Australian97 Broadcasting Commissi on
145-149
Elizabeth St.
Sydney, 2000
G. P. O. Box 487-2001 WE ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ACCURACY. PLEASE CHECK
AGAINST DELIVERY.
COPYRIGHT: This material is
copyright, but may be quoted
by any news media with due
acknowledgement.
( Broadcast LIVE Monday, 24th May, 1976)
is edition of MONDAY CONFERENCE came LIVE
Monday, 24th May, 1976. In Vic.,
9.25pm; in S. A. and W. A. at 9.530pm and in from the ABC's studios in Canberra on
Qld. and Tas. the programme was shown at
Darwin at 8.55pm.
MONDAY CO -ENCE: Executive Producer
Producer Production Team Robert Moore
Riohard Smith
Lorna Martin
Greg Tillett
MONDAYCONFERENCE184.
MONDAY CONFERENCE NO. 184: -1-
( MNONDAY CONFER. NCE THEME)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on MONDAY CONFERENCE: The First Six Months---with the Prime
Minister, Maloolm Fraser.
. ROBERT Good evening. Welcome to MONDAY COIFERENCE.
IIOQRE: Tonight we're coming to you from Canberra. A week since the Prime Minister's
economic address to the nation; near enough to six months since
he won the last election, and near enough to 13 months since Mr. Fraser
was last our guest on MONDAY CONFERENCE, then as Leader of the Opposition.
With me also are: Allan Barnes, one of Australia's best-known journalists,
Canberra commentator for " The Age" and a veteran of MONDAY CONFERENCE.
And, a new face for us, but the outward appearance of one of the country's
best-known voices: fuw Evans, Anchorman of the ABC's nightly radio public
affairs programme, " PM".
Prime Minister, last week, I suppose, was the most important week in your
first six months, not Just because it was your birthday, but obviously because
of the economic statement. I'd like to take up one small passage
from Mr. Lynch's statement on Thursday night which hasn't been commented
on as much as I would have thought, and he said this, I quote: " Sustained
recovery can hardly come about so long as real wages are maintained at the
inflated level which over the past 3 years they have attained". Now, is
your strategy to reduce real wages, the standard of living of the workers?
RT. HON. It's a question of rates of growth. Over the past three years'there's
FRASER: been a substantial shift in wealth away from profits, away from businesses
into wages and real wages have increased. As a result of that, there's
been less profits and less jobs. Now what we would want to see is the real
incomes of people maintained, but increaoing productivity going more than
its normal proportion, into businesses so that jobs can be created, so that
Australia can start moving forward again with an expanded production base,
with a greater real wealth for everyone.
MOORE: But that's, with respect, Sir, that's not what Mr. Lynch said. He didn't
mean, then, what he said?
FRASER: Oh I think he did mean what he said and I think what I've just said in elaboration
is quite consistent with what he said.
MOORE: Elaboration, not contradiction?
FRASERs Elaboration.
MOORE: Oh, all right, well...
MONDAY COF 11EFJCE NO. 1 34:
EVANS: TRASM. EVANS: FRASER: pass on more in profits to the manufacturers and still allow people to
Iwsintain their real wage that they have at tho ! emont?
Once the productive base of Australia starts -oving, once new investment
starts moving, I believe we can, yes.
But wouldn't it be easier if you could find some formula to decrease the
real wage levels as they exist at the moment? Would that not automatically
put more money into the private sector?
I think one of the problems in this is the confusion of terms. You're
saying decrease real wages, it's really slowed down the rate of growth and
the thrust of all our submissions to the Arbitration Commission have not
been to decrease real wages, but to slow down the rate of growth.
But you want to decrease them below the level at which inflation is running.
I mean that is a decrease. If inflation went up in two quarters
of last... the last quarter of last year, and the first quarter of this
year by you recommended to the Arbitration Commission that wages
should only go up 3.2p. That, presumably, is a decrease in what people
have been paying out in terms of costs.
' Well it depends on a whole lot of things, because the Consumer Price Index
isn't a real measure what it costs people to live, they do change. When
potatoes go up very high people buy less potatoes, if meat goes up people
by less meat and they buy other things, but the basket of goods that goes
' into the Consumer 1rize Index is a fixed basket so in terms of family habits
it's not an accurate zeasure of what happens. But let me stick again on
the first statement 7 made. It's a question of a decrease in the rate of
growth in wages, and...
Isn't that really a decrease in real wage terms?
Oh no, I don't think so at all, because in real wage terms it's a question
of what youcan buy in terms of real goods, and quite obviously, a key to
everything the Government would seek to do, and I think that everything that
people with aspirations for Australia would seek, is to get the basic productive
base of Australiamoving forward. Now after.. . in the 1ast year and a
half, two years, of the previous administration, Gross National Product actually
fell. If Gross National Product is falling, how can you do the things
that we want to do for education, for welfare, and maintain family living
standards. It's just not... the size of the cake in those terms is actually
shrinking, and that's what was happening.
Can I put. a question to you on the whole wage indexation concept as we know
it at the moment, in the light of the economic package that was brought
dowm last week. Can you say one way or the other whether your Government
is pledged, fully committed to full wage indexation to continue, that is to
say a full flo -on of the CPI?
