PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE 1974
PRIME MINISTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry to keep you
waiting but I have been out at Government House with the rest-of
the ministers for the swearing-in of the new minister and the
swearing in of ministers who have new portfolios or changed
portfolios. The significance of the ministerial changes is
briefly that two departments have been abolished and one department
has been quite transformed, immensely exalted. I don't know
whether you noticed that a great amount of the work which has
hitherto been done by the Department of Supply, which has now been
abolished, will be done by the proposed Australian Government
Purchasing Commission which Sir Walter Scott's committee recommended.
Yesterday we asked the Parliamentary Draftsman to prepare the
general framework for that bill to establish the Australian
Government Purchasing Commission and also the Australian Postal
Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission, both
of which were recommended by Sir James Vernon's* Royal Commission;
and then a new statistics bill which has been recommended by
Professor Crisp's committee.
Es the Western Australian representative here?
I thought I might give a message to you. Yesterday, on page 3,
there was an article " Delay seen on Eyre sealing" and it
comprised a report of remarks by the Premier of Western Australia,
Sir Charles Court, concerning the Eyre highway....
Interjection: We published your reply this morning.
PRIME MINISTER: I believe it was published on page 5. You are doing
pretty good tor me in the West Australian; the troublt is not at
this end. But there are two particular comments which I might make
to this wider audience. One concerns this statement:
" The attitude of the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam,
to the Eyre Highway could further delay the sealing of the road"
also: " Sir Charles said: ' It was obvious Mr Whitlam
believed that Australia finished at Adelaide'."
In fact, my Government is the only one which has
produce a plan to see that the Eyre Highway is trafficable end-to-end.
Up till now it has been a very clear case of wasted government funds.
The old Commonwealth Aid Grants have been spent by Western Australia
in sealing the Western Australian part of the Eyre Highway but there
has not been any comparable expenditure on the South Australian part.
I don't criticise the South Australian Government for that because
the Eyre Highway, is clearly very much less important to South
Australia than it is to Western Australia. It is, however, a road
which the Australian Government can build and maintain under the
Constitution. The very first paragraph, of Section 51 of the
Constitution, which lists the Australian Parliament's responsibiliti~ s
says: "... trade and commerce with other countries and among the
States". It's in that context that my Government proposed to the
Premiers last Friday and also it was in accordance with what I put
in the Government's policy speech a month ago that we would build
and maintain the principal roads between the capitals. We are *~ 2
entitled to do so; they are inter-state roads, they are part of
trade and commerce among the States. And accordingly, the definite
propQsal was made for this and other national roads in South Australia
ahd ptoposals were made to all the Premiers for national roads the
other national roads being those to-and from ports and airports
and between the Territories and the surrounding States.
I notice that Sir Charles Cutler, the Acting
Premier of New South Wales both the Sir Charles's seem to have
been a bit excited after Friday commented on the Hume Highway:
" This is' another example of the futility of continuing the
arrangements which have hitherto prevailed for our principal roads."
The Humne Highway is seventy miles too long, and it is too circuitous,
too steep, too narrow in many parts? there again, we have promised
in particular between Goulburn and Holbrook to see that the road
is adequate. There is no prospect, as things used to apply, of
having a decent road between Sydney and Melbourne. I believe the
whole of Sir Charles Cutler's remarks were not published, but I
will be interested to receive a reply to a letter I sent on this
subject before the end of April to the Premier of New South Walesthat
was before he went away actually, 28 April. We have suggested
that there should be co-operation in locating the new road.
Any questions?
QUESTION: I quote from the first paper you are believed to read
each morning, " The Age". Sir, on 15 May you are reported to as having
said: " There will be no increase in either direct or indirect taxes
in this year's Federal budget". Sir, with all the economic
problems facing the Government, will you be-able to honour that
election promise?
PRIME MINISTER: I will make no comments on budgetary matters. I am
quite happy to discuss matters which flow from the Premiers Conference,
of course, but I will not answer questions, as you know, about
budgetary matters.
QUESTION: You were prepared to during the campaign, sir. What's
changed? PRIME MINISTER: The budget is imminent.
