PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
CANBERRA, TUESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 1974
PRIME MINISTER: Are there any questions?
QUESTION: In light of Mr. Snedden's remarks that he is waiting
for the call of the people, that he is planning to move towards
an early general election and in light of the reports that you,
yourself, have briefed ministers about the possibility of an
election in December, can you now spell out your views on the chances
of an early election? Will there or won't there and, if so, when?
PRIME MINISTER: My view is that the people spoke in December 1972
and again in May 1974 they spoke decisively in each case. In each
case they intended to elect a government for the following three years.
They elected, in each case, a Labor Government. The Parliament-first
sat in July. That means that there should not be another election
for the House of Representatives until the middle of 1977. My
Government is proceeding with its program on that basis; that it
has been re-elected for three years. Now, the Opposition is clearly
wanting to get the public used to the attitude that there should be
elections more frequently than at theee-year intervals. The
Constitution very clearly has proposed that there should be an
election every three years for the House of Representatives and
every three years for half the Senate, those elections being at the
same time. Now, because of the Double Dissolution, there must be
an election for half the Senate just before the middle of 1976* and
there shouldn't be an election for the House of Representatives
until the middle of 1977. Now, it is true that any time, twice a year,
the Senate can refuse Supply and thus produce an election for the
House of Representatives. It was done for the very first time in
April this year. It'can be done, of course, any time in November
when the Budget for the whole of the current financial year has co
be decided or, say, the following May, when there have to be
provisional appropriations for the first five months of the next
financial year. Now accordingly it would be possible for the Senat.'!
to reject~ a Budget in November or the Supply Bills next May, and it
could reject them by just being evenly divided.
Mr. Snedden constantly suggests that there may be an
election. Now, it will depend not only on what he says but on wha.
the senators say and he has no control over his senators. There
two Liberal parties in the national Parliament. There is the Libc~.-, i
Party in the House of Representatives; there is the Liberal Party
in the Senate. And the Liberal Party in the Senate has a Leader
and a Deputy Leader who are elected wholly by senators. Mr. Snede'
has no part in choosing who the Leader or Deputy Leader will be in
the Senate Liberal Party. They go their own way. So, naturally, ho~
is confused. But I think there is more seriously an attitude by the
Liberals in general to produce the idea that it is natural to have
more frequent elections than the constitution envisaged, to give
the impression that an election is always around the corner or may contt
about you know, election jitters and upset business confidence
through that idea. I don't believe there is any substantial view
-2-
in Australia that there should be another election for the House
of Representatives or that there should be an election for half
the Senate before the due time just before the middle of 1976.
It is on that basis that my Government is proceeding.
Now it is true that there have been ten bills already
rejected by the Senate since the new Parliament was elected. I forget
about the six bills which they rejected a third time and on which
there was a joint sitting. Apart from those six there have been ten
rejected, two I think the week before last. Now, if after an
interval of three months any of those bills is rejected again there
can be a double dissolution situation again. If there is a double
dissolution situation the Government won't advise the Governor-General
to dissolve both Houses unless Supply is refused by the Senate.
Obviously, if Supply is again refused by the Senate then I shall
advise the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses on the basis
of a second rejection if there is in fact a second rejection of any
of these ten bills. I think the next work by Laurie Oakes and David
Solomon is to be called " The Grab for Power". It is an account of
the election in May last. I think that's just behind the whole of
this talk. Mr. Snedden miscalculated, mistimed, last April.
He blew his top in a bit of hysteria and the events of April.
He miscalculted. Well, he always has to s * trut to justify what he did
then. I believe, in fact, he will be very cautious about himself,
and the Senate Liberal Party will be rather cautious also.
QUESTION: While you were overseas the Education and Economic
Commnitte'e of Caucus decided that the $ 400 tax allowance should be
restored. What's your own personal view on this? What do you think
Caucus is likely to decide, and do you think that this sort of
recommendation, as Mr. Snedden has already said publicly, reflects
on the quality of your leadership?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not obsessed with the qualities of my leadership.
I've been leader of a political party in the national Parliament
longer than most people have the privilege of leading any political
party in this Parliament. I've been leader of my party for nearly
eight years and t every election we have improved our percentA. je
of the vote. I chn't have to promote the Fuhrerprinzip. I'll
leave that to those who have failed as leaders. Now, about this
education deduction proposition. My view is it remains that ztha
' 1-00 deduction is a waste of money. The $ 150 deduction is ju~ tified.
I 3t port the $ 150, I reject the $ 400. Now. Caucus Economnic
arid Education Committees, which like all Caucus cormaittees ar.: selfappoii--
d, made a recommendation that the deduction 5zhould remain
at $ 400. sometimes wonder who my colleagues believe elected a
Labor Govern. ' nt. Who they think a Labor Government should have first
in mind. Now, the Lb cor Government has introduced legislation it
was opposed at certain -2tages by our opponents but we have introduced
legislation, and so far i' bFs been passed which means that there
has been more than seven times a-large a provision * rurl For
education by the Australian Government in the calen. pars 1974/ 75
the two full years under us as was allocated by t~ i. last two full
years 1971/ 72 by our predecessors. I advise you to look at Mr. Beazley's
splendid article in today's Age. It gives a chapter and verse for
the increased expenditure for education under my Government.