Oh look, we've made it quite plain in a very long submission to the Arbitration
Commission that we want full indexation at the rate of the minimum wage.
EVANS:
FRASERt EVANS: FRASER;
MONDA-C0NFERENCL NO. 18:
IAS SR: now tbere's no secret of that, thnt's been publiz kanowledge lPcr a very
long while. We do not want ' Lull indexation in the sense that you used
it, for all salary levels at tall wages. ' Why should there be full indexation
for somebody on $ 20,000 or ' 00,000 a year? I Just don't think
that's real life if we want to overcome these particular problems, and if.,.
EVANS But you Pre in favour of..
in
FRASER.. and/ ou' particular submission to the Arbitration Commission we put a range
of options, the option we said we preferred was full indexation at the rate
of the minimum wage, now that would be protecting the standard of living
of people that most needed protection, and you might also notioe that in
the package of goods announoqd last week there were some very substantial.
measures designed to help low income people in the Australian community.
BARNZIS: That package of goods, really, was meant as a dealing process, wasn't it,
wasn't that package put together so that you could go to the trade union
movement and say here, we are giving you these things which will benefi~ t
the standard of living of various peoplein exchange will you accept lower
rises in real wages. Is that what you were about?
FRASER-It didn't work out like that because we worked out what we thought we ought
to do and the family allowances element was part of what we believed we
ought -to do...
it is
BARNfES: Yes, but/ part of yc= strategy, isn't it?
FRASER: but having done that, we decided that the total arrangements seemed, to
us anyway, so fair snd so reasonable that we ought to make an approach to
the Australian Council of ' Trade Unions and that was done, but that was decided
after, wgell after, the elements of the package.
BAR~ NES: Did you have any prior arrangement with Mr. Hawke and Mr. Egerton and other
trade union people you've spoken to that if you put together a package of
thiB nature, if you dropped things like the proposal to make compulsory ballots
through the electoral office, if you did these things that they would
use their influence to get a deal from the trade union movement?
FRASER: No, none at all, because I announced the measures in that preview talk to
the nation and at the same time I announced that Mr. Street would be making
approaches for the talks. As a result of that I got a call about 10.50
the next morning from Mr. Hawke.
not
BARNES: Did you/ have any previous signs from them that they'd buy this sort of a
deal, had you had any previous..#
FRASER: No, we haven't dealt that way.. I didn't believe it right to.
MOORE: ' Why did you drop the requirement, then, that the Commonwealth Electoral
Office supervised the elections? What was the quid pro quo back?
FRASER: Mr. Street has explained this very well, and for very good reasons as a result
of the earlier talka with the trade union movement the Gayrnmni+
MO NDAY CONFERENCE NO. 184: -4-
FRASFr: legislation. Now secret postal ballots will still remain a requirement,
there's no dollb+. nhoi that. If a unliou want3 to coruct, wi1, u1i xjper
regulations, secret postal ballots on its own account, and pay for them
itself, it can, but if they are to be conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral
Office, the Commonwealth will pay for them.
Now there were some I wouldn't want to. go into it in detail, but some
involved conventions with the ILO that also indicated that this would be
a desirable thing to do and we believe we'll achieve the result of secret
bsanots quicker because we think a lot of trade unionists will say to their
leadership, well if the Government's prepared to pay for it just by lotting
the Electoral Office do it, why should we be paying $ 300,000, $ 400,000 for
a ballot.
BXRNES: But it was also part of the deal, you also held it out as an olive branch
towards the unions.
ASER: You might find it very difficult to believe this, but these matters came
to conjunction at the same time, they were not part of an overall deal of
any kind.
AN:@ S: Mr. Street did say in the Parliament, however, that the Government, having
shown thiyfTlexibility" was the term he used, I believe, it was expeoting
that the trade union movement would also show a spirit of co-operation.
FRASERt Lock, we've, right fzs the outset, shown a spirit of co-operation, a
willingness to talk, a willingness to listen to all groups in the Australian
community. It's remarkable how sometimes that can be praised as a
mark of high princi:-e and other times condemned for something less than
that, but, you know, being prepared to listen to people, being prepared to
modify your own views as a result of views they reasonably put, surely only
makes for sensible Government.
MfES: Are you prepared to modify your views on Medibank in response to the union's
complaints about Medibank?
FRASER: Well let's see how that's understood first, because I've never seen more
disjointed and incorrect reports tha there were in today's Press about
one pariicular element of Medibank.
MOORE: Could we just come back to the Union Elections Bill, and as I understand
it now the changed Bill is going to go through Parliament but it' 3 not going
to be proclaimed. Now does the proclamation of that Bill, that Act,
depend in some way on a satisfactory outcome, from your point of view of
the Conference next month with the unions?
FRASER: Oh, loc4 when Mr. Hawke spoke to me, the Government having made the offer
of talks, we started to talk about dates. He's off to the ILO, I'm going
t. Japan and China. * We wanted to get the talks in-between, and he then
said that he would like to be able to put it that we would listen to whatever
views the trade anion movement had concerning that industrial legislation,
and that we would not, therefore, proclaim it until after the talks
14ONDAY COINFEICE NO. 184:
' RASER: faith, if we were perauadad by their views we'd be rrenared to mndify legislation
as had already been the case as a result of the secret ballot discussions
that Mr. Street had held, but we were going to put the legislation
through the Parliament, we would hold up the proclamation. Now I believe
that's fair enough and I believe it's part of the sort of consultative process
that Governments ought to be prepared to undertake with different and
important sections of the Australian comimunity.
