PRIME MINISTER ON MONDAY CONFERENCE
MONDAY 2 JUNE 1975
THIS PROGRAM WAS RECORDED IN CANBERRA ON
SUNDAY EVENING, 1 JUNE
EMBARGO, 9.30 E. S. T. 2.6.75 Z
PRIME MINISTER ON ' MONDAY CONFERENCE'
2 JUNE, 1975
Bob Moore: Very recent public opinion polls have suggested
that your Government and your own popularity are on the down-tpurn
again after being on the up-turn, after being on the down-turn.
Why do you think this is at present? Why the down-turn now?
Mr. Whitlam: I don't know. I don't concern myself too much
with these regular polls. The two matters I always have in mind
are these that when there is an election and the voters have to
make a real choice, then they are much more likely to vote for the
Labor Party than for the other parties. There is no use just
protesting against the Labor Government. They will come to see
that we are better than the others, or a sufficient number will.
And the second thing is I think that during an election campaign,
people get for the first time exposure to the positive things that
we are proposing or that we have done.
Bob Moore: In practical terms, what affect has Mr. Fraser
being Leader of the Opposition, made to you as compared with
Mr,. Snedden being Leader?
Mr. Whitlam: The main thing is that the Parliament behaves
better. Mr. Snedden didn't control his followers and didn't
attempt to control the Country Party which just ran amok.
Mr. Fraser has done a much better job in that respect. I don't
know how important conduct in Parliament is, outside. I don't
know this. I thought that Mr. Fraser would be much less responsive
to whatever was the latest newspaper story. He is more, as.
Mr. Snedden always was. I think Mr. Fraser is falling into that
error of getting absorbed in just temporary issues instead of. looking
at the long-term objectives. But I think his big trouble,
compared with Mr. Snedden, is that he has never had to work for
a living. Mr. Snedden always did and Mr. Snedden had lived
where most people in Australia live. Mr. Fraser never has.
Alan Ramsay: And yet, Prime Minister, you once said, not so
long'ago that you thought Malcolm Fraser had-. been born to lead
the Liberal Party.
Mr. Whitlam: I think that would be his view and the people
who put him there, would have had that view too.
Bob Moore: In general terms, do you agree with Mr. Fraser's
proposition that barring exceptional circumstances, a party that
has a majority in the Lower-House should normally expect to run
its three year term.
Mr. Whitlam: 0f course I do. I think Mr. Snedden's great
error was to allow the Country Party to overwhelm him on that
issue a year ago when he had a premature election. It was against
principle. it was the wrong thing to do and finally, he was the
one who suffered.
Creighton Burns: How much easier would life be for you, Prime
Minister, how much more effective do you feel your Government
would be if you had a smaller Cabinet than the 27 you have now?
Mr. Whitlam: I have told the Cabinet, I've told the Caucus,
the our Government would be twice as good if it were half the
size.
Creighton Burns: Told them recently?
Mr. Whitlam: About a month or so ago. Of course that's
obviously the case. You've got to face the fact that we inherited
an act of Parliament which says there are 27 Ministers. It's
an extraordinary form of self denial for any Party to reduce such
a benefit 27 people are bound to be* Ministers. What about Fraser,
of course, now, is a Shadow Cabinet of over
Alan Ramsay: Did you give the Caucus any reasons why you
thought life would be much easier if in fact the Ministry was
half the size.
Mr. Whitlam: I forget what context it came up in.
Alan Ramsay: Are you likely, in fact, having said this, that
we are qoing to see something in the near future whereby the
Ministry right be smaller?
Mr. Whitlam: There is quite a lot of discussion in the Party
along these lines, but mind you I think the way in which it could
come up, is to have a Cabinet and then Ministers outside the Cabinet.
I think that's a possibility. / 2A
Creighton Burns: You've never really, for any sustained period
had what would be called a ' kitchen Cabinet' have you?
I mean in the period before the last Budget when there was a
small group of Ministers around you and you were really
operating in an informal Cabinet system in a sense. But
that didn't last for long. Is this a tactic, is this a
possible system?
Mr Whitlam: There are several matters which come before a
group of 5 or 6 Ministers, that's true, which don't go to
t Ministry as a whole.
Bob Moore: You've said that you are in favour or that you
prefer the idea of the Cabinet being elected by members of
the Parliamentary Party, compared with the Prime Minister
appointment. But leaving that aside in general, are there any
details of the procedure by which Ministers are elected by
Caucus that you would like to see changed. / 3
Mr. rhitlam: These are all technicalities.
Bob Moore: There's nothing substantial?
Mr. Whitlam: Nothing substantial. I strongly believe, as
I always have believed, that it makes for greatest cohesion and
harmony in a Parliamentary Party, to have the Party as a whole,
elect its Ministers. Where you have a Prime Minister appointing
Ministers, you immediately have the people who aren't Ministers
blaming, not the Party as a whole, but blaming the Prime Minister
1nd those that the Prime Minister has appointed take it for granted.
4iiey think that their virtues are self-evident.
Alan Ramsay: There is some support in your Party though that
possibly a compromise could be reached between a wholly elected
Ministry and possibly the Leader of the Party, choosing, say,
twelve and Caucus electing the rest. Would you support this?
Mr. Whitlam: No, Iviuld-still think that who are to be the twelve,
the Cabinet, should be decided as we decide who are to be the
Ministers as a whole, namely, at a secret ballot. I wouldn't
want the burden of choosing which are the best twelve Ministers.
I would want to know who the Party thought were the twelve best.
Alan Ramsay: Yes, but I don't mean electing the twelve best.