QUESTION: Do you regret that there are not more new members in the
ministry? PRIME MINISTER: I don't want to answer that question. The general
situation is that the Caucus has endorsed the attitude which the people
expressed, that the ministry should be given a fair go. And
accordingly, every minister was returned who was still in the Parliament.
I don't know what the odds would beaqainst that. I don't think any
of you who were pontificating on this matter would have ventured to
believe that every minister would be returned.
QUESTION: May I remind you that several times in Parliament last year
the Treasurer, Mr Crean, urged investors not to sell their shares,
saying that the economy was sound and they would not lose out by
keeping their shares? Over the last week or so, share prices have
dropped to their lowest level for 7 years, although there has been
some recovery. In one day nearly $ 800 million was lopped off the
market value. How concerned are you about the falling share market
and what steps will your re-elected Government take to restore
confidence in the market?.
-3-
PRIME MINISTER: The Australian economy is basically very sound,
and any company which is engaged in useful occupation should have
complete confidence as to its future.
, QUES4ION: In view of your remarks to the Premiers about risk-taking,
restoring risk-taking to entrepreneurial activities, do you see a
moral distinction between putting people into unemployment for
reasons of economic management and putting people out of business
for reasons of economic management?
PRIME MINISTER: My reference was to land speculation. My reference
was not as wide as entrepreneurial activities overall. There are
very many entrepreneurial activities which are very valuable to
the community and they should prosper. There has been an unhealthy
degree of land speculation. The States have permitted it and it
appears that some of the speculators will burn their fingers.
QUESTION: Sir, is there any further development on the project, which
was delayed or rejected by the Federal Government before, for an oil
refinery by the Alwest group and bauxite mining? Can you give us
an up-to-date statement of what your Government's position is on that
project? And have you heard from Sir Charles the Second about
that project?
PRIME MINISTER: Sir Charles has sent nothing in Writing to me about
it. I had a very general discussion with Sir Charles Court last
Thursday afternoon in Canberra on the eve of the Premiers Conference
about the general attitude of the Australian Government to the two
issues which arose in the Alwest connection namely overseas ownership
or control and the environment. So there was a general discussion on
those two matters. In the Premiers' Conference there was also discussion
on an agenda item which the Australian government had listed
concerning the environment. The proposal was that there should be
joint environmental impact statements by the Australian Government
would have to make a decision itself, such as projects which involved,
the expenditure of loan f unds ( where the Australian Government's
responsibility flows from its membership of the Loan Council) and
export projects in the private sector ( where the Australian Government's
responsibility arises from its constitutional jurisdiction over exports).
There was also reference in the Premiers Conference under another
agenda item to the Australian Government's responsibility as r~. gards
aboriginal lands. Some of those, of course, could be affected by
exports such as minerals in the Northern Territory or in th neighbouring
two States. But there's only been a general discussion between--1
Sir Charles Court and me on this subject. There's been nothing specific
about Alwest and there will, I expect, be further correspondence fromthe
people involved in the project, -nne has come yet.-
QUESTION: Those environmental standards that were-set when the
project camne up last time do they still apply from-the Commonwealth's
point of view, the need for the study to be made at the expense of
the participating company?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that's our general approach. -We have been
given no reasons to vary that approach. The West Australian Government
hasn't examined, or hadn't examin-ed, some of the environmental factors
which we believe relevant, and-ti-Australian G'overnment didn't have
sufficient time to determine all the environmental factors on Alwest
to its satisfaction. Its preliminary view was that there were.. some
unsatisfactory features environmentally in Alwest. But I know'of
no further correspondence.
7~ v 7 7
I. 77
I7. .7 7 t77.7 .* fry:.-
7. .7 77
777.77 7 77 7 7
7
1
' 7 7
.2
. V.
7t~ ~ 7(. 777~ I.
.77 7
7 7.
" W 77 7 .7
7. ' 7'
.77( I -/ 7 7
7 7( ( 7
J I.
' 7 77
7 * jv7 7 7 7.;
7 ii
I 77
7 7777 7 .7
7
7, cv, 7 7
7 7%,
* 1 7
77 .7
7, 1
7 73
7 7.
