PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE HOBART 1 MAY 1974
PRIME MINISTER: Gentlemen before I answer your questions,
I thought I might touch on one matter. I noticed that in
the Mercury and also in the northernpapers in Tasmania,
that the principal item was to this effect. " Pensions promise,
immediate rise if LCP wins." I regret to say that the heading
conveyed only half the story. At least the full story gives us
part of the answer to the question of where Mr Snedden will
cut government spending and the answer is he would cut pensions.
I was able to obtain today a copy of this glossy publication by
the Liberal Party and under the heading of policies towards
pensioners and the elderly the relevant passage is " as soon as
economic circumstances permit',' not immediately, but as soon as
economic circumstances permit, " we guarantee that aged, invalid,
widows pensions, war and widows pensions, and other weekly social
service and repatriation benefits will in future be adjusted
automatically every half year to changes in living standards".
Now if that had been the policy since the last election pensions
would now stand not at $ 26 a week but at $ 23 a week because the
$ 3 a week increase from the $ 20 which the pension stood at when
my government was elected represent the increase to adjust to
changes in living standards. What my government has done has been
to increase the value of the pension towards 25% of average weekly
male earnings. That's why the $ 20 pension which we inherited has
not just gone up to $ 23 a week which the Liberal's platform proposes
but to $ 26 a week. The pension has been increased by the Labor
Government by 30%; about twice the amount required to maintain
it in terms of changes in living standards. We believe that the
pension ought to be adjusted in terms of average weekly male
2.
earnings so that if the general community shares in increased
prosperity in the community the retired people, the pensioners,
similarly should share in that increased prosperity. Now I
thought I should correct that impression that is given by the
heading in the Tasmanian papers straight away.
QUESTION: The keynote of Mr Snedden's address last night was
that the Whitlam experiment had failed. How do you feel about that?
PRIME MINISTER: The Whitlam experiment has succeeded wherever it
has been given a chance. Where administrative action was required,
we've acted promptly, fully and effectively.
QUESTION: You accepted the term. Explain that Sir.
PRIME MINISTER: Well of course it was a change for Australia.
After 23 years of Liberal/ Country Party government. But we came in
17 months ago on a 3 year program. After 17 months there has to
be an election for the House of Representatives again but this time
there will be an election for a contemporary Senate as well.
Administratively the experiment is fully-fledged. Legislatively
it has been hamstrung very greatly by an outdated Senate elected
three and a half and six and a half years ago.
QUESTION: As you well know we have representatives of the local
press here as well as-the National press. I know that there are
important Tasmanian issues that some people want to ask you.
QUESTION: Sir Frank Packer died today. He's been a long time
political opponent of the Labor Party. What's your reaction to his
death and will it have any effect on the coming election. Question
two, has his role with the development of this country been
beneficial or harmful?
PRIME MINISTER: It's too soon for me to attempt or presume
to make an assessment of Sir Frank Packer's contribution to our
country or to the media. He had for many years a very great
influence on the daily press in Sydney. He disposed of his papers
3.
there about three years ago. He retained control of the most
successful of the weekly women's papers. He also of course had
a dominating interest in two of the mainland television stations.
He had been involved in the media all his life, his father before
him. He had never supported the Australian Labor Party or any
Australian Labor Party Government, Federal or State. Personally,
I found him a vigorous character and we treated each other I think,
with good humour and mutual respect, however much we disagreed with
each other, on matters of policy. But I respected him. I believe
he respected me and I share in the distress of his widow and his
son at his passing.
QUESTION: Has he affected your platform in the election.
PRIME MINISTER: I don't believe that Sir Frank Packer's
publications these days had any influence politically.
QUESTION: Nor the Liberal Party at all?
PRIME MINISTER: His television stations. I think that television
cannot be manipulated so readily for political purposes by the owners
of the television stations. If you have a newspaper then you are
a prisoner of the owner's policies. If you don't like the newspaper
you can't go out and buy another. But if you don't like a
television program you can always switch to another.