In other words, the Leader having the right to choose twelve
members of the Ministry as a whole.
Mr. Whitlam: I don't seek that. Those that were not in the
twelve, who were in the rest of the other 15, they would blame
me for being left in the second 11. I would rather the Parliamentary
Party, as a whole, take that responsibility.
Alan Ramsay: Would you accept then that the fact that your
Caucus elects the entire Ministry breaks down the principle of
Cabinet solidarity?
Mr. Whitlam: It does to a certain extent, yes. But it has
the virtue that was so obviously lacking in the McMahon and the
Gorton Governments, where people who were not Ministers, or people
who were Ministers and not in Cabinet, blamed their plight on the
Prime Minister. I don't think that that makes for harmony or
cohesion in the Government Party. I support the fact that the
Ministry and any Cabinet within the Ministry, should be chosen
at a secret ballot by all the members of the Parliamentary Party.
Alan Ramsay: Would you prefer that the Cabinet of 27 or 12,
or whatever in fact it might be, who having arrived at a decision
then be-bound by that decision within the Caucus or do you go
along with the concept as it happens now, that Ministers go around if 4
they oppose a decision in Cabinet?
Mr. Whitlam: Some do. But I don't want you to think that
most do that. Most do not. The practice we have reached is
this where after the Cabinet has made a decision, any member
of the Cabinet feels so strongly about it that he wants to
oppose it in the full Parliamentary Party, the Caucus, then he
should tell his colleagues in the Cabinet, that that is his
intention.
Alan Ramsay: Do they do that?
Mr. Whitlam: Yes they do. Most do. There have been a few
people who have not, who have been underhand but only a few.
Alan Ramsay: And you go along with this?
Mr. Whitlam: I think that's the way it works. I can see
the argument that it's unfair that a person who feels very strongly
on a matter, should be silenced and not only silenced but should
be dragooned into voting for a Cabinet decision in the Party as a
whole, which he thinks is wrong.
Alan Ramsay: You have got a committee of the Caucus in fact
looking at your Caucus standing orders.
Mr. Whitlam: There has been for some months.
Alan Ramsay: And they in fact will come up with some
recommendations on this very question of the election of Ministers.
I don't know what they are going to be.
Mr. Whitlam: I expect so, that's their charter'to come up with
such prbposal's to simplify the'election. The' trouble is that up
till now we've had three stages for electing the 27. One of the
suggestions it is one that I would support is. that the whole
Ministry should be elected on the one ballot. It is more likely
to produce the choice of the Parliamentary Party as a whole. What
we have at the'mombnt means that those'that don't get in the first
two-ballots you know the Ministers all join forces to get the
remaining positions available on the third ballot.
Alan Ramsay: Would you expect this review to come up with
the support of the principle of an inner Cabinet of 12 or 14?
Mr. Whitlam: I don't know. I'm not sure what their thinking. is
on that.
Bob Moore: Last week, Dr. Coombs, in addressing a Public
Servce socation in Melbourne, suggested that mnaybe the*
convention ought to be changed in accord with Labor Party practice.
What he was saying was, that under a Labor Government, Caucus'
has, at times, such a powerful policy role, maybe Caucus should
have the kind of access to Public Service advice that only
Cabinet has under the convention. Do you see any merit in this
suggestion?
Mr. Whitlam: Public Servants can, and constantly do, speak
to Caucus committees. That's always been the possibility or
the practice and, in fact, they speak to Opposition co. mmittees.
Any member of the Opposition or any of the opposition commrittees
that want, to speak to particular Public Servants or people from.
particular Government instrumentalities, such as the airlines or
the banks, or anything like that, only have to ask and we arrange
for people to go along to talk to them. And the same happens, of
course, in the Government committee meetings. But it is quite, I
suggest, erroneous to think that the Caucus or Caucus committees
can be policy-making things. They are too leisurely and too
incohate in their composition and procedures to do that. Of
course, the Cabinet makes the proposals. That is the case with
any Executive. Sometimes the Cabinet's views don't prevail but
that's very rarely. Obviously you can't have a Government run
by so large a body as 90 or 100 people such as you have in the
Parliamentary Labor Party. Policy matters, initiatives, are
taken, after all, by individual Ministers usually, and principally
by the Prim-e Minister.
Alan Ramsay: The Caucus does, in fact, have the overriding
authority to say yes or no to a decision?
Mr. Whitlam: Of course it does. Under our practice, ever
since there has been Labor Party representatives in Australian
Parliaments, the people who will be voting in the Parliament
decide, collectively, how they will vote on any-proposition coming
up in the Parliamrient.
Alan Ramsay: You don't think Caucus has too much power?
Mr. Whitlam: No, that's reasonable enough, after all. When
the public vote for a Labor member of Parliament, they know that
he Will participate in deciding at meetings of the Parliamentary
Party, how1-he will vote in the Parliament. They know that he
will have as much opportunity as any other Labor member of
Parliament to decide how the Party will vote and he will abide
by majority decision of the Party on that question, how he'll
vote. That's always been the practice. It's what all the
parties do but as in so many things, the Labor Party pioneered it.
Bob Moore: In the* debate over the $ 2,000 inillion or*
$ 4,000 million loan, do you feel that the* Government was let
down by the Treasury?
Mr. Whitlam: Be more specific.
Bob Moore: Were you not told things that you should have
been told and were other people told things whi'ch they should
not have been told, in your view?