EVANS: You obviously place a very high priority, though, on reaching some kind of
way of living with the trade unions and in reaching some arrangement whereby
wagea don't have the same effeot on the economy as you see they had in
the last couple of years, but if you don't have any success with this package,
if the unions don't buy it and Mr. H~ awke is already saying that he
finds it unacceptable, I mean are you... what recourse do you have, are you
going to try and influence the Arbitration Commission to change its guidelines,
are you possibly going to give them parameters in which to pass on
wage increases, what's left to you after that?
FRASER: Well I think you might even have misquoted some of the thl2," ga thit Mr.
Hawke has said about it, but. . about what we've announced, but leave that
aside. If there isn't co-operation in these areas, well that makes the
Government'., job harder, it doesn't mean to say a Government gives up, changes
its course. Between now and the time that talks take place, I would
imagine we'll all be wiser because w~ e'll have the Arbitration Commission's
judgem'ent on the recent case that was before it; we'll have its official
views on the case that the Government had put, and so we'll all be that
much wiser.
BARNES: Do you contemplate reversing your 1973 opposition to Labor's attempt to
get federal control over prices and wages if all these other talks break
down? Is it likely that you would approach the States or have your own
referendum, Mr. Fraser?
FRASER-Well we haven't really considered that, and when you look at the history
of that kind of device in other countries, short of a war time situation,
it's never really worked very well. It's like putting the lid on a pressure
cooker and putting a briok on top of the lid to keep in in place for
a while, but unless you can remove the underlying causes of inflation, and
look I'll agree that people can disagree about what those causes are, but
unless you can remove those basic causes, just putting some arbitrary controls
on the top doesn't really help very much.
BARNES: So you're looking for some sort of a social contract or compact with the
trade unions, a co-operative effort.
FRASER: Well I think that's going back too far to Rousseau to be completely accurate
in a modern sense, but, look, words that can build too much into them,
lead to hopes that can be dashed, I don't think do us any good. We're
MONDAY CONFEP& YCE NO1, 184--6-
FRASER: before the union officials as we can so they'll at least know the factual
basis on which.. azainst which we've made our olinv ' eoisioq, I woul
hope that there'll be some discussions that cn minimise the differences
between the union movement and the Government, but, look, I don't want
to build up expectations and hopes to too great an extent. This is one
of the processes, one of the conferences that the Government ought to be
involved in. We'll certainly be going into it in good faith and hoping
for a useful result because if we can get that, all Australians and all
trade unionists will benefit.
MOOp1: Prime Minister, just on industrial relations, and then perhaps we might
leave it, but have you given up the idea of an Industrial Relations Bureau
which was outlined in the joint parties policy last yeai!.
FRASER: Oh no, work is proceeding on this in the Department and in discussion with
other people.
MOORE: And what is the attitude of the unions towards that? I think they were
rather worried about it, weren't they, originally?
FRASIM: I think that it would take some explaining to the trade linion movement.
I think that it's a very fair proposal, but in the legislative sense, and
we always knew this, it would be difficult, technical and involved, and
with the advice of departments available to us and the Attorney-General's
Department, a great deal of work needs to be done before the Government
is really in a po3ition to talk to other people, other groups, about that
proposal.
BARNES: Can. I just follow " ha% up briefly, with one brief question. Prime ? inister,
during the election campaign you spoke about the need for better
relations between management and labour, I wonder if since being in office
you've come to any firm views as to what Government can do. Last week,
for example, there was an article in The Sydney Morning Herald by-John
Valder, th&" Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, saying Government can
help employees get shares in the companies for which they work. Have you
really done any work on this worker control or worker participation in
management?
FRASER: Well, the way you describe John Valder's remarks sounded very much like
the Kelso Plan which has had a lot of publicity in some places, a device
to enable employees to buy shares in their own company.
BARNES: Quite, yes.
FRASER: These devices do depend, I think for their success, on very special tax
incentives to enable the proposition to go forward in an attractive and
reasonable manner. I have in fact got this sort of proposal under examination.
I'm not going to make any prediction about what comes out of
it, but if it's a useful means and a reasonably economical means of diversifying
capital and ownership in Australia, and amongst employees of organisations,
of companies, then it's certainly at least worth examination
MONDAY CONFFUø RENCE NO. 184:
FRASER: because it's, in philosophical terms, it's attractive.
" IF d hjk you.
MOOR,: Prime Minister, one of the slogans that's emerged from the first 6 months
of the Fraser Government, or has become associated with you, is new federalism.
Could I ask you this, in say 18 months from now, just to take a
random figure, not altogether random, how many States, in fact, do you
think will be raising their own income tax?
FRASER: Oh I have no idea at all.
Do you think new federalism, or this aspect of new fedoralism, has baen set
back by the New South Wales election in which Mr. Wran used, rather effectively,
the charge that it would mean double taxation?