The Education and Economic Committees self-apppointed of the
Caucus recommended that the deduction should remain at $ 400, i. e.
they recommended that $ 30 million more should be spent this year
-3-
than the Budget provided. I mentioned this at the Cabinet meetinicj
yesterday. I asked if any minister wished to re-consider this
matter. Not one suggested we should re-consider it. Accordin-1y,
when this matter comes up before the Caucus it will have the
re-asserted view of the Cabinet that the money can be better spont.
The last statistics show they are for 1971/ 72 that the average
deduction for a dependent student only exceeded $ 150 a year for those
who were on an income of $ 10,000 or more. It is quite obvious that
money is better spent in the education field on improving facilities
all over. Now, I don't deny that there are some parents who have to
spend more boarding and so on for their children but we have
catered for them through the isolated children's allowances which
we-introduced. And similarly, of course, you could say that there
were some disadvantaged areas where the community has to spend more,
as for Aborigines, and we have done so. I commend Mr. Beazley's
article to you for this. It will come up in Caucus and I believe
it will be rejected as I strongly believe it should be.
QUESTION: Mr. Connor said in Parliament this morning that he had
prepared a White Paper for you on energy or uranium and that he
had prepared it in good time. Will you now release that. paper?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a Cabinet submission and it will be
discussed in Cabinet.
QUESTION: One of the reasons for the devaluation of the dollar
was atit would have a beneficial effect on business confidence.
Do you believe that it has? Has it had enough? And, particularly,
would you consider any other forms of incentives such as some
incentive like the investment allowance, re-introduction for a
tentative period, if it turned out that business confidence hasn't
reacted as you thought it would at the time of the devaluation?
PRIME MINISTER: The devaluation has given a boost to business
confidence. Those who study the Stock Exchange tell me that there
has been a marked improvement there. Of course the Government
will consider any of these matters. I, myself, at this stagje,
would think there was no justification whatever for restoring
the investment allowance. But, nevertheless, if circumstances
change then obviously we would consider it. My Government, I believe,
has shown that it is prepared to consider matters, or reconsider
them, as circumstances change. It so showed in respect to devaluation
and there is not a single member of Parliament who objects to the
devaluation. In effect, our revaluations over the first 22 months,
has been cut down to half that amount. The dollar is considerabi;,
more valuable than it was when we came into off icc, 1-, it it has br~ er
devalued from the height which it had reached.
QUESTION: You just made reference to your own longevity as Leader
of the Labor Party. I wish to ask a supplementary question to one
which you answered in a recent Washington " Meet the Press" program.
You were questioned about the dangers of left-wing groups in the
Caucus ousting you and you replied that they would be cutting their
own throats. I now ask....
PRIME MINISTER: Any group that wanted to oust me w~ ould be cutting
their own throat. I don't want you to think that the only throats
to be cut would be those you describe as left-wing.
QUESTION: Do you regard yourself as indispensable to-the Labor
* Party and do you believe that you are the only person competent
to lead a Labor Government?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I believe there is a wealth of talent in
the Australian Labor Government in this Parliament. I believe
that I have the greatest amount of talent at the present time.
But quite apart from what I may think about this, this is unquestionably
the view of all my colleagues. This is not an issue on which I feel
disposed to differ from them.
QUESTION: Does it concern you that Caucus has already made one
deciionon one of your Budget matters, namely the 10 per cent
surcharge, and are threatening to do so on the education one as well?
or, do you consider that this is just pure bloody mindedness?
PRIME MINISTER: Let me get this in perspective. We've been in
power for over 22 months now and the Caucus has overuled the Cabinet
on two occasions. Once was a year ago on the gold subsidy. The
second was on reducing the range of taxpayers who had to pay a higher
rate of tax on their unearned incomes. Now on this latter one
there was no surprise on my part because,, in fact, when the matter
came up for discussion in the Caucus one of those who supported the
discussion of it by committees of Caucus was the Treasurer himself
And what emerged from the committee consideration was in fact
proposed by the Treasurer at the very Caucus meeting where it arose.:
Now, I wasn't particularly upset by the change which was made. There
has been an advance in what I believe was an equitable principle
that people should pay a higher rate of tax on their unearned
income than on their earned income. Now there is one other matter
where you can say that during the lifetime of my government my view
has been rejected by the Caucus, that was on the question of
Parliamentary salaries. But the Cabinet wanted, proposed a view
which the Caucus adopted. I was in a minority in the Cabinet and
in the Caucus.
QUESTION: I was just going to make an aside, Sir, that if there is
any'blood letting or blood cutting, neck cutting, would you take
that tie off and leave it for one of us before it happens. But,
on a more serious note, have you made any comment yet on the result
3f the British elections?