QUESTION: The future of the Australian Cowhide Works in the
( unclear) near Hobart depends on the decision of your Government.
Is tariff protection for the industry still going to be continued?
PRIME MINISTER: There is a report which I've received from the
Industries Assistance Commission. It is being printed. As soon
as it's printed it will be published as all the Industries
Assistance Commission and formerly the Tariff Board reports have
been published since I became Prime Minister. I am the Minister
in charge of protection but in accordance with the general British
Parliamentary system which we inherited in Australia and which until
the Senate cut off supply to my Government had always been applied
in the Federal Parliament it is inappropriate for governments to
make decisions during the currency of an election campaign. The report
I hope will be available by the time of the election and it will be
one of the first matters which will be considered by my government
after the election. In the meantime the report in typed form has
been made available to the companies concerned.
QUESTION: If the Labor Party was to win a majority in the
contemporary Senate but lose to a majority in the House of
Representatives would it seem fit to reject supply?
PRIME MINISTER: I am not contemplating that eventuality. But my
own strong opinion has always been that the Senate should not attempt
to reject supply. This matter did arise in the first year when I
was leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. That was in
1967. You will remember that there was an increase in postal and
telegraph charges in the 1967 budget. The Senate had previously by
a combination of the Australian Labor Party and the DLP disallowed
regulations which had been made increasing postal and telegraphic
charges whereupon the Holt Government introduced those charges in
the form of legislation in the budget and there was a move in the
Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, the Caucus, to vote against those
bills and the budget of which they were a part. I successfully
resisted that move. My view has always been that the Senate should
not cut off money for a Government which has a majority in the House
of Representatives.
QUESTION: Based on the precedent of the last four weeks has it
changed your view at all?
PRIME MINISTER: I think it was an evil precedent. I wouldn't
change my view.
QUESTION: Do you think your Party may change its view.
PRIME MINISTER: I would try to persuade them not to. It would
be tempting obviously in the circumstances which you suggest but my
view has been consistent all along. When this was advanced in the
Party in 1967 I successfully overcame the idea.
QUESTION: Can you conceivably see a situation in which the Labor
Party would do to reject Supply if the Liberal/ Country Party had a
majority in the House of Representatives?
PRIME MINISTER: There would be many people who would want to
follow this wrong precedent. I would not be among them.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, in view of the High Court decision which
has upheld the validity of the tobacco tax in Tasmania would the
Labor Government seek to come to some arrangement with the States
where they can have a growth..( unclear) or would the Government
be having let Tasmania and presumably the other States go ahead
and trying to levy the tobacco tax or the consumption?
PRIME MINISTER: My Government doesn't object to the States having
a growth tax. In fact we completely support the fact that they do
have a growth tax in the payroll tax ard'they are using it. What
we object to is the income tax being levied by any Government other
than the Australian Government. But this particular matter of the
tobacco tax, the consumer tax, was resisted by my Government in
the High Court. The State Governments, including the Liberal State
Governments, supported the idea that States should be able to levy
such taxes. My Government resisted the idea. We didn't win. I
should say that there are other taxes where, such as death duties
and road taxes and there used to be land taxes, which were levied
both by the Federal Parliament and the State Parliaments. As a
result of a decision made at a meeting of the Constitution Convention
Committee A which I chaired a month ago officials of my Government
and of the State Governments are looking at the operation of these
taxes which are levied by both Federal and State Government in
Australia so we are very happy to work means of seeing that the taxes
Federal and State Governments levy in Australia are fair in their
incidence and economic in their collection.
QUESTION: Would you like to see an arrangement at least whereby the
States would agree to drop consumption tax in return for some
concession from the Commonwealth.
PRIME MINISTER: What the States do in this matter is their affair.
The High Court has ruled that it's a matter for the States. We were
against them ruling that way but we didn't succeed so what the States
do with their Constitutional powers is a matter for the States.
Quite clearly we were against it but we didn't succeed.