FRASer4: Well about a day after that election his Treasurer seemed to cast some
doubts on one of the major pledgea durin the election campaign, so whether
the Treasurer would win or whether Mr. Wran will win, only the future will
unfold.
MOORE: But do you think one of the morals is that the people will vote Rgainst
any State, any State Government which looks as if it's going to introduce
income tax partioularly or even any substantial indirect tax?
FRASEa: I don't really believe that this was a major factor in New South Wales, if
so why wasn't it a major factor in Victoria where Mr. Hamer did very well.
MOORE: ' It wasn't artioulated, as an issue, was it, in Victoria, anywhere near as
much? It didn't emerge maybe it should have, but it didn't.
FRASER: Well it was still there, nobody hid it. On nearly every election platform,
certainly when 1 was present, both the Premier and myself praised
the new federalism ,_ roposals, but what I think you n-eed to understand, and
this is one of the things that I think electors, voters, would want to understand,
is that under the proposals that we're putting forward, whether
it be Local Government or State~ overnments or the Federal Government,
you're going to have a better opportunity to see where your money is actually
going; you're going to have a better oDportunity to see who is responsible
for spending it, and if we've got different spheres of Government
in this country, I think it's terribly important that at each sphere people
spending money should be seen to be responsible for what they do, then you
know who to blame. In the system that's operated for so long in Australia,
whenever a State has not done something it's been able to say, oh,
those wretched people in Canberra have refused to give me the extra money
to build this school or to build this road. Now if you have a different
set of ciroumBtances which enables, if they wished, States to be responsible
for themselves, the response can be, but look, you could do this yourself if
you really placed a sufficiently high priority on it.
You've got a situation at the moment in one State that's quite unable to
blame the Ccmmonwealth for anything that it's not doing because on all the
MONDAY CONFF-RIENCE NO. 184:
F. 1 AS ER est advice available to me it's got a Budget surplus of $ 50 million, and.
if they thJ a k ything wa8 important in Tfneir ovn State at the momen;,
at least, they've got the funds to do it.
MOORE: But in your view, as Prime Minister, in your, as it were philouophioal
view about new federalism, do you think the States should raise their own
income tax, that if they don't that they're ducking the idea of new federalism?
FaASMR: Oh well, look, that depends on the level of their activities, the degree
to which they can achieve economy, out out extravagance, maybe go through
the sort of prooess that we've been going through over the last several
months. Now I know some States will claim they've already done that,
and that it was the Commonwealth house that was lush and extravagantlCut
I do think they need to be responsible, I do believe they need to have
auoess to funds and they've always all argued for that, and having access
to funds then gives them the opportunity to make the decision and I think
that's where it ought to be. They ought to make the decision and cast
their own priorities accordingly.
Haven't you made them make a special decision though, now, and through
this upcoming Premiers Conference, you've unloaded certain things which
have been, under the Labor Government, a Commonwealth contribution, things
like sewerage I'm thinking of very specifically. The Labor Government
said we will give vast amounts or large amounts of money to the States to
help speed up the szwerage programme. The States were doing it very
slowly under their : w'n resources, it was speeded up under Labor, now you've
withdrawn a large proportion of the Commonwealth contribution for sewerage.
FRASER: Oh but not all.
BARNES: No, not all, I said a large proportion of it. If they're going to keep
it up, they then have to put the taxes on or they'll have to go back to
the old system, presumably.
FRASER But that raises another and a much larger question and maybe a much more
important question. There is no way in the world that Australian taxpayers,
whether they're individuals or companies, can afford all the programmes
that have been promised by politioans in recent times, and if there
is to be common sense in the finances of Australia, the taxpayers and electors
of Australia have got to be able to understand that, that politicians
have promised too much, they've promised beyond the capacity of taxpayers
reasonably to afford, and you know, I only hope that we can get to the
stage where people reoognise this and will recognise', romising", in inverted
commas, politicians for what they are because they're not promising anything
of their own, they're promising something that they're going to take
from other people.
BAR10E8: But you'd made promises yourself that there would be no cuts, you said, in
14ONDAY COMFEECE NO. 184:
DARN': S; the essential programmes of education, health, welfare arnd urban improv--
merit. Have you decided that sewerage is non-essential?
FRASER: We are still providing funds in sewerage. You'll remember, though, that
those words were used in the context of the last election campaign, and in
the oontext of what was going to happea immediately thereafter. We were
making it quite plain that contracts, fund~ s committed, would flow through
over the, you know, the financial year that we're still in, and you also,
I think need to know that, -jell you would know, but people outside mightn't,
that even in this forthcoming year, in spite of taking $ 2,600 million load
off the Budget on the expenditure side, there will be real increases in
important areas of ex~ enditure and education, for example, is one of those.
Not as large, 1 know, as some of the experts and many educationists would
want, but still a real increase, and what we've sought to do in this last
operation, pre-eminently, is to proteot programmes that affect the disadvantaged
or the aged and at the same time to protect programmes that are
necessary to provide opportuinity for Auatralians, and if we're going to
do that and bring the total budgeting of the Commonwealth back into some
level o' talanoe, and you know you can't get that balance in one year,
it'll take a while. it vas quite obvious that the large prograames were
ones that were going to have to be reduced, and significantly reduced.