-4-
QUESTION: Sir, if the New South Wales Government won't co-operate
on the Hume Highway, will the Commonwealth go ahead and build it
itself? PRIMt MINISTER: I won't assume that the New South Wales Government
won't co-operation. All I am saying is that it has been very dilatory.
But the highway will be built, I trust with the New South Wales
Government's co-operation, because it would have a very great deal
of the information concerning topography and geology; and also
there was a joint Commonwealth/ State inquiry on some of the route
in the last seven years or so in studying what should be the nature
of the access that Tumut in New South Wales has to its biggest
market, Canberra.
QUESTION: How do you regard China's attempts to prevent the
screening of the Antonioni film in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm surprised that there should have been any
attempts to prevent the screening of any film. I haven't seen the
film, but at all events it is being screened, I'm told. The only
thing that comes within Australian Government juristiction by any
stretch of the imagination would be the A. B. C. Well the A. B. C.
under this government is free to do what it likes.
QUESTION: Sir, do you accept Dr Cairns' suggestion that the Caucus
should have more say in economic matters, and how far would you be
prepared to go in this direction?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, this is not a view of Dr Cairns alone; it
is a view which we all hold.
QUESTION: Have you given Dr Cairns any indication that sometime in
the future he might have responsibility for the IAC? If so, is this
a firm undertaking or not, and when will it happen?
PRIME MINISTER: You don't expect me to publish conversations that
I have with any other individual, even so close an associate as.
Dr Cairns. As regards the IAC, it has been my responsibility from
its inception it will remain so for quite some time; I would expect
until Mr Rattigan's successor is appointed. I want to be sure that
the IAC is well established in the very greatly expanded role that
it now has. It's a much more important body than the Tariff Board.
I want to see that it's given every encouragement to the wider range
of activities it has compared with the Tariff Board.
QUESTION: In your statement last night explaining the ministerial
changes, you referred to the need to absorb migrants in suitable
jobs, but you didn't refer to the principle of migration according
to family reunions. Does the absorption of Immigration into Labour
mean any change of emphasis?
PRIME MINISTER: No, no, what you're referring to concerns assisted
migration. I noticed my statement was paraphrased by some of the
newspapers. They referred to migrants coming in. That's how it was
represented. What I did say was that migrants are brought in where
there are jobs. To get it fully: " Mr Cameron . will hold the new
portfolio of Labor and Immigration. To his existing functio ' ns as
* Minister for Labour will be added control of assisted migration.,
In this way, it will be possible to ensure that migrants are broiught
to Australia only when suitable jobs are available and in a way that
will ensure welcome and understanding from unions and management%.
IOther Immigration functions will also be undertaken for the time
being by Mr Cameron but will later be transferred to such
Departments as Foreign Affairs, Education and Social Security."
There are already some migrant functions which are with other
departments, such as Commonwealth Hostels an excellent board
6f d~ ectors and the Department of Housing and Construction.
Foreign Affairs will deal with admission visas. Education, of
course and Social Security will make provision for particular
aspects of migrants as well as other parts of our population who
seek additional attention to those generally available. But the
principle remains, as it has throughout our term of office, that
we believe the best migrants, the migrants who are happiest and
most successful in Australia, are those who are encouraged to
come here, not by Government but by their friends and families.
Family reunion is the biggest component in the Australian
Government's migration policy.
QUESTION: In your statement this morning on foreign investment,
you mentioned the creation of a new inter-departmental committee
to look at foreign investment. Will this mean there are now two
screening committees on foreign investment? And will the new one
look at asset acquisition by foreign interests and land acquisition?
PRIME MINISTER: They are separate committees. One is the takeovers
committee which has been operating since Mr McMahon was Prime Ministerthat
seems a long way back and the other, this new one which
will deal with investment. The existing committee, the takeovers
committee doesn't of course deal with new investment; it only deals
with investment in existing companies. It also has some deficiencies,
as I pointed out during the election campaign, in that it doesni't
deal, for instance, with the takeover of assets as distinct from
the taking over of shares; and it doesn'* t -deal with the taking
over of minority Australian shareholdings even if they are quite
important to the country.
QUESTION: In a radio interview in Melbourne during the election
campaign, you seemed to express some doubts about the continuance
of Qantas flights into South Africa. Could you expand upon
that please?