: 1r. Whitlan: I should have been told one particular -matter,
that's all, one particular matter, but I don't think that the
person who raised that, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition,*
Mr. Lynch, was told very much, because obviously his allegations,
it turned out, were without foundation. Mr. Lynch is very free
in what he says. He said on one of the A. B. C. programmes that
he suspected that there had been no meeting of the Executive
Council. of course there was. That was his first allegation.
The second allegation was, that the intermediary, to use his
term, had a criminal record and that Scotland Yard has reported
on him. A couple of days later, he said that there was a report
from Scotland Yard in typewritten form on Treasury files. I
hadn't heard of this so I called in the Secretary and he told
me~ that there had been an oral inquiry from Scotland Yard and the
response was that there was nothing detrimental known about the
intermediary. I wasn't told but after all, there was nothing
to tell me, was there? Lynch was obviously astray.
Alan Ramsay: It mus-t have embarrassed you that Mr. Lynch,
in fact, knew more about this business than you did from your
own Government people?
Mr. Whitlam: Well he obviously didn't. He had fabricated it.
Alan Ramsav: Are you saying he fabricated it or the people
who gave it to him fabricated it?
Mr". Whitlam: If anybody gave it to him, they misled him, or
he fabricated it. The fact was that there was nothing in typewritten
form from Scotland Yard on Treasury files. treasury
had made an oral inquiry from Scotland Yard and Scotland Yard
didn't say there was a criminal record and they made no report on
it. They said they knew nothing detrimental to him. This is a
very reckless, and irresponsible, improper thing for Mr. Lynch
to say. obviously, he didn't get the information from Treasury
which he used in the allegation he made in a question without notice.
Alan R~ amsay: You are quite certain that none of this information
that he got, whether he built on it or fabricated it or otherwise,
came from the Treasury?
Mr. Whitlam: I don't know. It seems funny that the word
Scotland Yard occurred. It may be somebody in the Treasury
let the word Scotland Yard drop in Mr. Lynch's hearing, but
obviously there was no basis for what Mr. Lynch alleged, that
the man had a criminal record, or that there was a Scotland Yard
report in typewritten form about him.
Aklan Ramsay: Are you trying to find out that in fact anybody
in Treasury did give this, or any information, to Mr. Lynch or
the Opposition?
Mr. Whitlun: No, of course I'm not trying to. I don't assume
that anybody in Treasury did. Quite obviously, anything thfat
came from Treasury would not have justified what Mr. Lynch alleged.
Creighton Burns: Apart from the petrodollar affair, have you
any other reason, Prime Minister, to feel that you and your
Government haven't been properly and loyally served by Treasury
or any other Department?
Mr. Whitlan: No. Let me say this. The only criticism I
would maka is that when this question by Mr. Lynch, using the
words Scotland Yard, came up last Monday, I'm sure somebody in
Treasury woul d have had the penny drop. They'd watch what's
going on In Parliament, I daresay some of them listen, but they
certainly would have read Hansard the next day. In those circumstances,
they should have come clean and told me what there was.
Whan it was used on t-he Wednesday, then I inquired and, as it
turned out, there w,, as nothing that they should have told me at all.
I think th.& y should have -told me, after the question on Monday
when the w, o rd Scotland Yard As used, they should have told me
' well in fact tL-here was an oral inquiry and it turned up negative'.
Creighton Burns: In other areas, do you feel that you received
the co-operation and support from the Public Service which you
areenitled to?
Mr. Whitlam: Yes. The Federal Public Service is an extraordinarily
capable body. It's true that I think the Treasury, and
the Reserve Bank for that matter, have erred-in economic advice, but
after all, the Government might have made mistakes there too. Maybe
you say that the Treasury and the Reserve Bank should be more expert,
they have had longer experience and they shouldn't have erred.
Alan Ramsay: That's the first time I've ever heard you admit
that the Government might have made some mistakes, on the economy.
Mr. Whitlam: Well we haven't spoken enough. Of course we
have made mistakes, but everybody's working, these days in
developed countries, in an extraordinarily difficult economic
climate. Everywhere in Western Europe and in North America,
Japan and Australasia, you have this extraordinary economic
situation. Each of us suffers it and it's the worst
economic situation that any of us has suffered for 45 years.
I don't want the viewers to get any impression that I'm making
any general criticism of the advice. But quite clearly, the
advice that we received from the Reserve Bank and the Treasury
in September 1973 about the credit squeeze, was belated and the,
advice continued and the credit squeeze was allowed to continue
too long. It ought to have been brought on three months or more
earlier and should have been ended three months or more earlier.
Secondly, it was quite clear that the advice we received from
Treasury last August about the deflationary measures, was.
misconceived. But those were two cases where I think, one must
admit, the advice was wrong. I've made the general criticism and
we have taken steps, to correct the situation, there are more
. lcvant and prompt statistics made available to -the gov. ernment.
Bob Moore: What are the mistakes that you have made, you sAd
that the government had made some mistakes?
Mr Whitlam: You don't expect me to go into that.
Creighton Burns: Do you think one of the reasons for your
present economic problems and some of the Government's present
difficulties is your insistence on maintaining your promise not to
increase tax-es in your first year, to try and finance reforms out
of national growth? That while this may have been an admirable
insistence in keeping your electoral word, that there may well
be occasions in the national interest when a Prime Minister or
a political leader at any level will have to break his word
simply to achieve a given objective. So with hindsight,
do you still stick by your decision not to increase...