EVANS: If I could just go back to the question of your concept of federalism and
th* e accountability of States to their electors, and indeed to raising the
kind of money that, the7 want to spend if they've put a priority on it, K1.
Wran of course has a roblem of his own in this area in that he has pledged
himself not to iitroduoe personal income tax in New South Wales, now~
whether you think it was wise of him to olose off that option to himself
or not, the chances are and he's indicated this tiie evening so far as I
know that he's feeling that it's a very real possibility that he's going
to have to introduce new indirect taxes in New South Wales to meet the kind
of Budget that he wants to spend. If he does that, these regressive
taxes are going to rind their way back into the CPI and provide new problems
for you. Nlow what's the answer for Mr. Wran if he doesn't feel that
raising personal income tax in New South Wales, for his purposes, is the ansawer?
FRASER: One of the answers for all Governments, and this gets back to the point I
was trying to make earlier, is to make sure that aspirations, expectations,
are limited to resources. Now I know quite well that there can be a legitimnate
argument about the level of'reuources that the Commonwealth spends,
the State spends and Local Government spends, but taken overall in Australia
the expectations of the Australian people have been led to grow far beyond
that which Australian taxpayers of all kinds can afford and therefore all
Governments have a responsibility to bring this back to reality and that's
not to say that Ggvmentsreo cut out essential programmes in terms of,
you lcncw, educaticn,,' oz programmes that affect the disadvantaged, and
MON-DAY CONFL0N1CE NO, 184:
VRAS. SI directed, and we've, in our recent measures, taken one very significant
step in that particular direction, but 3overnments that just go on promising
more and more, at a stage when Australia's real wealth, the size of
the national cake has in fact been diminishing, are deluding not only themselves
but more cruelly and deceptively they're deluding the Australian
people.
EVAANS: So is there any answer to Mr. Wran's attempt, he's indicated he wants to
you Toneyp
try and persuade/ him in doing something about the employment situation in
New South Wales, I mean are you going to be at all responsive to that kind
of proposition if it requires federal money?
FRASE: de're responsive to matters that are of concern in the employment area, but
we've gone past the stage with inflation as it is in Australia, and interest
rates as they always are in a country when inflation is high in which
pump priming from Governments will in fact overcome the problems of unemployment
and that's been shown very plainly in the last couple of years of
the previous administration. Pump-priming, change in techniques, are
fine and necessary when you've got unemployment, low int-rest rates and
virtually no inflation. Under those oirc-asstances pump-priming will
work, but it's been proved n to work.
EVAS You're saying we should reduce the money supply?
FRASER: We~ l again that's . sirg a technical term and I wasn't speaking in technical
terms, but I am 3jing that Governments have got to limit what they
themselves do and got to move resources out into the private sector
which does, after all, provide three out of every four jobs in Australia,
tc get the real productive sector in Australia moving forward, and this is
the rationale behind a number of the measures that the Government has introduced
over its term of office.
F ES: Prime Minieter., you threw me a moment ago when you said.. implied that the
spending things listed in your policy speech last November applied only to
the rest of the financial year. Do we take from that that when you said
for example, quote, " We will maintain present levels of assistance to Aboriginals",
and then last week drastically cut the level of assistance to
Aboriginals, did that promise only apply to the 1975-76 financial year?
FRASER: That policy speech was obviously specifically directed to the ciroumstances
in which it was made, but since then we've found many examples of very real
extravagance in this particular area, especially in the way housing is being
delivered to Aborigines, quite large sums, upwards of $ 700,000 or $ 800,000
being spent in a number of cases, five or six or seven houses oompleted. In
other cases large sums spent and no houses completed. There has been
very large waste in these areas for which I don't blame Aborigines for one
moment, I'm only sad that so much of the funds that have been spent have
been dissipated along the way, but let me also say that the change in the
family allowance arrangements are going to advantage Abc-rigine families en-
-1o-
MONDAY CCGfrRENCE 184: -11-
FRASER: give them some degree of self-esteea because this money goes to them as families
to be spent as they wish, not as some paternal person from a Department
determines, and I believe that this particular measure, for a number
of families in this bracket, might do a very great deal to help. They'll
have resources, and if they've got families of five o-six kida, as quite a
number have, they'll have resources of a kind which is freely available to
them to spend as they wish in a way that they never would have had before,
and that would need to be disouunted against any other decisions that have
been made, but one of the reasons for the decisions in that particular
area is the degree of extravagance and waste that havein fact been uncovered.
BARIES: I suppose I was just getting at the general proposition that voters come
out at election time, they hear a political leader such as yourself make
what appear to be very specific undertakings. Where does it leave the
whole credibility of political.. polioy speeches? I mean, you know,
there are many other things that you've changed. One may say they're
very good things, you know, you've dro-ped your promise to abolish the
Prices Justification Tribunal, people say that's good fle2ib'ility; you've
dropped your fire promise to introduce compulsory Electoral Office ballots,
a
but people may say that's/ very good thing, but it's not whether people
think it's good or bad but how much credibility rests in a policy speech
if you oan suddenly say, well that's non-operative any longer.
