PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 16 JULY 1974
PRIME MINISTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I have no particular
announcements to make to you. Many of you, however, have asked
me directly or through my staff about the prospects of a joint
sitting and what procedure will be applied upon it, where it
will be held, at what hour, on what day, under what rules and
with whom in the Chair. I can only repeat what I have said to
you earlier that I am inclined to assume that a joint sitting
will be necessary to secure the passage of the six bills, or
any of the six bills, which were the grounds upon which
Governor-General Hasluck granted the double dissolution on
11 April last. I am not taking it for granted that the new
Senate will continue the pattern of obstruction of the old
Senate. I have taken the view that commonsense, good Constitutional
practice and the decision of the people would prevail. Statements
by members of the Opposition indicate, however, that my faith may
be misplaced. These statements imply that the people did not express their
will about the six bills, or that the grounds on which the
former Governor-General granted the dissolution were trivial or
irrelevant or at best, merely formal.
This attitude pays scant credit to Sir Paul Hasluck's grasp
of his constitutional responsibilities.
Sir Paul's decision involved serious consideration of both
the causes behind my request and the consequences of granting
it. There is no necessity for joint sittings, interesting as the
prospect may be to all of us as students, recorders or practitioners
of politics. The smooth running of the business of Parliament and
government suffered sufficient disruption through the events of
April. The people's decision of May ended the need for further
disruption in July.
We have been without a Parliament for three months. There is
an accumulation of legislation. Are there any questions?
QUESTION: Why does Australia still maintain a ban on new sales
contracts for uranium, and how long will this ban continue?
PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of the uranium sales, exploitation,
processing, is still under consideration. As you know the principal
ministers concerned and Imyself, toured the uranium province about
three weekends ago. There are many aspects, some environmental,
some Aboriginal land rights, some foreign ownership, the opportunities
of processing the uranium, all of which have to be resolved. / 2
-2-
QUESTION: I understand the Leader of the Liberal Movement has
written to you asking for extra staff and there is a precedent
for this. Have you given consideration to it and will you grant
it?
PRIME MINISTER: I've given provisional consideration to it. I
told Senator Steele Hall that in addition to the secretary which
every non-office bearer in the Parliament has, he would be enti * tled
to have a Private Secretary, and that Private Secretary would have
the right to travel between Adelaide and Canberra and the right to
allowances in Canberra. I haven't concluded consideration of the
matter. There are two matters involved. The Senate has recognised
Senator Steele Hall as the Leader of the Liberal Movement.
The Senate Hansard so records it. Accordingly, he is entitled, I
believe, to a Private Secretary. It is particularly important that
he should have assistance of his choice in considering the backlog
of legislation. I do, however, hesitate to say that we should have
staff to conduct his activities as Leader of the Liberal Movement
outside, apart, from his isolated work in this Parliament. There is
no other member of his party in this Parliament so therefore a very
great burden falls upon him. He ought to have assistance in
discharging that burden. But clearly the Australian Government should
hesitate in paying for organisational assistance apart from
Senator Steele Hall's duties in the Parliament.
QUESTION: What proposals regarding economic powers did Mr Dunstan
make to yourself and Mr Crean on behalf of the State Premiers; are
they acceptable to the Federal Government and, if not, what sort of
proposals would be acceptable?
PRIME MINISTER: You had, I think, a conference with Mr Dunstan and
also Sir Charles Cutler, who was still acting as Premier of N. S. W..
also made a statement. Now the State officials and our officials
are considering what matters could be the subject of arrangements
between the seven governments. They haven't concluded their discussions.
They were holding them I think, yesterday. They might also have
been holding them today.
QUESTION: Will there be a Premiers' Conference?
PRIME MINISTER: I think it is very likely.
QUESTION: Mr Uren said in the House this afternoon that he and you
had not yet heard from Sir Robert Askin on the subject of accepting
the Commonwealth money for lands and the Lands Commission or Council
or Board. However, Sir Robert said at his press conference yesterday
that by delaying accepting this $ 28 million for a year he had won
significant concessions from the Government. Can you tell us what
these concessions are?
PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any proposals that the N. S. W.
Government is receiving in this matter which the other five
governments have not also received. Reading the papers I gather
that this matter was to become before the N. S. W. Cabinet this
morning. Sir Robert Askin might have sent me a message, I haven't
received it, since that meeting.
QUESTION: The arrangements between the Australian Government and
the N. S. W. Government, assuming the N. S. W. Government accepts it,
now would be exactly the same as between the Australian Government
and the South Australian Government? / 3
-3-
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you tell us when we can expect a decision by the
Governme nt on the IAC report on the motor industry?
PRIME MINISTER: I wouldn't put a date on it. I would think it
might easily be a couple of months or even longer. We have made
the report available as promptly as it was physically possible.*
QUESTION: What is the latest information your Government has
received on the situation in Cyprus and what is your Government's
attitude towards recent events there?
PRIME MINISTER: We have no official information about the situation
in Cyprus except from our police who are there. They are reporting
it through their own situation but they are not in the capital,
so we are no better informed than anybody following the media.
