th of this month, they were received in the Department on
the 14th of this month, and there was a submission before Cabinet
today and before the Economic Committee of Cabinet yesterday concerning
those applications. We have referred it to the Inter-departmental
Committee on Foreign Takeovers for examination and report to the
Cabinet by 14 March. The Minister for the Environment and Conservation
has been requested to report to the Cabinet by the same date on the
environmental aspects of the proposal and the Minister for Urban and
Regional Development has been requested to report to the Cabinet by
14 March also, on the implications of the proposal for the Bunbury Collie
region. I would therefore expect that Cabinet could consider the matter
on Monday 18 March, but couldn't consider it before.
QUESTION: Could I ask you about the BHP Jumbo Plant any proposal from
them? PRIME MINISTER: Yes, BHP wrote to the Minister for Secondary Industry
SMr. Enderby, or maybe to his Department, I think on 7 February. But in
Vall events, it was not until this month. We decided in the Economic
Committee yesterday and in Cabinet today the form of the reply to the
letter. Mr. Enderby, Mr. Crean and I are settling it. I hope we do
it today but otherwise I expect we would do it tomorrow.
QUESTION: From what you have just said the Department of the
Environment and Conservation is to report on the environmental aspect
of the Allwest program by 14 March. Do you think that a period of
16 days is adequate for a full environmental study of the consequences
for the introduction of the scheme, and what will you do if the
Department says that it can't give you such a report in that time?
PRIME MINISTER: There has already been, I am told the Premier of
West Australia Mr. Tonkin has emphasised to me that there has already
been an environmental impact statement by the State Authority concerned
and the West Australian Government, Mr. Tonkin's Government, has had
experience in other development projects of this nature other
bauxite and alumina projects. Nevertheless, we feel that as an
SAustralian Government which can, in due course, have responsibilities
Wto grant export licences, we must also check the environmental aspects
ourselves. From that fact it might be appropriate to mention to you
that I have written to the Premiers sometime ago, I haven't had any
replies, I think, on two general matters in the environmental field.
The Lake Pedder situation shows that the Australian Government can be held
responsible for public works, government works, carried out with furnds
raised by the Australian Government pursuent to decisions of the Loan
Council. Accordingly, I have suggested to the Premiers that the
Australian Government and the State Government concerned should have a
joint environmental survey of any Government work, loan program, which
might have environmental aspects. In that case we know, all of us on the
Loan Council know in advance what the implicati6ns will be. There can
not be the allegations later on that the people have had second thoughts
or that they come in too late. The other thing concerns private
developmental projects which may have an export factor. My Government
has taken tne attitude that we must consider environmental owner-ship,
foreign ownership, industrial aspects of projects from which exports
will flow. It can be said, and it has been said, that when we want to
be satisfied on those aspects it's somewhat late in the day, -he projects
are under way. So, therefore, I have suggestedi to all the Premiers
that in respect to those private projects for which they are asked to
give their permission, exploration, exploitation, then we would also
join in an environmental impact statement with them. Then, everybody
knows from not only the State Governments which has some responsibilities,
-7
but from the Australian Government which has the export responsibility,
at least, whether the project will meet acceptable criteria.
QUESTION: Is the question of the continuation of subsidies on nitrogenous
fertiliser and superphosphate now both before the Industries
Assistance Commission. Have you asked the Commission to expedite the
inquiry into this. Is it feasible for these subsidies to be selective
in their application for farmers or small farmers, or farmers in certain
areas to receive this superphosphate bounty but not large pastoral
companies? PRIME MINISTER: On thie last one I would think that the approach that
would be preferable and might be constitutional, I doubt if the other
one distinguishing between big and small farmers would be constitutional,
but the one which would be more likely to be constitutional and which
would also be a more rational one, I think, would be to choose between
particular industries which use some substance for which a bounty is
sought. The Government has considered the question of the superphosphate
Sfertilizers bounty; it has not considered the question of the nitrogenous
Vfertilizer bounty. The Industries Assistance Commission has before it'a
reference concerning nitrogenous fertilizers from the people who make
them. They are seeking a tariff against nitrogenous fertilizers which
are imported. The question of referring the overall question of an
overall bounty on superphosphate fertilizers was considered but we were
assured by the AIC that it would be impossible for them to make a
report this year. In those circumstances the Cabinet decided not to
recommend that the present Act, which expires at the end of this calendar
year, be renewed.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, you stated in your announcement of 15 February
that you were giving primary producers plenty of time to make adjustments.
When can we expect a decision on the nitrogenous bounty?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know. I think it is a few months.
QUESTION: The Hungarian public has been watching with great interest
how rapidly you began to implement. Australia's new independent foreign
policy. What do you regard as the major achievement in this area?
PRIME MINISTER: My Government has emphasised the responsibility tha ' t it
has to develop direct relations with all countries in its region the
East Asian and South-East Asian, South Pacific and Indian Ocean area
irrespective of ideology. We want to have normal relations with all the
Governments in this region. Accordingly, we have also wanted to have
direct relations, not merely relations which are subsidiary to those
arranged on either side of the north Atlantic. I was told you might ask
some questions, but I didn't realise it would be quite as wide, but
perhaps I might take this opportunity to say that late last year,
following negotiations in Budapest, between Hungarian officials and
Australian officials, a text for a revised and updated Trade Agreement
with Hungary has been agreed on at official level, and this followed
Hungary's recent accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
So I can give this as an illustration to where an opportunity arises f or
us to have new relations or augmented relations with some countries we
swiftly take that opportunity.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, last week you intervened in the Northern
Territory Legislative Council and sought the postponement of consideration
of legislation related to mining in national parks in the Northern
Territory. I understand you had discussions on this matter. Could
you tell me the outcome of the discussions? ./ 8
8
PRIME MINISTER: The relevant Ministers are discussing this question.
The Minister for the Northern Territory, the Minister for Minerals and
Energy, and the Minister for the Environment and Conservation.