FRASER: No, nobody said tha's non-operative any longer, and support for Aborigines
is obviously a very hiapriority for this Government, but it's support of a
kind' that we want tc see goes to Aborigines to help them and if we uncover
waste in a way that indicates that support is not helping Aborigines, is it
our job, our responsibility to the taxpayer to allow that to oontinue because
that wasn't...
BARNES: I'm not gett. ng. at what you've done, Sir, I'm getting at what you said you'd
do. That's what I'm getting at about credibility.
FRASER: But I think you're wanting to have it both ways, and in any case d contend
with you, takin: the totality of the aleasures that we have put, that the
real level of what is being done for Aborigines is probably not going to
be much changed because I place much more reliance, maybe than you do, on
the changed system of family allowances and the independence and self-esteem
that his will allow to people. I think paternalism has gone on too far.
BARNES: I think it's a great reform.
MOORE: I'm sorry, I want to change and move on if we could, now, because time's
beginning to run out. You came to offion in the midst of exceptional
Constitutional circumstances in an election/ which the electorate showed
that it was unusually divided and a large section of the community bitter,
has this mood in the country made life more difficult for you as Prime Minister,
has it inhibited you in any way, are you aware of a substantial
MONDAY CONFERENCE NU. 184: -12-
FRAS2R: No ond T don't ee i. t hn I go to peol wherever tey may be
in different places.
EVANS: But the Governor-General sees it when he goes around. How concerned are
yuu about the demonstrations against the Governor-General, and some of the
speculation that they may reach a kind of crescendo next year when the
Queen comes out to Australia?
that
FRASE1R: Well I think/ if people had indicated the kind of demonstration that vas
given on ANZAC Day in Canberra when there was a record turnup and only one
voice raised in protest, silenced by those round about her, not much publicity
was given to that, and I think in this particular area the media has
given undue prominence to one side of the story.
EVANS: You don't find it possibly embarrassing though if there are such demonstrations
when the Queen is out here in company with the Governor-General, would
that not be embarrassing?
FRASER: But I think that shows a, if I may say it, a slight lack of understanding
of what traditionally occurs when the Queen is present in kuatralia.
. alS: I'm not sure that the circumstances really are particularly traditional so
far as the Governor-General is concerned, whether he was right or wrong is
immaterial to me, but the fact is that there have been demonstrations, and
it seems on the cards that they may increase when the Queen comes out next
year.
FRASER: But why would they? Why would people demonstrate against the Queen?
, r NSt I don't know that the demonstration would be aimed against the Queen.
FRASER: I know, but the point that you're missing, and the point that you're misunderstanding
and which, you know, really I think makes the questions irrel-
Sevant is that when the Queen is present in Australia, except for one or two
occasions, welcoming, departure and this sort of thing, the Governor-General
and the Queen do not appear on the same occasion.
MOORE:; How have the events of November-December last, in praotical terms, have they
had any effect on your relationship with the parliamentary Opposition? Have
they made the working of Parliament more difficult or less pleasant or whatever
the word is, in any way?
FRASER: Oh I don't think so, I think there are some people who are particularly bitter
about those circumstances; I think Mr. Whitlam showed a remarkable
lack of judgement in carrying on a particular view, but Mr. Hawke showed
great common sense in saying, " Let the past be past, the people of Australia
have cast their judgement".
MOORS: Yes. I'd like to spend unless you've got something, Allan, on this...
BARES.: No, no.
MOORE; a short time on two specific aspects of foreign policy. I don't think
MOIzAY CONtEENCE NO. 184: -13-
' OOR there's a lot that we want to tqlk to you about foreign policy. tonight,
but there are a couple of obvious aroas and I think one of them is East
Timor and our relationships with Indonesia. What is now, forgetting
the history, what is now our basic policy objeotive towards ths solution
of. the Timor problem or its effeot on our relationship with Indonesia?
What do we simply want?
FRASER: Well the basic objective in relation to East Timor hasn't varied, it has
been to establish the circumstance where there wasn't any fighting, where
the
/ international Red Cross could get in. where there could be a proper act
of self-determination, and I'd like to add and that hasn't altered, and
Andrew Peacock has spelt that view out, I think, very plainly and very
firmly, and the situation might have been vastly different if a previous
administration hadn't taken, if Mr. Gregory Clark is accurate in his reportings,
a qjuite different view in terms of oertain assurances that were
alleged to have been given.
But let me also say, ) n the broader context of your question, that I think
that we've been able to state the views we have ooncernir) Fast Timor because
of the depth and of the understanding of our relationship with Indonesia
itself and it's because of the strength of that relationship that
it' 3 been possible to express these views and not damage that relationship,
and, you kno--, there are historical analogies, or not analogies but
Sother events in history which support that view because right throughout
the difficult days : f confrontation we had troops on one side, but at the
same time our Anbassador in Indonesia was able to maintain close links,
close communication with Indonesia in a way which was certainly useful to
both countries and useful, I believe, to the final resolution of that particular
issue.
SEVANS: But the vital thing, I was going to say, surely, is just wnat tha't proper
act of free-choice is going to be and how acceptable it's going to be to
the rest of the world and indeed to us.