It appears that the President may still be alive. We have shown
ourselves anxious to co-operate with the U. N. Peace-keeping force
in Cyprus. We have been there now for many years and we are grateful
for five of the State Governments for maintaining their contributions
to the police from Australia in Cyprus.
QUESTION: Could you give us your attitude to the very heavy buying
of wool by the Wool Corporation in the last two days?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: Could I ask whether the Government will consider the
question? PRIME MINISTER: Yes, if there is a submission on it.
QUESTION: Assuming that Sir Robert Askin and his Government accepts
the money for the Loan Council, when is the earliest they can
receive it, now or wait until the September Budget?
PRIME MINISTER: Isn't it on the Notice Paper now. It's about to
come in. Isn't it on today's Notice Paper? At any rate, that
will depend on the terms of their agreement.
QUESTION: You had some fairly harsh criticism of multi-national
corporations during the election campaign and you foreshadowed
amendments to the foreign takeovers legislation. You also intend
to act on the Federal Conference resolution of last year calling
for an official inquiry into multi-national corporations, their impact
on the economy and the employment situation.
PRIME MINISTER: We have for many months past had Sir Ronald Walker
representing us in the United Nations and also in the OECD on the
inquiries which they have been conducting into this very matter.
You will remember that Sir Ronald Walker was Ambassador in Paris and
then in Bonn and was a Professor of Economics before that, so he was
ideally qualified to conduct such inquiries and to contribute to
inquiries in those international bodies I have mentioned.
QUESTION: Was the Overseas Trading Corporation considered by Cabinet
today and was any decision reached on it? / 4
-4-
PRIME MINISTER: We didn't consider many submissions in Cabinet
today. The most of this morning's deliberations were in the
legislation committee, approving the form of bills which have been
introduced. As you notice there have been a very great number
introduced today so we were doing those and there will be some
further ones introduced tomorrow, so that is what we were mainly
doing today. There were only two matters which we concluded in
Cabinet today. I believe Mr Enderby, the Minister for Manufacturing
Industry, will be briefing you about one of those, the committee
to inquire into the workload for the Government Defence Act.
And the other matter was largely machinery concerning the election
of the first free elected Legislative Assembly of the Northern
Territory. We also put through at the Executive Council this morning
the ordinance for the Legislative Assembly, the first fully-elected
representative body in the Capital Territory.
QUESTION: Will this legislation include increases in personal
services
PRIME MINISTER: The Cabinet has never considered this matter.
It has had no submission before it.
QUESTION: How long will the Government allow the Senate to consider
the six bills, four days, six days, three days
PRIME MINISTER: That is up to the Senate.
QUESTION: The Government itself hasn't set a time, like say four days?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: When will the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
be ready to How long will it take to set up the Assembly and how
many members will it have and what will it be? What can you tell
us about it?
PRIME MINISTER: You had better get the details from Dr Patterson,
I think it is 19 members. The distribution of electorates has
already been done, but it has to take effect in the context of a fully
elected Assembly. The electorates upon which it is suggested that
that election will take place are ready I belive for presentation.
QUESTION: One of the pieces of legislation introduced today concerns
the Prices Justification Tribunal. It does not contain any sections
relating to the making of decisions of the Tribunal mandatory as was
foreshadowed during the election campaign. Can you again explain
why this hasn't happened? Do you think there will be any further
changes in the near future in Prices Justification legislation
particularly any following the move which was made in the Caucus about
changing the criteria for justification inquiries. And, just a
separate question, will the Cabinet be considering the Vernon Report
on the Post Office before that report is made public within the
next fortnight?
PRIME MINISTER: The first one, not this sessional period. The second
one, no.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the Post Office should pay its own way
and that if necessary postal costs should be increased to make certain
that it does?
PRIME MINISTER: I believe that all Government businesses should
pay their own way. That should be no surprise to you that that is
my view. I don't believe taxpayers should, without very good reason,
support Government enterprises or private enterprises. But, in
any case, I stated that at the Premiers' Conference. I commended
that attitude to the Premiers, I said we would apply it ourselves.
You mention the Post Office. There is, of course another way on which
the Post Office is I'm assured acting diligently and that is to
restrict the amount of public money going into its services. There
are certain governmental activities in Australia, roads and telephones
being among them, which we regard as having a lower priority than
some other form of government activity. The approach we are pursuing
is that the taxpayers should not provide more for P. M. G. services
in the forthcoming Budget than they did in the last.
QUESTION: Mr Dunstan, Sir Charles Cutler and the Victorian Acting
Premier, have all made conflicting statements over what powers
they believe the States could be ready to concede to the Commonwealth
or co-operate in the exercise with the Commonwealth, so that seems
to indicate that the States are not ready to agree, therefore why
have a Premiers' Conference?
PRIME MINISTER: You assert that they have made different statements.
Well they might have but I haven't checked all the reports which
said.... QUESTION: Well, you read Sir Charles' statement?
