4IjjA USTYA Li
PRIME MINISTER
FOR PRESS JULY 7, 1976
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
In-July last year, I addressed the National Press Club.
In that speech I put the view that Australia desperately needed
a new direction in Government policy. The Liberal Party was
' deeply concerned at what was happening to Australia. What
Australia could become was being squandered by incompetence,
inefficiency, and an entirely inappropriate philosophy of
Government. Any country, but especially a small nation like Australia, needs
special qualities to advance and prosper in the kind of world
we live in. It must be a major function of Government policy to
encourage those qualities.
We need to encourage a clear-sighted recognition of" facts as
they are at home and abroad facts which are often unwelcome and
difficult to face. We must not pretend that there is an easy
road t. o security and a better life.
We need to encourage people to achieve the best of which they are
capable'and ensure that they retain the means to express their
talents. We must avoid at all costs forcing people into a mould
of bureaucratically regulated conformity.
We need to encourage imagination and enterprise, not destroy
incentives-and make everyone dependent on the State. Unless we
encourage these qualities everyone will be the poorer and we will
be less able to help ~ effectively those who are in real need of
assistance. To make a start to set a new course for Australia in the last
election, we presented a far ranging programmIe of responsible
Liberal reform to the Australian people.
The principal objectives of this programme can be summarised
briefly.' They were:
* to rein in the rapidly increasing Government spending
and free desperately needed resources to individuals and
business enterprise.
* to provide incentives to investment and job creation. / 2
2.
* to begin an effective decentralisation of Government
decision-making through the most radical reforms to the
Federal system since Federation.
* to institute firm protection for individuals against
growing unlegislated claims on their earnings.
* to help those families who had been hurt most by the
Government fueled inflation and other policies of the
* previous three years.-
to expand the protection for individual rights against
an increasingly powerful and intrusive state.
* replace an approach which set one section of the ' Community
against another with one which emphasised consultation
and co-operation in the solution of problems which concerned
*-all Au~ tralians. r
* And finally," of course, to institute-sound and responsible
management of Australia's affairs.
All of these objectives have found expression in specific policy
initiatives many of them path breaking reforms which set a new
course for Australian public policy.
Many people it seems try to fit this Government into some mental
image they carry with them of what they-think is a standard
conservative Government.
The achievements of the first six months of this Governmen t -and
the course we have set should give the lie to that image.
The challenges Australia now faces demand a positive and constructive
thrust-* in policy.
The times are such that a Government must be prepared actively to
seek solutions at times radical solutions in the best sense of
the word'-to the difficult problems we face. We cannot simply hope
that they will go away by themselves.
If we are to advance freedom and concern at home, and security
abroad, we must look otir problems-in the fLace as a nation and
determine to overcome them.
Solving our economic problems is not just a job for the Governiment.
The Government can play a part and has played a part, not only
by reining in its own expenditure by providing incentives to
enterprise, and by pursuing responsible monetary policies, but
also by speaking out responsibly on such issues as the
relationship between excessive wage increases and inflation.
The Government's whole strategy is based on fostering a climate
of national responsibility in which all people will act in a
spirit of national responsibility and recognise their over-riding
common interests in reducing inflation and unemployment. 13
Taking a stand on the full passing on of C. P. I. increases was, I
believe, essential to the moderation in wage increases which has
taken place.
Full tax indexation and protection for wage earners with large
families near the minimum income have long concerned the trade
union movement.
The stand which the Government has taken on these issues was a
major element in the context in which the Arbitration Court made
-its last decision. This decision improves Australia's capacity
to control inflation. I would also like to givecredit to
Mr Hawke and the'union movement for the stand they took yesterday
in relation to wage restraint.
We said that tax indexation would be introduced over'three years*.
But-due to the economies the Government has made, tax indexation
has already been introduced.
Tax indexation will stop the erosion of-eal wages due to inflation
caused tax increases. It will bring long term benefits as it
is an ongoing commitment. It will make Governments accountable
if they feel strongly about the need to expand functions,
prograrnmes, they will have to legislate for tax increases.
It should contribute to breaking the inflation ary spiral by
making possible wage restraint.