PRIME MINISTER: I forget what I was asked and I forget what my
response was to any question on it. I'm not sure I remember a
reference to this. I didn't volunteer any remarks about it but I
suppose the general attitude that we would have in mind is that
Johannesburg is not the only, nor, maybe, the most appropriate
point for Australia's national airline in Africa.
QUESTION: What are your personal feelings about losing Mr Barnard
as your deputy?
PRIME MINISTER: You all know, you would expect, that I voted for
Mr Barnard. You would not have expected anything else in view of
our long association. Mr Barnard took the result as you all would
expect him to take it very well, promptly, well, nobly.
QUESTION: Will you protest again to the French Government over the
resumption of nuclear tests in the Pacific area?
PRIME MINISTER: Senator Willesee will be making any comments. He
already has.
QUESTION: Any comment sir on the Indian one?
PRIME MINISTER: Senator Willesee has made a comment on thatf also.
-6-
QUESTION: Do you feel precluded by your statements during the
ele tion campaign from considering introducing option preferential
voting? PRIME MINISTER: No. I think optional preferential voting is all
the more necessary. What I have said in the past, and it's still
my view, is that first-past-the-post is not an appropriate voting
system for Australia because we've become used to the preferential
system for a couple of qenerations. Its quite clear, however, that
the system has to be simplified and it would be appropriate, it
would seem, to permit people to vote for one candidate only if that
is their wish. At the moment you've got to vote for all candidates
on the ballot paper even if it's 73, as it was in the New South Wales
Senate ballot paper, or twelve, as it was in my own electorate of
Werriwa for the House of Representatives. If you don't number every
square in a proper sequence then your vote is invalid. It's wasted.
The Department's education campaign was very successful indeed.
The number of informals in New South Wales for the Senate was only
12%. That's a remarkable tribute to the application and interest
of the Australian voters. But it's quite absurd that one has to
number every square in those circumstances. It's the most complicated
voting system in the world. And I believe our whole parliamentary
system has been held up to ridicule by the fact that we will be
without a Parliament in a parliamentary democracy, as we like to
regard it, for three months or even longer. So my colleague,
Mr Daly, the Minister for Services and Property, has in mind, I believe,
to bring in legislation to simplify the electoral system to give
people more choice than they have now. If you still want to number
every square you would be free to do so.' And your preference would
be given full regard. It would be taken into account. But you
wouldn't have to number everybody on the ballot paper if you were
satisfied with indicating your support for one candidate only.
It's your own lookout then if that candidate comes, say, third and
you ' ye missed the opportunity of having a second choice between
those that are ahead of him or her. That is, it will simplify it
and it will give people a choice. At the moment the Australian
voters don't have a choice. You've got to number everyone even if,
as would apply to all of us, we wouldn't know a fraction of them.
QUESTION: The Government intends to legislate on that in this session
of Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER: I believe this is Mr Daly's intention. It's not
come before Cabinet yet, but give us time. We're a pretty active
ministry but we haven't been able to decide that one yet.
QUESTION: On the migration question, as far as unassisted migration
is concerned, who will actually control the components of unassisted
migration? There are family reunions and sponsorship and government
recruitment? Now who is going to control unassisted migration?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr Cameron will have the same responsibilities for
the time being as Mr Grassby had. The degree of relationship which
gives you a priority for submission is the same:
QUESTION: So the categories will remain as such?
PRIME MINISTER: There has been no change in any of those matters.
Quite obviously a closer relative will come here earlier than a
distant one.
-7-
QUESTION: How long before the transfer of the various sections
Iof immigration to the other departments?
PRI4J MINISTER: I don't know. There may have to be legislation.
I don't know.
QUESTION: . In your opening address to the Premiers' Conference,
Mr Whitlam, you stressed that the examples that you presented that
day were only an example of the Government's attitude for the Budget.
You said they would serve to demonstrate the stringency of the
approach that the Government would be taking at that time. Does
that stringency of approach apply to the government's collections
as well as to its spending?