PRIME MINISTER: But he sent me a copy. Sir Charles sent me, by
telegram, a copy of his press statement. He also, I noticed, gave
a TV interview. He may easily have said some things in that
television interview which conflicted or appeared to conflict with
what Mr Dunstan said in the same medium or what he, himself, had
said in his press statement of which he sent me a copy by cable.
Now, I am not going to assume that you are just to them. You are
fair to them in saying that they have made conflicting statements
but this at least is clear: that we have all agreed to have our
officials discuss what methods we, as Heads of Government, can
discuss and when that package or program comes from the officials
I expect that the Heads of Government will get together and discuss
them. There was one instance which was given on the pattern of what
was done in the late 1940s under National Security Regulations.
It was the control of building materials. I was delighted that this
matter had been discussed between the Premiers and Acting Premiers.
It seems to me a matter in which they show a very natural interest
because just as our program for welfare housing has been limited by
the shortage of materials or rather the diversion of materials to say
skyscrapers so the State Government's programs for say schools and
hospitals have been similarly limited by a diversion of building
materials for skyscrapers. Now it well may be that State Governments
of all political complexions would think that priorities require
that there should be enough materials for those essential public
works. We would agree with them. It is a matter upon which they can
very clearly make laws, just as clearly as a matter upon which we
can' t.
QUESTION: Due to the importance of Indonesia in Australia's foreign
policy, are there any plans in the immediate future to re-conduct
the talks again between you and President Soeharto which was postponed
last May, and, if so, would you care to comment on the value of these
talks within the framework of Australian/ Indonesian relations? / 6
-6-
PRIME MINISTER: There are discussions going on at the moment between
Indonesia and Australia for me to visit the President. I was to visit
him, you remember, in the very weekend after the Parliament was
dissolved. I thought in that case it should be postponed. I hope
we will be able to arrange a visit by me to Central Java, I expect,
that was where the venue was previously suggested, maybe at the end
of August or early in September. Discussions are taking place.
I am actually anxious to accept the President's invitation as soon
as possible because we know each other well enough to transact a
very great deal of business, to exchange views on a great number
of subjects. The President likes this form of discussion with
people whom he knows fairly well. He has recently, of course, done
it with President Marcos and Prime Minister Tun Razak and I was
to be the first, well I will be the third now, so I am very anxious
to have this discussion.
QUESTION: Is the Government still committed to the Australian
Assistance Plan? Is this proposal under any sort of re-consideration
or recasting?
PRIME MINISTER: Well we are still committed to it naturally. The
form it takes is under constant review.
QUESTION: At the Premiers' Conference you warned of the stringent
attitude the Australian Government would be taking when framing
the coming Budget. If you can work out with the six State Premiers
a satisfactory package to fight inflation, would you see this as an
alternative or an addition to the Federal Government's stringent
attitude to the Budget and in the important discussions you have had
twice now with senior ministers at the Lodge, have you formed some
sort of attitude about whether that stringent stance would be as
tough as you thought at the time?
PRIME MINISTER: What the Premiers and the Treasurer and I would
discuss would be a supplement to what has already been announced.
There has been a very great gap in the fight against inflation in
Australia in that the States have not exercised their constitutional
powers in many respects. Very clearly they have the constitutional
power, the Australian Parliament doesn't have the constitutional power
to regulate land prices or the availability of building materials.
There is some hope now that the States will exercise their
constitutional responsibility in such respects.
QUESTION: Would you explain in brief the relations between Australia
and Cuba and Latin America?
PRIME MINISTER: Our Foreign Minister, Senator Willesee, has recently
visited several countries in Latin America. He is the first
Australian Foreign Minister, I believe, ever to have made an official
visit to any country in South America. I was the first Prime Minister
to ever visit a country in Latin America but I visited the northern
most one, Mexico. It is quite likely that I shall be visiting some
others in the steps of the Foreign Minister maybe or the Caribbean
countries before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which
may be held at the end of April in Kingston, Jamaica.
You ask me about our relations with Cuba. I haven't had the
opportunity to refresh my memory about this. At the time of liberation, 7
-7-
in December 1972, there had been an application by the Cuban
Government to establish Consular relations with Australia. This was
far too difficult a problem for our predecessors to solve, it was
probably even too embarrassing for them to discuss. Nevertheless,
when I was in Tokyo last October where the approach had been made by
the Cuban Ambassador to the Australian Ambassador, I took the
opportunity to ask our Ambassador to convey to the Cuban Ambassador
our willingness to establish such relations. I am not sure that the
arrangements have yet been consummated but if you want the full
details then I can get them for you.
QUESTION: Could you tell us if you are completely in favour with
the amendments to the Prices Justification Tribunal Act along the
line of the amendment moved in Caucus last week by Mr Willis?
PRIME MINISTER: I am not at all adverse to it, but we could not
have drafted it in this sessional period. There is a further
difficulty. One of the criteria was related to productivity and
as you know Australian statistics on productivity are absent or
where there are any, they are deficient. Now it would be a colossal
task for any Parliamentary counsel to draft a criterian of productivity
in such a situation of statistical and economic derth in our country.