The family allowance scheme has been hailed as the major reform
in the Australian social welfare system since Federation.
It ' removes inequities in past schemes of assistance to families.
It also benefits 300,000 families and 800,000 children many
of whom are below the poverty line the majority of whom did
not benefit from the system of taxation rebates for children.
The only drawback to the scheme was the effect it had on the
self images of some members of the self-styled " party of social
reform." Our federalism reforms are returning power and responsibility to
the States. They will ensure that the States have access to a
flexible and expanding source of revenue and give local government
an assured source of revenue.
Despite the ritualistic complaints of some State Premiers about
the Commonwealth not giving them enough money, the States in
important areas got 16.4%~ more money from the Commonwealth this
year. I believe that most States have reason to be satisfied with the
monies they received. Certainly only those Premiers who(-have
promised more than they responsibily could, have in the , sensegrounds
for complaint.
The reforms to the federal system will make a significant
contribution to the maintenance and expansion of the citizens
ability to influence the decisions that affect his life.
Only if Governments are responsible will they be truly responsive
to their citizens.
The Government believes that there are many features of Australian
society which need reform.
The Government reciognises that some problems need the expenditure
of money. But unwise, unrestricted expenditures exacerbate many
of the problems they seek to solve as Professor Henderson has
so ably pointed out.
One of the Government's major objectives is to create institutions
which are responsible to individual needs, which will not stifle
but foster and develop individual initiative and creativity.
The Government is moving to increase-the effectiveness of
Parliament by establishing a Committee of the House,-of
Representatives to review expenditure. At times that may be
uncomfortable for governments. At times it may be Uncomfortable
for premiers but it is a role Government must fulfil. The
Go-vernmenit has introduced legislation for the establishment
of a Federal Ombudsman into the Parliament. The Government
is . committed to legislate for the protection of privacy.
The Government will act to ensure that citizens have adequate
frigh ' ts to appeal and recourse with respect to the decisions
of Government officers by bringing the Administrative
Appeals Tribimn4-Act into operation in the very near future.
The Government has introduced legislation to secure land rights
for Aboriginals.
I have asked for a report on access to information which will lead
to legislation.
The Government has extensively con sulted with groups concerned
with Government decisions. This is one of the hallmarks of our
approach.
We have for instance had unprecedented wide-ranging discussions
with both unions and business on the current state of the economy.
Unions and business have in turn given the Government their
perceptions of the problems and their solution.
There has been extensive consultation with the trade unions over
the P. J. T. secret ballots for unions and Nedibank.
The Government has modified its position on a number of matters
to take into account the perspectives and concerns of the trade
union movement and of other people.
Dogmatism and an unwillingness to move from fixed positions
has as its consequence bad government and decisions which may not
be entirely appropriate for the circumstances.
Only if a government is willing to consult fully and widely, and
accept reasonable advice can decisions emerge which are in the
best interests of the Australian people.
But a lack of dogmatism, a capacity to be flexible in order to
achieve the best result is not expediency. Taking all factors
into account in the interests of Australia is good Government.
Being undogmatic is not only a necessity for Government but for
powerful groups in the community.
These groups must recognise that the Government elected by the
Australian people is the Government. The Government will not
accept the viewpoints-of powerful pressure groups if these
viewpoints are unreasonable.
There can be no compromise on the best interests of the Australian
people. This is what is at issue in Medibank,
In the election the Government gave a commitment that Medibank
would be maintained and improved. That commitment stands
absolutely.
Our proposals will improve Medibank. Everyone will be included in
comprehensive and high quality medical and health care. Medical
and health cover for all Australians will remain compulsory. Those
on lowest income will make no payment under-the Medibank arrangement.
They are fully protected and fully covered. Medibank cover
includes bulk billing for medical costs. and high quality standard
ward treatment as under the Labor scheme.
Medibank offers and will offer the lowest cost quality health care
for-all Australians. To this point there is no difference in
what we propose and what Labor has enacted. ' This system however,
is certainly capable of improvement and this is the objective of our
proposals.
Medibank was and is a new expensive benefit. Because we want to avoid
the recognised abuse of the U. K. scheme it must not only be paid for
but in our view be seen to be paid for, in a way that will prevent
abuse, gain the willing co-operation of all providers of health
care and counter increasingly rising costs.