-' RIME MINISTER: I sent a cable to Mr. Harold Wilson but I haven't
made public comment. Nevertheless, I am very happy to say
here, an.-it would come as no surprise to you, that I am delighted
that the Labor Government has been re-elected and has a majority
in its own right. rather sorry that my old professor, Enoch
Powell, is exiled to the neighbouring islands and so on, but
nevertheless, clearly I bull y7e that there should be government by a
party which has a majority in its own right. I auw tlad that the
British Labor Party now again has that.
QUESTION: What is your view about the unsolicited distribution
of bank cards and do you feel that they could add to inflation?
And, also, did you receive one?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes I did, I did. -1
QUESTION: Did Mrs. Whitlam, receive one?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, she did. In recent months she has got an
account of her own actually. So we received bank cards. Now, at
last, when I don't have to establish my bona f ides as a creditor,
credit is being foisted on me. I am not sure that we will use them
or destory them or return them. I think that is the increasing
order of probability.
QUESTION: Can you say which one has the greater credit, or is
that too personal?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh I think it is, but you are an old friend and
I will talk to you afterwards. I mean you and I both married well.
Comment: You have more houses than I have.
PRIME MINISTER: I think I was at your wedding and you at mine,
and they have both lasted.
Comment: Amazing.
PRIME MINISTER: This was the first and best of my apppointments.
QUESTION: Can I interrupt? Did you in fact in Cabinet yesterday
discuss with your ministers the possibility of a December election?
PRIME MINISTER: No. I repeat, though, that we will not be working
for any election before the three years is up.
QUESTION: Did you have a discussion outside Cabinet?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, obviously, one talks about varibus contingencies
but I don't want to talk about what goes on in Cabinet. There were
no agenda items on this and I shouldn't have to repeat that I
believe that if you go to the people with a three-year program as
we did, . then you should try to carry it out.
QUESTION: On October 1, in his first day on the floor of the House
as Acting Prime Minister, Dr. Cairns made it clear to the Parliament
that the present reference to the Industries Assistance Commission
apropos the new lands in Western Australia could be opened up as
a general reference on the question of superphosphate and, in fact,
was wide enough for a general reference. In view of that do
you still adhere to what you said in the House this morning?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know what Dr. Cairns said on this matter.
Of course I adhere to what I said this morning.
QUESTION: There seems to be some suggestion that the Government,
afterall contrary to Mr. Enderby's announcement, may not buy the
Leyland land at Waterloo. Was this matter discussed yesterday in
Cabinet, and as far as you are concerned will the Government be
proceeding with that?
PRIME MINISTER: There was a report on this matter in Cabinet.
I had discussed it with two or three of my colleagues before
I went away three weeks ago and the general idea is that that land
could be very effectively used by the Australian Government for a
range of activities which it has in the urban field.
-6-
It would not only be well situated for housing but also, quite
clearly, for child-care and health centres and other initiatives
.4n that area.
QUESTION: Were you aware during the flight from Hawaii to Suva
th~ at the Permanent Head of the Foreign Affairs Department, Mr.
Renouf.... PRIME MINISTER: Well, before you go any further here, I was asked
questions i1n the Parliament this morning and I will answer no further
questions on it.
QUESTION: Do you believe that Australian uranium producers should
be allowed to negotiate new contracts for the sale of uranium abro-id?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Connor discussed this on a motion by Mr.
Anthony on 2 October while we were away and again on a motion by
Mr. Anthony this morning. I heard this time whAt he said, I read
what he said on 2 October and I find each speech completely convincing.
As I said in Question Time today, he massacred Mr. Anthony on 2
October and he would masacre him today and he did.
QUESTION: Yesterday morning you were offered some friendly advice
from the President of the Miscellaneous Workers' Union, Mr. Roy
Cameron? PRIME MINISTER: I have got nothing to add.
QUESTION: On one point that you didn't refer to yesterday, Sir,
was his remark that you should say more and your ministers should
say less...
PRIME MINISTER: I agree completely with what he said on that.
QUESTION: If the education deduction of $ 400 is a waste of money,
;;_ iT~ Wt an education deduction of $ 150 not also a waste of money?
PRIME MINISTER! There are still a great number of things and
services whic parents have to pay for themselves in the education
fi ~ ld. We have, of course, made tertiary and technical education
'. We have vastly increased the expenditure on schools. We are
unc-. aking expenditure on the pre-schc~ ols and child-care facilities,
tli~ jeneral matters in the scope of the children's commission which
we arc ' oointing an interim committee. The objective, of course,
must be tu t all the materials and services in the educational
field provide2 free but they are not yet provided free, but $ 150
would certainly cover v1' lat is not yet free.
QUESTION: How important do you think the so-called " social contract"
is in combating inflation and how optimistic are you that the
forthcoming talks with the A. C. T. U. might lead to somec basis for
such a contract?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Justice Moore's conference is resuming today
and we are taking part in it so, although it is meeting in private,
you know the attitudes we are taking there and you know also our
reaction to the decisions of the A. C. T. U. meeting of unions three
weeks ago. The " social contract", as you call it, as it's called
-7-
in Britain, is the best hope for restraining cost inflation and
we are moderately optimistic that we can bring about such arrangements
in Australia. Clearly, a Labor Government is more likely to got
those arrangements in Australia, as in Britain, than a Tory
Government.