PRIME MINISTER: I am not going to give any more instances. I was
able to give those instances in advance of the Budget because they
had some relation to what the States are expected to do too. I
Swanted to demonstrate to the States that we were not asking them
to do anything in respect to their business enterprises that we
were not intending to do ourselves. There are some Government
expenditures which are more important than others. There are some
which are more readily deferred than others. There are business
enterprises which should be paid for by the user instead of by the
taxpayers. The proposition was put to us, in effect, that we
should pick up the losses on the New South Wales Railways $ 120 million.
We are prepared to accept the railways if they will hand them over
to us. I can imagine that with proper planning the Australian
Railways could be a modestly successful enterprise. Certainly in
the south-eastern part of this continent, the railways, with proper
co-ordination say, the whole area betw6eii Adelaide and Brisbane
and to the south-east of that line would be a very successful
transport system. There is no other continental land mass of
comparable area where you have so many different and less co-ordinated
systems. I believe that we just have to be quite blunt about it. It
is not the Australian Government's proper responsibility to the
taxpayer to say that we have to pay for the losses any State
railway system runs up. We aren't accountable for running the systems
as things stand at the moment, but it is put to us that we should pick
up the tab for the losses. Similarly, Sir Charles Cutler mentioned
his hospitals, the charges there. Well, I reminded him that just as
we were prepared to accept the railways we are also prepared to go
halves in the cost of running the hospitals if the patients in
standard wards are exempted from fees. That used to be the case
when there was last a Labor Government in the Australian Parliament.
It was a sensible arrangement; it ought to be restored.
QUESTION: At the Premiers' Conference you seemed to me to talk with
a quite new seriousness about countering inflation and you talked
about an economic freeze which would both break expectations,
inflationary expectations, and drastically reduce the pressure on
resources. Do you think the Australian community has to accept a
higher rate of registered unemployed as a cost of getting inflation
under control?
PRIME MINISTER: No, it certainly does not. And I didn't say that
either. For instance, any diminution of commercial construction
will certainly be picked up by an expansion of welfare housing. It's
an absurd position that in the financial year ending this month a
muc h greater amount has been made available to the States for welfare
housing, housing commission, housing trust construction. than ever
before in our history, and yet fewer houses were built than for, I
-8-
think, fifteen years past. And my speech pointed out that there
will be more money available for welfare housing this year and if
mor& is required it will be found. I didn't say there would be more
uinemjlloyment. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to repeat
what should have been plain to anybody who was there or who read
the text: that there was no suggestion for increased unemployment.
QUESTION: In your speech to the Canberra branch of the Labor Party
on Saturday you spoke about the Premiers' Conference, that it was
no longer dignified or effective and no mileage for Prime ministers
or Treasurers in dealing in one or two days with the Premtiers to
cut up the national cake. Can you give us some idea how next year
you would imagine the Premiers Conference will be conducted. on
Saturday you spoke of the discussions taking place over weeks or
even possibly months?
PRIME MINISTER: There are three components * of our financial
arrangements with the States. One is the capital works, the loan
funds. We agreed to an increase of just over 10 per cent in the
loan funds for State Governments, for the larger serni-government
authorities and no limit at all was placed on the borrowings by the
smaller authorities, those that want to borrow up to half a million
dollars. So that was the loan funds. There was an increase of
per cent in effect. Some of the States said they needed more,
and one State, for instance, quoted the case that to build an
identical school today with. a school for which a tender was let
seven months before the price had gone up 40 per cent. We saw
no excuse for accepting a tender 40 per cent higher than one seven
months before. There ought to be better management than that. The
next component with our financial relations'with the States concerns
the revenue assistance, and that's under a formula. The Act states
what the increase should be there. The increase in the ' coming
financial year under the formula will be about 18 per cent a very
considerable increase. Inflation has produced a still larger
percentage increase in the amount of that revenue assistance. I
made it plain this year I thought I made it plain 12 months
before that the formula would be applied, that I would not be a
party to haggling with no preparation about increases in the formula.
If the formula is deficient, then it ought to be amended; and the
present formula is the subject of legislation expiring at the end
of next year. If any variations are sought in the formula they can
be considered and may be made before the end of next June. But the
formula was applied and it involved an increase of 18 percent.