QUESTION: Sir, the Committee of Inquiry into national estate. I
have the recommendations of this Committee that you handed down
last week recommended that Tasmania ( unclear)... until further
impact surveys are being conducted. Is that recommendation going
to become part of your policy of your Government?
PRIME MINISTER: My Government's policy is that Perhaps it
will help you if I read what was said in my policy speech on this
matter. I quoted what Mr Hope, who presided over the Committee
on the National Estate said about this matter. He stated...
It's in the section of my policy speech dealing with the government.
QUESTION: Sir, while you're looking for those
PRIME MINISTER: Well, if you don't mind, I think I've found it.
This is what Mr Justice Hope said. The Constitution gives the
Australian Government power to control the export of goods and in
particular the export of minerals and timber. It can require that
it can be satisfied that the exploitation of mineral or timber
resources or the manner or extent of that exploitation will not
adversely affect the environment before giving a licence to exploit
and on that recommendation by Mr JusticejHope's Committee I stated,
our Government will exercise that power regularly and effectively
on the basis of skills and independent advice. And what I pointed out
7.
was that from now on where there are to be any private projects
involving export of minerals or timber we would like to see a joint
environmental impact statement compiled by officials of my
Government and officials of the State Government concerned and then
in the light of that joint environmental impact statement we would
decide whether we would permit the export of products of that
mineral or timber project. It is so as to ensure that people
investing in such projects will know where they stand. Up till
now under the policy of our predecessors, they took no interest
in the environmental aspects although constitutionally the Federal
Government certainly has that responsibility and in our belief should
exercise it.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, the Inquiry suggested that which you
have said now... ( unclear)
PRIME MINISTER: I said you will notice from now on, that is, for
new projects. I don't believe that we should disallow projects
which had been allowed to commence under the old policy. But we
want to insist on this from now on.
QUESTION: Most of the causes of Tasmania's economic problems
is generally regarded to be as ( unclear) mainly. And your Government
undertook 17 months ago the revenues. Do you think we are any better
off now than when we were before the last election.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. We have appointed a Royal Commissioner to
enquire into and report upon these matters. I think it was last
November I announced Mr J. F. Nimmo, who had been the senior official
of the Federal Treasury and then became Secretary of the Department
of Housing and is now a member of the Grants Commission should be a
Royal Commissioner to look into the impact of transport costs on the
Tasmanian economy. And one of the things he will look into is the
question which I raised at the meeting I had with John Coates
during the last House of Representatives Campaign in the Town Hall.
8.
I said that it would be a reasonable thing to expect and to work
towards that freight costs say per mile between Hobart and any of
the mainland capitals should be no greater than freigh costs between
any of those capitals. You depend entirely on shipping for your
heavy exports and accordingly, Mr Nimmo, the Royal Commissioner, is
looking into this very matter. In addition there is Mr Summers,
the former Secretary of the Department of Transport who is a Royal
Commissioner looking into the general aspects of the maritime
industry. And this means that he will be suggesting to us what
improvements need to be made and the laws covering our ports and
our coastal shipping and our international shipping.
QUESTION: Tasmania's two tertiary education colleges are about
a mile away from one another in Hobart. Will a Labor Government
consider establishing an autonomous tertiary education body in
Launceston or in the north or alternatively moving the Advanced
College of Education headquarters to Launceston.
PRIME MINISTER: I would wait for any recommendations on these
matters to come from the two bodies concerned. There is a
universities commission and there is a commission on advanced
education. I wouldn't act without advice from those bodies on
these matters. You will notice that we sought the advice of the
Commission on Advanced Education concerning an additional grant
for the Hobart College of Advanced Education. When we got the
recommendation we immediately acted upon it. I was asked to open
the Hobart College of Advanced Education last year and the
representations were made to me at that time. I said I will have
the Commission on Advanced Education examine it straight away.
They did. When their report came in we acted upon it. Now
similarly I was asked to open a month ago the new Technical College
at Burnie. There again we acted on the recommendations of this
interim committee, the Kangan one, on technical and further
education. The whole of our course of action depends on expert
advice made available to the public. We've done it in the tertiary
field up till now in Tasmania. I'm sure we'll continue to operate
that way.