Mir Whitlam: This is almost two years old. This goes back to
the Budget of August 19.73. You may be right, but at that time
the advice was both ways. It's quite wrong to say that all the
advice was to increase taxes. That was not the advice from
everybody it was from some people. I don't like going against
things that I've promised at elections and I'm very intent, if
it's at all possible, doing things that I have promised at
elections. AfIter all, this was the one instance really, where
there was discussion in the Party before the 1972 election
and there was discussion-whether, in the policy speech, I should
make a reference that we would not put up taxes or not. I
assembled the opinion and the opinion was that we should say
they would not go up. Now, having sampled the opinion and
having expressed that undertaking, I would have been very
reluctant to go back on it. We have gone back on some things to
the extent we had to defer the timetable. Our present deficit
is due to the fact that we have reduced taxes so much, and everybody
said that to reduce taxes, personal and company, as we did last'.
November, was necessary to refiate the economy.
Creighton Burns: Do you think that with hindsight that the
across the boara tariff cut might have been ilijudged That
it might have been better to have been selective about / 8A
8A
Mr Whitlam: No I do not. I think that was correct and
I'm glad that I have some Ministers who are now talking
up staunchly for the fact that Australia's resources
are best used if we don't raise still further the tariff
wall around us. We are a trading country. It's true
you get people working in industries, employers / 9
employees, owners, getting together to put pressure on Government
and we have to yield to some of that pressure in some areas where,
obviously, there was an unacceptable amount of unemployment, but
I welcome the opportunity to say that the interests of a great'
majority of Australians in this generation, as well as future
generations, will be best served by having a smaller tariff
barrier than Australia has had. We just are not serving ourselves
properly. We aren't using our resources and we are putting up
our prices
Bob Moore: Do you agree with what Senator Jim McClelland
. s saying
Mr. Whitlam: Utterly, completely he is a very effective
Minister, one of the most effective Ministers I have, publicly
and privately.
Alan Ramsay: You are satisfied that there are not some
sections of the Public Service who are actively trying to
undermine your Government by passing on information to the
Opposition? Mr. Whitlam: No, I don't think they do. There are obviously
Alan Ramsay; There have been some damaging disclosures of late
on this.
M Whitlam: That always goes on but it doesn't happen at that level
wich which I and my colleagues see the Public Service. Obviously
there must be a lot of people who see things and gabble around,
but, no, I don't want to support any allegation that you make
that the Public Service is not a loyal one. The Public Service,
true, at its upper levels most of them have got their positions
during 23 years of Liberal/ Country Party rule so it would be true
to say tha. they are conservative in general approach and secondly,
that they are not used to national initiatives. They grew up,
they got their positions in circumstances where the theory was
ch that's -1 -ratter best left to the States. Nobody ever thought of local
government, but that's a State matter. Of course, that's where
the deterioration in our society, to a certain extent, our economy,
came about. So, it's true they wouldn't be innovatory. Some of
them wouldn't show as many initiatives, but it's not true to say
that they would be disloyal. Any Australian Government would be
superbly served by the Federal Public Service.
Bob Moore: are talking with you in a climate of suggestions
or speculations about a possible spill of Cabinet. Would you like
to see that happen?
I-Ir. Wihitlam:. I don't think there will be one.
Alan Ramsay: Would you support these soundings that were
made last week by some members of your...?
Mr. Whitlam: I don't initiate any
Alan Ramsay: No, I'm not saying you do. I'm just saying
do you support the soundings or did you support or do you support
now, the soundings that were made to see whether or not there
could be one?
Mr. Whitlam: Well I suppose I ought to give a candid answer
to you a general attitude. If a new Ministry were being elected
now, there would be some changes. quite obviously in the 2 years
since the present Ministry was elected -there have only been two
new Ministers in that time, Senator Wheeldon and Senator James
McClelland who you mentioned, Mr. Moore, both magnificent additions
to the Ministry but in the 2 years since the rest of us were
elected, clearly the people would have come to realise that there
would be some people on the backbenches who would be more effective
than some who are on the frontbench. After the next election, when
there has to be an election, I would expect there to be a few
changes in the Ministry.
Alan Ramsay: And you wouldn't expect something to happen
before the next election...
Mr. Whitlam: I don't think so, but mind you, I'm relaxed
about these sort of things. For instance, if a move were made
for a spill, I would support it because I think it is clear that
once the ice is broken, once the people have tempted fate the
first tine, they would do it a second time. You remember all the
to-do last November or December, whenever it was, when there was
a move for a spill in the Liberal Party and all the effort was
put into beating the move for a spill. If Mr. Snedden at that
time had said right, let's have it, I'll support it he would
have been re-elected then, he might still be there now, but it
happened the first time and it failed. The next time someone
imoed it, it was carried although he opposed it, then he stood
and was beaten. So, my general philosophy is, if there's any
move for a spill, it's best to get it over with. I put my own
job on the line too, I think I would survive.
Alan Ramsay: But you are not initiating one?
Mr. Whitlam: Certainly not. I am happy to work, and I want
everybody else to realise, that I'm happy to work loyally with
whoever is elected by the Party and I want all of them to realise
that.
Alan Ramsay: If there was a move by somebody else that you
would support?
Mr Whitlam; I think in those circumstances, onc would have to.
I woulir! It say it would be carried but: 1 wouldn't want-anyhofdy
to be in any doubt as to my atti-tuueethat if anybocly Felt so'
stronglyt a bou L tEhLe matter, that they thought th., ere ought to hea
an election for the Ministry as a whole, again, I vnuldn't
want to give any impression that I was frightened of the outcome
or that any Minislers should be frighten! e d of the outcome~.
Al~ an R-am:; ay: Why does Mr Barnard want to retire from politics?
Mr Tlhittam: lie has stated, and this has been knowledge for -come
time , that he will not be standing at the next election.