FARASER: Well, you know, that's right, and that remains to be seen.
MOORE: Is. there the slightest possiblity that there would be a chance for selfdetermination
now, in practical, real terms?
EVANS: Demooratic terms, indeed.
FRASER: There would have been a very much better chance if different actions had
been taken starting about 212 years ago. When administration in Portugal
started to fall apart, that's when action should have been taken, actions
that were not taken.
BARN-ES: Do you think that not only the previous administration but the previous
administration's advisers fell down on the job?
FRASERt: Oh, it's not my job to criticise advisers.
BARNES: Why not? I would have thought a Prime Minister's An+. ifla
, MONDAY CONFERENCE NO 184
PFRAS Fi: Oh no, I don't thirk so, because it's ultimately the : olitican's judgement
wbether they accept that advice or whether they don't accept that
advice. The task of the adviser in the Public Service is to give his
advice honestly and fearlessly, argue for his point of view as hard as he
can until the decision is made. Having got to that point, then io carry
out the decision even if it's contrary to the advice that he was given, and
in all y experience of the Public Service that overwhelmingly is the way
the Public Service behaves.
EVANS: It's only about three weeks now before you leave on your first major overseas
sortie and of course you're going to Peking and to Tokyo. Tokyo, I
think, we mighnt have a fair idea of the sorts of things you'd be interested
in discussing there, but what do you think you might have in common with
TSe-tung if you met him?
FRASER: Well one of the reasons I'm going to China is obviously to learn. I've
never really spent much time in either country, although, obviously contact
with people from Japan has been much more than from China. I've had
a number of conversations with thair Charg6 in Canberra and i think we'll
have wide-ranging discussions over a number of matters that.. trade matters,
attitudes to international relations, attitudes to events in the Indian
Ocean or the Pacific, South-East Asia...
EWANS: I was going to say, you'd have that in common with them at least so far
as the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean is concerned.
FRASER: Oh, well I understand so from statements they've been making, yes.
J^ RNES: In choosing to go o China, before even going to the United States or Britain,
is this Dart of you signalling your criticism of detente, your position,
your hard pcition, your firm position that you don't accept American-
Russian detente? Is this a signal?
. r LASER: I'd like tc,. snswer that in two ways if I could because there's as assumption
about my attitude to detente and I'd just like to ask a question
about it which doesn't need answering. People do need to ask themselves
if the relationship between Russia and America would have been any different
if that term had never been used, if they'd just gone on talking tv
each other, somstimes more effectively and sometimes less effectively. Detente
gave rise to expectations, the use of the term, that were not fulfilled,
have not been fulfilled, and I think President Ford in a recent statement
has recognised that.
But my reason for wanting to go to Japan and China first was a different
one. Traditionally Australian Prime Ministers have gone to Britain or
gone to Washington, but the world changes. We have vastly important relationships
with Japan; officials have agreed the draft of the Treaty,
the friendship between Australia and Japan and I don't believe there'll be
any impediments left to the signature of that when I visit there, and obviously
the future direction of China's policies are of enormous signif-
-14-
(; WrAEYC NIREflCE NG. 0O:-5
Pi11SR: world, and I don't believe anyone ca-n foretell with complete az~ otu-cyv -I
maybe not with any accuracy at all what direction, what future directions
those policies will take. China, in many ways, is the great imponderable,
and to have useful, hopefully oonstruotive relationships with
China is, I thixk, very important indeed. Now to have constructive relationships
with a country doesn't mean to say you need the same philosophical
background; it doe~ sn't mean to say you need the same form or system
of Government. It depends upon your attitude to international relations,
and the way you deal with questions that arise in international relations,
and while obviously China's done things that we don't exactly applasud, she
is still emerging in the great world of the superpowers and nobody really
kLnows quite what direction she's going to go in, and all the more important,
therefore, to talk, to discuss, to exchange ideas. And one last
quiok follow up to that, I felt that when I do oome to go-to America, and
to London which obviously at some stage I will do, I felt it would be much
more useful, in both those places, if I'd been to Japan and China first.
MOORE: Prime Minister, I've got one last small point, well not small point but
much nearer home issue in foreign affairs. In the question of settling
our boundary with Papua New Guinea and the Torres Strait business, what
status in these discussions does Mr. Bjelke-Petersen have?
F'RASER: As a person who is concerned for a number of Australians, as the Torres
-Strait Islanders plainly are, and as we intend they shall remain, and since
they are part of his State he has a right to be concerned about that.
F1OORE:. I think my question is how big a right? I mean in the last resort is he
going to be part of the decision or not?
FRASER. Oh I think I've said quite plainly what the matter is. He is concerned
for the status as Australians of a number of people and he's concerned that
that status as Australians, their rights as Australian citizens, will not
be upset. He's concerned that their right to the territory in which
they've lived and hunted and fished, where their culture has developed over
the ages, will not be upset. It's part of the State of Queensland. He
has a right to be concerned about -these things and I would expect any responsible
Premier to be concerned about them, but I also believe that we are
going to come to, and I hope you won't probe me too deeply on the details
of this, but there have been initial discussions in a number of directions,
Andrew Peacock has had one set of talks in Papua New Guinea, there'll be
another set of talks a little lateic; it was discussions with Mr. Petersen,
Mr. Anthony, Mr. Lynch and myself after Mr. Petersen's last visit to Torres
Strait when he was meant to be coming down and talking to us about other
matters, but it was that discussion that cleared the way for talks in a
basis that's understood and that preserves the rights, in the way in which
I've spoken in Parliament, of the Torres Strait Islanders.