QUESTION: It just seems tha the expert advice recommends the
establishment of two academic institutions within a mile of one
another while half of the State's population isn't served upon by
this body, that there must be something wrong with it. Perhaps
a political decision rather than an expert decision.
PRIME MINISTER: This is not a political decision. These
Commissions are not subject to political direction. They recommend
what they like. There can be a political decision. There can be
a political decision later on to reject their advice. We have never
rejected the advice of any of these expert bodies in the educational
field. The Schools Commission, Universities Commission, the
Commission on Advanced Education, the Interim Committee on technical
and further education, we have accepted it in every case. The public
knows what the advice is and we've acted on it. I mean this is a
powerful case, what you say, what you're inferring. Then people
ought to put it to these Commissions.
QUESTION: One of the points is that in the north of the State
we've had disastrous floods there in the last week or so. Will the
Federal Labor Government consider giving disaster aid grants to the
area? PRIME MINISTER: We arranged that two days ago didn't we Mr Barnard?
Mr Barnard and I were discussing this two days ago. We have decided
to give assistance forthwith in the same way as we did when Mr Barnard
was Acting Prime Minister for northern New South Wales and Queensland.
You will get the same range of assistance promptly. Mr Barnard will
give you the details. I'm not sure how much has been published in
this respect.
QUESTION: The Labor budget this year, would it be an adapted
budget or a surplus budget?
PRIME MINISTER: A surplus one I expect. I don't think a deficit
budget would be appropriate this year. There was a deficit budget
in 1972 and again in 1973 and I don't think it would be appropriate
in 1974.
QUESTION: The amount of growth the Labor Party has been playing
in the Commonwealth is considerably increased. I'll re-phrase that.
You will be cutting back on the rate of growth of expenditure in
certain areas if you do budget with a surplus. Can you give us an
idea of some of those areas which you will be cutting back.
PRIME MINISTER: The Commonwealth Government's expenditure is
rising more slowly than the public expenditure in Australia. Your
own newspaper, The Age, Melbourne, which . I trust is widely read in
Tasmania, had an excellent article by Mr Ken Davidson, its economics
editor today, who used to be formerly in that position with The
Australian. And he pointed out that the percentage of the domestic
product, the gross domestic product, which isbeing spent by the
Commonwealth Government this year is less than the amount being
spent by the Commonwealth Government out . of the gross domestic
product lAst financial year and the financial year before that.
Actually my Government is spending a smaller amount of the gross
domestic product than was spent by the McMahon Government when Mr
Snedden was Treasurer.
QUESTION: But Mr Prime Minister there is no way out of this to
the point that you how you expect to have a surplus without increasing
your revenue than if you cut the growth of expenditure
PRIME MINISTER: Revenue is going to increase. We all expect that.
Mr Snedden says it will. I say it will. There's no dispute between
the contestants that the revenue is going to increase. I don't
expect to reduce the projected expenditure by the Australian Government
in the next budget. I don't know what reductions there would be in
expenditure by any alternative Government. They're not precise in
11.
this matter. We obviously would not cut projected expenditure in those
fields where my Government has increased expenditure by the Australian
Government namely in Education, Health and Urban affairs.
QUESTION: Will you be able to find a surplus with the doctrine of
the ( unclear) report on hospitals and the bureau of roads
PRIME MINISTER: I expect so. Incidentally on hospitals I mentioned
in Launceston at the Launceston Press Club today; I don't know if you're
all aware of it; that two or three months ago I suggested to the
Premier that we should go halves in the cost of erecting and operating
a new Launceston general hospital and that we should bear the whole of
the cost of finishing and operating the new women's hospital in Hobart.