Alan Ramsay: Why does he want to go now?
Mr WhitlaM: Well does he? I'm not going to feed this
sneculaticn. I don't respond to speculation like this. Hie
r~ an'tbeen offered anything.
Alan IRars_, y: W'ell nobo~ dy had. denied it and least of all
Darnard.
1-r Vvnitla: r.: 1' don't respond...
A lan Ramsay: Do you think Mr Barnard has been happy or unhappy
i~ n the Government since he lost the Deputy Lead-ership a year ago?
Mr-1 Whit lam: Yes, you wouldn't get a more loyal, industrious
serene character. I 1have known him for 21 years, last Thursday,
when he was elected to Parliament but if you look at the
l1egislation and the ad ministrative arrangements lie has made since he
was supers~ e as Deputy Laader, 10 or 11 months ago. It's
hb: en a -na-rnificert record -all th-e new procurem-ient programs,
Lh~ new legislation and prospecti1ve legislat-on. Lance Barnard
has been the most effective ad,' ministrator that ouir defence force
ha s had in anyone's memory.
Alan R~ amsay: Ha-ving said you won't feed' speculation, would
you like to kill it by saying he doesn't want to go now?
11r Whitlam: No. I won't. I said he hasn't been offered ainything.
I should know.
Alan Ramsay: Certainly, Prime Minister, All I'm asking you is
ha hie asked you for something? / 11A
11A
Mr Whitlam: No certainly not, I'll answer that forthwith.
If I respond to this one of the papers today said that
another Minister was expecting an appointment if I
answer questions like this, we'll go right through the
Ministry. Alan Ramsay: Do you regret that he lost the Deputy Leadership
a year ago?
12
Mr Whitlam: I'm not going to answer questions like that.
You know I supported him. I accepted the decision, he
accepted the decision.
Alan Ramsay: I would'suggest, Prime Minister, that he has
been quite unhappy since.
MIr Whitlam: He hasn't been. You asked me that and I denied
it already.
Creighton Burns: You said a moment ago, that sometimes
circumstances force the deferment or even the default of
promises. Mr Whitlam: I don't think there's been a default in any,
but there have been a few deferments, there has to be.
Creighton Burns: You.' re surely now facing a situation which
might becc-me a very real problem because most economists seem to
think that we're looking at a very substantial budget deficit
ir. the next financial year and there have been strong representations
tlhit there will have to be some substantial reductions in
Government expenditure. Under these circumstances, do you think
it still makes go. od sense to go ahead with the abolition of the
nir. ns test? There is $ 230 million or so at stake in that,
. roney which will, in many cases, go to people who already have
satisfactory standards of living, as a subsidy maybe not for the
rich, but for the comfortable. In other areas of policy your
Government have rejected that as a principle, in education
for example, category schools, that the young. rich don't
get the benefit but the old rich do. What is the sense in
pushing ahead with a program which will perhaps force cuts in
other critical areas of social expenditure?
Mr Whitlaz: This may be deferred but it will not be
abandoned. I'm far too committed to this to tolerate an
abandonment of that. It's been spun out, as you know. For
instance, I said in the ' 72 elections, that everybody of
or over, would be getting the full pension, that is without means
test, by the end of that Parliament. That would bring us to the
Lnd of this year. Well, it won't be in force by the end of this
year, but let's look at this. In the middle . of last year, twelve
m: onths ago bar five days, I think it was, at the Premier's
conference then, I said that we would in fact, be deferring
some of the means test abolition, and there was a huge outcry
that I'd betraved promises. Let's face up to this. If we were
to abandon that, the people who would be criticising us would
be the Liberal and Country Party people in the Parliament
who are always asking us to cut expenditure. So it may be spun out,
but I would expect by the time that the next House of Representatives
election is cue, that is mid ' 77, that the means test will be
abolishedas I said it would be, by the end of ' 75. That is, it
will have been deferred by 50 per cent.
Creighton Burns: Even if this in the meantime involves
imposition of some additional cuts in other expenditure which you...
M~ r Whitlam: Well, this is an undertaking on which quite a
number of poeple have now been banking. A lot of people have
now ordered their affairs in reliance on our undertakings and
we have honoured all our undertakings of this character and
I won't be in deferring it. Mind you, we know perfectly
well that it's not on politically to do it because our
opponents wouldn't say that they would defer it. So it' one
of those things that's all right for you chaps in a television
stcudio to suggest that this would be the responsible course.
But we have to live in the kitchen, we have to live with
these things and we couldn't survive with it. And of course
I suppose politically nothing would suit us better than for
our opponents to say that they would abandon it or defer it.
They won't, we won't. It will come about.
Creighton Burns: That last year, the 65 to 70 group, would be
deferred or possibly spread over another two years?
Mr Whitlan: That would be right, yes.
Bob Moore: Why do you think it is that the private sector
or large parts of it, feel that your Government is so unsympathetic
to themtiat after all they feel that Dr Cairns, particularly
in recent months,.....
M~ r Whitlam: I don't think it is true to say that the private
sector is aginst us. It is true that some sectors of the
private sector are against us and are vocal. I notice Mr Fraser
was stirring them up to protest against the Government, to abuse
the Government, to denounce the Government. The fact is
that you just don't get any top people in business in the
private sector, you don't get Managing Directors or Chairmen
of Directorcs of big companies or responsible institutions
attacking my Government. You don'tjand the relations we have between~
us are quite civil, quite respectful~ and we acknowledge,
gratefully, the fact that there are a very great number of people,
top people in business, who have been willing to give up their
time to head or to serve on, committees or commissions which
advise us. And they know that if they advise my Government
their advice will be made publ~ ic and it will certainly be
seriously considered. We couldn't have done many of the things
which we have initiated, but for the advice of leading people
in the private sector. They had expertise; it wd. s not available
to Governments; my Government sought it, and is making use of it.