EVANS One suggastion that has been put forward, and I just wondered if you'd like
1 1DA J, 1' 0U PR'KE NO. 184: -16-
iWVAN6: still remain Australian, is that under consideratJon?
" R} ASR: Well, look, I'd much sooner not Lalk about details because part of the
detail's something that's misunderstood and misconstrued and then people
get concerned when maybe they have no need to get concerned and it can
also upset negotiations which are going on in two different directions, because
we are also, in our objective, obviously wanting to keep the Torres
Strait Islanders fully informed of our attitudes and of our determination
to Frotect their future and their children's future.
BARNES-Back to very mundane, domestic matters, Prime Minister, as a private citizen,
have you decided if you're going to stay in Medibank?
. RASER: Maybe partly in, partly out, but I haven't looked at it yet..
BARNES: You haven't looked at it?
F2RSER: Mh?
o. ARKS: I'm surprised that you haven't looked at it, the public's worried about
this, I would have thought the Prime Minister could guide them a little.
Well I can, but what I'm saying is I haven't looked at it from my own persona!
point of view. What Medibank will do for people in e income
bracket is to provide the cheapest form of health cover. What it also
does is to make sure that those on lowest incomes don't have to pay any
Fart of the levy because they're below the area where the levy is paid,
and as you go higher up the income scale you either pay more in levy or
then get to the stage when you buy a Medibank package.
Now one of the reasons the Medibank package, buying a Medibank package was
introduced was because we felt it would be unjust if with a 2J% levy people
going way on up the scale were starting to pay $ 600 or $ 700 for something
that obviously wasn't going to cost that much, and seoondly, if everyone was
going to tke. levy, two-income families would be bearing an unduly heavy
burden, and so at the area where you want to put a ceiling, the Medibank
package enables a person to buy a Medibank cover at a ceiling price and it
also enables a two-income family to work out whether they're better off
both paying the 20% levy or whether one of them buys the Medibank package,
and what people need to do is to look to their own circumstances and if
it's a married couple with one income, and then determine . hether they want
just standard ward oover or intermediate cover, and tthen they look at the
options available to them, and they make up their minds to see whether they're
prepared to pay the extra for intermediate or private ward cover. It's
not going to be very complicated for each individual, or for each family unit
It's just
BARITES: / that you haven't worked it out yet.
FRASER: Well I'va been so busy with a few other things that I haven't spoken about
my own particular form of health insurance.
MONDAY CONPERNCE NO. 184:
BARHES: Are you impressed by the critirism of Professor Ronald Henderson. the
head of the Poverty Inquiry who was very influential, I gather, in your
child endowment scheme, are you impressed with his criticism that your
arrangements for Medibank could create what he sees as a divisive situation
in the community, rather like, he said, the old days of education
in which the poor health and the.. poople who are treated as poor in the
Medibank ocheme?
FRASER: No, I don't think it will because the Medibank health cover is going to
provide the best basic cover and it's a question really.. and the medical
side has not altered, or the changes in the medical side I think, for the
purposes of public debate, can largely be put aside, it's a question of
whether somebody wants to...
BAR S: Oh, hospital treatment I think is very much what he's talking about.
FRASMR: insure for intermediate or privato ward treatment, and it was felt that
the arrangements that we've introduced are fair and reasonable. I've already
met some people, well up the income scale, who say that thoy don't
particularly like health funds so they're going to buy hu edibank pa,. kage
and that's what they want, but I also know other people whose family
levy might be $ 150 who will want to pay the $ 150-odd to insure for intermediate
ward treatment...
BARNES: I think that's what he's getting at.
FRASER: and that gives : e the option, the opportunity of doing it.
was
BARNES: I think Professor henderson getting at that very point, that you walk into
a doctor's room and you say I've got to have my tonsil-S. out and he says
are you Medibank or non-Medibank and you say I'm Medibank, he says, sorry,
you go along to the hospital and get treated by whoever you like, I can
only treat you if you're in an intermediate ward and covered by a private
fund. If's" that splitting of the community.
FRASER: Yes, but a person makes that choice for themself...
BARNES: Quite, but I mean it's pretty obvious, isn't it?
MOORE: And it does mean it's no longer universal in that sense.
FRASER: Oh no it doesn't, it is universal, because Medibank covers everyone and
the total arrangments cover everyone. It's universal, it's compulsory,
and there Is no means test. But where I was talking about the element of
choice, somebody reasonably low down on the income scale, has got an element
of choice because of the way in which the levy is structured and the
way in which the additional buying'hospital only' insurance enables him to
upgrade the hospital bed he's in because the other element of this, of
course, is that your own doctor can follow you into that other bed and
which some people will want to do, and Medibank never pretended to allow
your own doctor to follow you into standard Medibank wards.
-17-