I point out that under the Constitution since the 1946 referendum the
Australian Government has got the responsibility jointly if you like
with the State Governments of providing hospital benefits and
medical and dental services.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, are you worried about the extent. of the
number of informal votes in the coming election and could this have
an effect on the Labor victory especially in the Senate?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm obviously worried at the complexity of the
Senate ballot papers in every State. I don't believe there has ever
been such a large number of candidates for the Senate in any State
as there will be on this occasion and a vote is wasted unless the
voter fills in a number in sequence in every square on the Senate
ballot paper as well as in every square on his House of Representatives
ballot paper. The order in which he fills in the numbers is his
choice but unless he fills in a number in every square in whatever
order he himself wishes then his vote is informal. His time in the
polling booth which will be a very long time on this occasion will
have been wasted. I believe that informal votes will not be as
numerous as they would have been if there had bben election for the
Senate alone. Now on the last three occasions 1964, 1967 and 1970,
there has been an election for the Senate alone and the percentage of
informal votes has been higher than it used to be on those occasions
such as 1961 and 1958 and 1955 when elections for the Senate took
place on the same day as elections for the House of Representatives.
I believe on this occasion since people will be more polarised
between the major parties, the Labor Party, the Government on one
hand and the Liberal and Country Party coalition sometimes standing
on different tickets as they are here; sometimes on the same ticket
as in New South Wales. There will not be the same dispersion of
votes among candidates or parties who have no colleagues in the House
of Representatives. I think people will probably concentrate more
meaningfully on how they pass their Senate votes this time and I
would expect that they will follow the how to vote cards they receive
from Party supporters at the polling booths.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, I wonder if you could read the Labor
Government's provision on Life Assurance. Will the $ 1200 tax
deduction ever be made and does the Government intend to continue
the increase of tax on life assurance which the Life'Officers
Association claimed earlier this week to reduce the bonuses
( unclear)
PRIME MINISTER: That was a thoroughly dishonest advertisement.
People who take out insurance policies knwo very well that the
insurance companies ahve been them over the years handover
fist. I think premiums are at the rate of 4% return on investments.
Everybody knows the life assurance socieits are cleaning up twice
or three times that mmount. They are putting money into city
real estate which gets them very much more than the percentage
that they put into premiums. The fact that premiums are so low,
is not the fault of my government. Premiums were:' far too low under
our predecessors too. But we are intent on insuring that people who
13.
put their money to life assurance policies, particularly under the
encouragement of fedraal legislation such as the 1,200 dollars per
year which you mention. The people who do that will get a proper
return on their investment. But they wil share in their return
on the very profitable investments, tnat life assurance policies
amek. I would point out that we are also going to stt up an
Australian Government Insurance Office This will write policies
in general, marine, fire insurance, and natural disasters.
I believe people have been very disillusioned in Australia in the
floods which appeared in Qld. and Northern NSW and now in northern
Tasmania, to find that their properties are not covered against
such natural disasters. The only house insurance companeis who
do cover them are those under the War Service Homes Scheme,
the Defence Services Homes Scheme. We have decided to see
therefore that the advantages of the Defence Services Homes Scheme
are made available to everybody who likes to take out a policy with
the new Australian Governmnt Insrance Office. This will save a
very great deal for home owners and home buyers. They have been
getting a very raw deal up until now. And most of the companies
concerned have been wned overseas.
QUESTION: In your earlier answer on a surplas budget, you said you
expected to go combined surplas budget, a with adoption of the
Bureau of Raods Report and also a Unclear.. Can we take it from
that that you will be accepting those reports and also do you agre
with budgeting the surplas ought to have an effect on reducing
inflation. PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think to budget for a surplas or a balance
budget, still more if you budget for a surplas, wouldcounter inflation.
As to the Bureau of Roads Report, we are discussingthat with the States
14.
and with local government. It is the first time that there has ever
been a discussions about the Commonwealth's assistance for roads
with local government. The Bureau of Raods suggested it and we have
been having these discusions. The discussions naturally have been
suspended after the oncoming of the election. As I said in my
policy spech they will be resumed after the election. Meantime
however, we have decided to bear the whole cost of the national
highways proposals by the Bureau of Roads. Not 80% but 100%.