Bob Moore: BIo ba1m-brseu: rprised to hear you say that. there aren't
some top people, Managing Directors, who aren't critical of the
Government. I can't swap names with you?
Mr Whitlam: 1ell, I suppose the insurance people are doing
it at the moment.
Bob Moore: Isn't a fairly common complaint among business
people that they are worried about the lack of certainty of the
Government's plans...?
Mr Whitlam: You mentioned the 25% tariff cut. It's true,
I suppose that we have been roundly abused, betrayed one
might say, by some of the American motorcar companies in
Australia. That's true. And I suppose some of the textile
people have abused us a bit although they're not abusing us
that much now.
Alan Ramsay: Betrayed, did you say betrayed?
Mr Whitlam: Yes, well we very fully consulted them and they
ap.. ded. hat we did and a month later they abused us. This
is getting a few months back now, this is November and
December you will remember.
Creighton Durns: One of the criticisms that is made, it may
not be made to you or face to face with members of your
Government, one of the criticisms is that curiously that
while there is much talk of planning in the Labor Government
there is not nearly enough planning to satisfy the problems
the businessmen have in doing their own planning. They say that
this criticism comes sometimes from within the ranks of your own
Government. One of your newly appointed Ministers recently
said that he thought there was as much ad hocry in this Government
as there hd been in previous Governments. Do you think there is a
problem about planning?
Mr Whitlam: I can't remember which Minister this was. This
might have been in, say, some of the protection field. It might
have been Jim McClelland. We have had to yield a bit to some
ad hoc pressure, that's true. I've gone along with it. Jim
McClelland has said, quite rightly, that this assistance that we
have given through the Tasmanian Government to APPM at Burnie
now that's the principal employer at Burnie he has said that
if they close down, it's just the same as if Burnie was struck
by cyclone Tracy. That's true. You can't by any normal standards,
justify what we did there, but it's perfectly open and the
Opposition is not going to defeat it. They can. They ./ ouldn't
bring down the Government, if they did it, but there's no chance
of them defeating it. There's a lot of nonsense spoken on it. ./ 14A
1 4A
I didn't lile doing it but i L ws an open thing and it is
somet-t., jj bnaped on what was done by our predecessors, you
refllCimbe 1, for the canning indu-try in Shepparton. The act is'
exactiy th same. People aren't used to it being done so
overtly for secondary industrias.
Creighton Burns: The point that is made though is not simply
relating to issues like APPM. The criticism is a general one
that the Government's general priorities are not as clear as
they might be and that industries and firms cannot plan ahead,
particularly in this present economic climate with the confidence
which they feel that could in the past.
Mr. Whitlam: Well, let's take the Industries Assistance
Commission which replaced the Tariff Board a much more expert
body than the old Tariff Board and their's is a much more efficient
body; I think it will be. When it comes to the private sector
there's a limit to what the Federal Government can do, but if
look at our submissions to the Arbitration Commission, to
the Prices Justification Tribunal, the establishment of the
Industries Assistance Commission, the way we are going about
those matters which concern the private sector, we are much
more efficient and open and making it possible to have overall
planning than was the case before. There are other things which
will take longer to come into play, such as the Trade Practices
Commission, because this can be very complicated. All the other
countries we mentioned, North America and Western Europe have
long had this and we haven't yet had it in Australia. This is the
sort of planning they have in mixed economies and it's the sort we
will have too. What the Government ought to be doing mostly in a
mixed economy is planning the public sector and we have done that
better, more thoroughly, More forthrightly, than any previous
national Government.
Craighton Burns: A third of the public sector affects the States,
about a third of the public expenditure goes to the States.
Mr. ihitlam: That would be about right.
Creighton Burns: And, of course, this problem is going to come
Up again in two weeks for the Premiers' Conference.
Mr. Whitlam: Yes.
Crcighton Burns: The growth in Government expenditure has been,
I think, faster in the States than in the national area.
Mr. Whitlam: Yes, right. It's been at least 50 per cent more
in the States than it has in the Federal. You get a terrific
amount stated about the growth in the Public Service. The Federal
Public Service in the last 12 months has grown by 3 per cent. The
State Public Services have grown in that 12 months by about twice
that.
Creighton Burns: What I want to raise about this, Prime Minister,
is that if there are going to be constraints on spending there
will have to be constrains on the State spending as well as
Mr. Whitlam: As well as Federal, yes.
Creighton Burns: Do you feel th e mTachinery for agreeing on
these constr-ain Cs, is adeciuate
MTrh. i tarn: No, ift's niot.
Creighton Burns: Do you believe that Section 96 which I think
Sir Robert menzies really pioneered but which your Government
has used very rigorously, some would say brutally, in so-me cases
Mr.-Whitlami: We used it deliberately.
Creighton Burns: Is -this an adeqiuate instrument of Commonwealth/ State
or Centrzil/ State?
Mr. Whitlan: It is the only instrument that has been, so far,
available. I would Very much like to have bet-ter coordination.
Let's take something which everybody acknowledges is principally
a public responsibility, a responsibility of the State and Federal
Governments transnort. I would he very happy to discuss with
the States, say, what amount, %, hat pro-portion of total public
funds ought to be spent on transport. Previous Governments have
al;;,-av\ s saida n~ ow look we'll look after civil aviation, don't you
States oworrv about tEhat. And Che St-ates have always said now
look the railways are: ours, don't yoau Federal people come into this.