There have been of fsets for tertiary education for which the Australian
Government finds the whole of the cost now. The remaining component
is the special purpose grants the tied grants as-the States like
to refer to them. There have never been such large sums made
available in special purpose grants as have been made available by
my Government, and the prospective increase in those this year will
receive 28 percent more than in the year just ending 28 per cent
more. We find it is much more satisfactory to have specific purpose
grants because only in that way will one overcome the mis-government
which we inherited from our predecessors, which they were prepared to
condone and which we are not.
I've given you the examples of the interstate roads.
Now here we are entitled under the Constitution to build and maintain
those roads ourselves. It's a complete waste to have the Eyre
Highway half surfaced and half unsurfaced. One State does it; the
other State doesn't. Neither can compel the other to do-it or to
leave it undone. The Australian Government could have done the lot.
-9-
It now will. Similarly the Hume Highway. We all know the way
they were messing about ever since the war. There was no chance
of gotting it before the end of this century. The Australian
Gbver~ inent can do it, and it will embark upon it in this coming
Parliament. There are very many instances like this. If my
Government hadn't made specific purpose grants or offered them there
would have been no prospect of having reasonable public transport
systems in the State capitals. There would have been no prospect
of getting the State capitals completely sewered. There would
have been no possibility of getting adequate services in the post--wal
suburbs or reviving the suburbs which were developed 100 years ago.
Now in all these things improvements could only be done if there are
specific purpose grants. The States have always been able, for
instance, to go ahead with a bridge across the Brisbane River to
link South Brisbane and Roma Street. Nobody did a thing about it
until we made the offer, and since the election they've decided
to accept the offer. And in Melbourne nobody ever did anything about
having the same number of tracks all the way between Melbourne and
Footscray they used to vary; there's no purpose in having more
than the minimum number or to put the third track in from Caulfield
to Mordialloc. It's now being done, and quadrupling the railway
the whole way from Penrith to Sydney. We are making specific purpoLgrants
and as we have told the Premiers there would probably be
28 per cent more funds this year than last year. But because of
our interest in the spending of it, it will be better spent.
QUESTION: Is it your intention, or have you offered, a job to
Mr Grassby?
PRIME MINISTER: I have not been in touch-with Mr Grassby in any way
on this subject.
QUESTION: At the Premiers' Conference you listed on the agenda
the question of control over prices. We understand in your private
talks the Premiers raised the question of control over incomes, it
seemed to get to nowhere. Can the public now accept that the question
of control over prices by the Federal Government is dead?
PRIME MINISTER: Until New South Wales and Victoria act in this matter,
I think it must be accepted as dead. About incomes, the fact is, o,:
course, I think the Premiers realise this, that they can't refler
any matter to the Federal Parliament which they themisclv-ca-' n.)
exercise at the moment. And no State Parliament can exc~ rcist,:
over incomes which come within the purview of the AuFtralian
Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They can only ref-r 1
question of incomes outside Commonwealth awards. Now of ti-r
were prepared to do that, but I think they accept that i** c,. inon~ wc L . A
awards can override, within the constitutional limits of th-t
Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commuissioni, any Statk3L
So it could only be a partial reference which they could make.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, I represent New York and Isra~ eli YLd-i:; 11
magazines which represent an opposing philosophy in Jewish lii>
the philosophy of Zionism.... ( unclear) long histor-y Jews have alwa'
lived between non-Jews although they have suffered persecution, thny
have continued the development of the nation.... ( unclear) to build
a new human society based on justice and equality. Could I say that
you achieved with that attitude?
PRIME MINISTER: I think it's rather too wide a subject for me
to Vnkture an opinion at this notice or within the scope of this;
conference. What I would like to say is that my Government is
delighted that the prospects for the survival of the State of Israel
and for peaceful relations between all the nations of the Middle
East and, one would hope, the future of refugees in the Middle
East are now much brighter than the last time we had a conference
such as this. Dr Kissinger worked wonders between Egypt and
Israel and now seems to have done so between Syria and Israel,
and I would like to point out that the Australian Government has had
some effect, obviously only marginal, in bringing about this improved
relationship. We have been blackguarded amply for having kept our
heads and tried to contribute, but things are very much more hopeful
than we had ventured to believe they could be last time we had one
of these conferences.