And as far as Tasmania is concerned of course, few will remain in
the preferrd positions as it has always been in regards to these
grants. That is the Bureau's recommendations for Tasmania will be
confirmed. All that we have decided otherwise is to bear the whole
cost of the national highways scheme. ( QUESTION UNELEAR)
That has not been considered, but I expect it will be accepted.
I go further than the Sax Report as I have pointed out to you.
with what I have said already about the Launceston general and
the Hobart's womens hospital. Incidentally one doesn't know
what needs to be done in Victoria. Because the Victorian government
wouldn't co-operate with the Sax Committee. The Hospitals and
Charities Commission in Vic. was prevented from giving evidence,
or supplying information to the Sax Committee on hosptials and
health services. We will use our own constitutional responsibilities.
As I sais, since 1946 the Australian Parliament has been entitled
to provide medical and dental services and in Victoria where the
State Government has not co-operated we will procide health centres
and in some of the areas particularly the outer suburbs where there
are not satisfactory hospital facilities available for the families
in that area we will build the hospitals.
QUESTION: First, when you are teturned with a stronger vote in
both chambers of P arliament, will you take urgent steps to improve
the voting system by giving an optional method on'preferential
and secondly, will you take more urgent steps to make it impossible
ever again for any party combination to indulge in this
subservive conscriosy against the Parliamentary system.
PRIME MINISTER: The last one would be largely overcome
if the first of those referendums we have put in is carried.
you will remember hhat that referendum provides for there to be
an election for the whole of the half of the Senate whenever
there is an election for the House of Reps. This is till more
urgent now because on 18 May the Senators who are elected will
take office from 1 July 1973. The House of Reps. members
elected will take office for three years from the day that the
House meets which will be July 1974. So there will be the same
position that there wa in 1951 where the Senators dated from 1
July 1950 and they are there for e had to be another elec tion
for the Senate in about April or Mya 1953 whereas the members
of the House of Representatives didn't have to come up for election
until April or May 1954. So it is very important to have the
sycronisation of the two houses and that being the case if on
any future occasion, the Senate were to refuse supply to the
government which had am majority in the House of Reps the House of
Rpes could go to the people and the senior half of the Senate would
also automatically go to the people and the junior half of the
Senate will have their term reduced by that amount. They would
be going on 3 years time instead of whatever time was still left
ot them. So that position would be largely cured if that first
referendum has a majority of YES votes in four of the States,
as well as in the whole country. Now certainly the Senate ballot
paper ought to be simplifire. It ought to be enough to cast a
valid vote if the vote fills in as many sqaures as there are
vacancies in the Senate. If for instance as usually happens,
16.
there are five Senators to be elected, then it ought to be a valid
vote if the voter fills in numbers 1 to 5 against 5, six if there
is to be elected, against 6. The maximum is 18 at the moment,
if he fills in 10. The present position makes for the most
complicated ballot paper in the world. Then you mention about
optional preferential. That is not an own preferred form of
voting, in Australia in the 60 years or more fedeally, we have
had the preferential voting system. It puts a premium on
complexity. It ought to be possible in my view for people to
indicate their preferences among all or as many as they like
with the candidates they put up. That is if a person believes
his first choice mightn't win, well let him number 2 against the
person who he would rather get in if his first man can'
t get in. But my party has no declared policy on it. It used
to suppo rt the idea of first past the post. You just put x next
to the name of the person who you wanted to get in. And you couldn't
indicate a preference. But that was taken out of the party's policy
at the conference before last I think. And the matter is now in
the melting pot. My own personal preference is the optional
preferential. That is let the person's vote be valid ifx even if he
puts an x against one name of a single candidate. If however he
puts 1,23, whatever it is against as many candidates as he likes
or all the candidates then let hsi preference be adhered to.
QUESTION: What order of surplas to you contemplate?
PRIME MINISTER: I can't anticipate that at this stage.
QUESTION: Do you think
PRIME MINISTER: At least a balanced budget.
17.
PRIME MINISTER: I am not proposing to have a deficit budget this
year as we had in our first one and Mr. Snedden's last one.