~ a result. you've got a very gre. dislocation there. Take the
roads. Sopmewhere a!--cut 40 per cent of the total money spent on
rad s Australia CcTmes i h form of an: outright grant, not a
lc-n n teres, no repayments, an ol: tright grant by the Federal
Govcramn-, nt. A---nd yet our roads are atrocious. The fact that you
can' u go under economic conditions between Sydney and Melbourne
is a scandal. I w.. ould be very happy if we could have a five year
plan, Federal and State, saying . whiat proportion of the national
product should be spent on transpor-t and what proportions on each
form of transport.
Creighton Biirns: 1. Woulid you be happy also to let S3tate admninistrat ions
haca bigger say in the deItail of expenditure and not be
s uhbj rc t to0 Su _ h1
Mr. W., hitlam: Yes, I think we ought to pool our knowledge
hare. This is a field where, I sup-pose, everybodywoul acknowledge.
th-at Governments have pr-me responsibility and we ought to have
~ o~ consultatlion on It's no skin off my nose if the Sae
ci:' press views as to airports and aircraift. By the Salle token,
it's reasiona; ble enough -that w e should have something -to say, about
SCA1y, interstate2 roads or the principal railways or in facrt urban
transport. I give you that inst-ance and I don-' t mnind extending
that -to the delivery of health servi. ces and so on.
Alan Ramnsay: Why do you think it is that Prime Minister Lee
1\ uan Yew of Singapore i~ s so antagonistic to yo~ urself and * Co
17.
your Cove. rnen?
mr. W'hitiati: T don't knlow. llvx'-1: now,, n Mr. Lee Y~ uan Ycew,
I -; pose., for 12 years. I SU ) pOs' I would have. seen 1, i4 at
last a dozen refor hours at a time in thaict peric'_'. I can't
hclievEñ it's the same--miau th .1 dliscussed things fc oface,
asz. the man w, h o is reporhed from overiseas or gives press conferences
overseas. It just baffles rm-e, why th& ers should be this di-ffferepce.
I assum~ te that he doesF give press conferences overseas, as
ren-. orteO. You hav., e:' e ov: E! r in Singjapore and you x: ldkno',-I
ia. high Govarn-01enLn source says it to some of your impressionable
successors in fl.' ingapor-M, that it-i--ould be wit'-h his ao; proval.
I as; suwe. either hie is not prepared tco have things out: with
: mc, race to J-rac;: or he's a differont sort of man. But Your
colleagues overseas se,-him on these occasions and I don't.
Tar! 3onal. 1y, there is no aifficu-ltyo there never has been, in
cocussing any sulbject.
. e in Rlamsay: Why don't you ask him why does hie keep dropping
bucokets on you in puiblic?
Mr. hitlanr: it's not so public.
R amzav; in Jamaica~ it -was fairly public then. le
hn-d, some rat ha r caustiz -Linqs to say
p.. Whitlam: Aniyour colleaquEs who were in Jamaica had
-rMe uery, caw'stic t'nirics -o say a-Dut-himr. They thought he
aIround t he bend ' n ' t they?
11C-: nay Do you acg. ree with L1-hat?
r. Whit1am: zev correctl,., report him, yes. All I can
0 a is thaiEzt 4. n is cuite lucid when he speaks falce to face.
bob Moore: Do' see any problem of principle of the threat
1. r. Whit~: I o' verlook the fact that he is in a
daifficult sort of situation, in poliLical and economic -terms
3I n suppiose hne has to look after the interests of hi~ s na~ ion
a s hoe is tlryilng to create i., the ] beOsL ways., and T suppose if T
coein his s-ight~ s on some occasions that way, wel I-11us
CTOt to cop th-a.
Dob Moore: X~ o you see any prohlom of principle in the
Ltire-4t y copipmonweath utblic Service uniLons to organise against
tiv-. Oope ition, because of th Opposition's stand on thle Super-
: anua tion Bill?
Mr. Whitlam: No, I think it's counter-productive if any
particular interest group looks as if it is bringing too heavy
a pressure to bear on a political party. I don't seek that
sort of pressure and I think it can be counter-productive.
I don't mind if the Public Servants vote against the Liberal
Party, but I don't want them to organise campaigns like that
I know, for instance, the way the Labor Party suffers from
many gratuitous campaigns in the trade unions.
Bob Moore: I don't know whether you've read the piece now' celebrated,
I suppose in the last couple of weeks by Paul Johnson
in the New Statesman on Unionism and Socialism.
Mr. Whitlam: Yes.
Bob Moore: Do you accept all or any part of his thesis?
Mr. Whitlam: The trade unions, after all, are part of the
capitalist system, aren't they?
Bob Moore: He certainly argues that.
Mr. Whitlam: Of course they are.
Bob Mo! ore: In practical terms, as a Labor Prime Minister
Mr. ' hitlam: A Labor Government does much more to bring about
social democracy than the trade unions can. Trade unions just
interact with employers. That is a transitional stage of society
when the people who want to bring about social democracy do so
through having a Labor Government.
Moore: But he says more than that, he says unionists
are inimical to socialism.
Mr. Whitlam: You don't expect me to go that far do you?
Bob Moore: Well I'd like to hear you
Mr. Whitlam: Why don't you put that sort of view yourself. That's
what always intrigues me about you interviewers in Australia.
People in the B. B. C. always put, with all the confidence and
aggression of which they are capable, and that is a lot, they put
their own viws. In Australia, you always like to hide behind
sormebody else's Do you agree with what Mr. Snedden says?-that's
what it used to be. Do you agree with what Mr. Fraser says?
that's what it is presumably this month and the next few months.
19.
Do you agreei '. 74tjj what Lee xuan Yew says? Do you agree with
what Paul Joh -son says? Haven't you views of your own?
Bob M oore Wou. ld you be happy with interviewers who
consistently took a line that was opposite to yours?
1-r. Whitla: I'd be just as happy as those w,, ho then quote
some colleague or some opponent or some correspondent, an~ d * then
uDut that forward as a view7 which they want me to conlend
It ' s not much use me arguing with Paul Johnson or Lee Kuan Yew.
,. en tChey are F. few ' thousand miles away.
Creighton Burns: One of your collaagues thinks the press has
been unfair to your Government. Another one of your colleagues
th. inks it. has been as fair to your Government as to any other
G c) v e r e n I thinvk it has been remarkably fair to your GovernmentC..
V-1hat do You thin!
Mr. Whitlam: I think where it's been critical of us, it's
been half our responsibility. I think the Melbourne ' Age' has
gcone frar tzoo far In some ways. I'll admit, as I did. earlier,
Ltweve made-m istak-is but you w -ould never get a newspaper
to ac-mit. thrat it has riade a mistake.
Creightcrn Durns: We publishac' it in " We W., ere Wrong" and we
sipecifc-11 You achtthe princi. I. e of that you mnight make
M! Stake S but YOU dfOn't s' 02CifV thE-m.
Mr. Winitlain: Yes, th1-at I think is one little mote in your eye
every day and the beamns of course
Creighton Burns: Symbolic of our mTod esty, Prime Minister.
That hadn't occurred as the explanation tome.
.1an Rmsay: There was the debate in Parliament in February,
initiatedL1 by M~ r. Wentworth, about Dr. Cairns' staff. Dr. Cairns
in defending his right1C to appoint to his staff,
made a statement in which he said ' I have road a long statement
by the Co-mion-wealth Police and an offence which points to the
iiivolieent of a numvber of members of this House in thlat conspiracy
to e , L 11s morosi Is home illegally.' I
H-as any police action been taken about this conspiracy by mer1nl-) errs
of-the Parliament i11 an illegal act?
tMr. Whitlam: T ' fbrgdt all. t he details here. My memory is
that there was a case in -the courts in Sydney, where the people
who had, burgled 11iss Morosi's flat pleaded guilty and they were
associated with the Liberal Party.
llhitlza: i:
But your Treasurer ( inaudible)
Mr. Whitlam: As you say, it's a few months ago and not
even Mr. Wentworth has come back with these allegations. You
don't seriously expect me to argue with Mr. Wentworth on a
programme of this quality.
Alan Ramsay: I'm not arguing, I'm just asking you, what has
been done about thi., when a senior member of your Cabinet says
a police report says that there has been conspiracy by mem. ers
of Parliament?
. Mr. Whitlam: My memory is that the people involved pleaded
guilty. I'm right aren't I'
Bob Moore: I think you are.
Alan Ramsay: That's got nothing to do with this particular
-oint.
Mr. Whitlam: I think it did.
Alan Ramsay: NO Members of Parliament appeared in court. If
there's a conspiracy by members of the Parliament to carry out an
illegal....? Mr. Whitlam: Look, i really don't remember the details.
You must take Mr. Uentworth more seriously than I do.
Alan Ramsay: No, I'm not quoting Mr Wentworth, I'm quoting
Dr Cairns, your Treasurer. He says this.
Mr. Whitlam: I don't remember the details. I must confess
I r. ever thought that this would be raised on this programme. If
I had I suppose I would have gone to the labour of pursuing the
matter. Bob Moore: It seems, in the past few days anyway, that
Mr. Somare is having rather more trouble than one would have
thought in organising independence day and independence and all
that. Are you happy with the way things are going in Papua New
Guinea now? And, secondly, is there anything which would cause
the Australian Government to insist on, and would it be able to,
a particular day for independence?
Mr. Whitlam: Obviously we can give Papua New Guinea independence
in the juristic sense when we want to. After all, we have in
practice, in fact, given Papua New Guinea, complete independence.
Alan Ramsv:
21.
Pa-pua ewCiainsr now visit other countries Indonesia,
China, Jl pcu:, in their o-. un ri ht. 11--obviously, 1h lve to malke
the aaneu-sbut Oco nt accompany them on thut Thay just
ro. oceed 3. n their ow,. n -way. Secondly, they now have control of
their own armed -forces. The only situation that is left is for
thcr. to have international recognition as an indep:! naert country
and tha-t wo, uld. be given whenever we ask the United Nations to
do so. I would be optimistic -that, in fact, Papua New., Guinea will,
itself, seekc independence this year. I think 1H-r. Somare's setbaclks
in -the Conistitue. nt Assembly as the House of Asserublv is n1ow
called, have: been on procedural matters, not on matters of substance.
He is a superb parliJamentarian, he is a superb politician and I
think that his leadership in the country will bevindicated yet
again. it's only about four years ago, at the beginning of 1970,
-that he and I were being tagged by the Australian and Papua New
Guinea Security services throughout Papua New Guinea. And now
wfn are leaders of our respective countries.
Bob ' Iloore: I don't quite know w hat the moral of that is
Prime Minister; That things do move much quicker than people
think. Bob Moore: Thz-ink Yo11 very much . Prime M~ inister for talking to
us on Monday, Conference and for accepting qyues Lions hypothetiaEll
andI spirituoal alike.
Prime Minister: And soire quite archaic.