That is what we are doing. The the A. C. T. U. agree that
Medibank must be paid for. They have agreed that a special tax
or levy is required. The A. L. P. originally proposed a ceiling on
their levy just as we propose one now.
The difference with the A. C. T. U. is not whether or not Medibank
should be paid for, but how-it should be paid for.
Unlike the Government and the they want a levy with no
ceiling. Contrary to the considered judgement of the two Governments
they are attempting to force an utterly undesirable system on the
Australian people. Their proposal would do nothing for the
lowest income families who pay nothing in any case.
It would damage a large section of two-income families who would
pay twice. With no ceiling many people and many two income
families would pay more than Medibank costs. Because this is
a specific payment for a particular service, we do not believe
that people should pay more than the cost.
Very many of the A. C. T. U.' s own constituents and members would
pay more under the A. C. T. U.' s proposal than under ours. / 6
Our proposal provides choice. As a result of our very significant
modifications, lMedibank will now offer private insurance in
competition with health funds for intermediate and private ward
treatment.. This will enable you to have your own doctor in
hospital. It will also keep costs down. It will provide more
choice for the 70% of people now covered for intermediate
and private ward treatment.
The ACTU also proposed that Medibank offer intermediate and
private ward cover for an additional charge, but they would not
allow a fun. d to compete fully with it. They would not allow a
fund to offer more than hospital-only cover. This would remove
cost restraints. There are many doctors who want to maintain
a doctor/ patient relationship and many patients who also want
to retain that relationship. They have an incentive to moderate
fees so insurance costs would not go too high.
If they do, more and more people woul~ d move to standard ward
treatment only where salaried doctors, but not the doctor of
your choice, attend to patients. The A. L. P. proposals provided
a $ 60 million subsidy in 1975/ 76 for the chronically ill.
To lessen the taxpayers' burden we are dropping that figure to
million. The with little concern for the
chronically ill1 who must-include many people from their own
membership, demand that that subsidy be abolished altogether.
It is the chronically ill with long stays., in hospital who Qften
take out intermediate insurance to gain greater coverage in hospital.
The A. C. T. U. proposal is quite impracticable and shows great lack
of feeling for the chronically ill. The real difference is that
the A. C. T. U. will not accept a ceiling in the levy; nor will
they accept a subsidy for the chronically ill; nor will they-allow.
people to insure fully with private funds...,.
At this point, it is not possible t6 indicate the-precise costs
of intermediate and private-cover. -It was necessary to-wait for
state decisions about-bed charges. These have now been made and
the experts should have the figures for Medibank ( Private
Insurance) in two weeks. Our proppsals-' have guaranteed the
cooperation of the states and the profession.
The stat~ ks have agreed that joint Commonwealth and State
committe~ es should be established in each state to-oversee the
rising costs of hospitals. ' These joint committees will eliminate
waste and extravagance. Further-the medical profession has
agreed to establish what they call Peer Review Committees in
each state to oversee professional and hospital standards of
medical care. That also should also-counter costs. Under the.
proposal this would. not happen..
The government proposals are designed to achieve a fair distribution
of the-costs of medical and hospital charges across the community,
with those on hig~ her incomes being asked to meet themselves a
higher proportion of their medical costs.-Those who have
Medibank cover through payment of the flull levy are meeting an
average of 18% of the total cost of services. Those who take out
hospital cover Only, will be meeting an average of 14%. Those who
take out full private-cover will be meeting an average 70%~ of
their costs through their premiums.
In addition of course, taxpayers paying an additional $ 1120-
million to subsidise Medibank cover through their general tax
payments. Here the progressive tax system ensures that the
burden will fall progressively on those with higher incomes.
What then is this national strike all about? The A. C. T. U. or
rather * Mr Hawke, has so far made it plain that, despite two
days of discussion, he could give no assurance of industrial
peace until all the A. C. T. U. proposals were accepted. Lack
of capacity to control the left wing militants was indicated
by the damaging-strike in Victoria on the last day on which
we in fact negotiated with Mr Hawke. My g . overnment believes
that what we propose is very much in the interests of all
Australia, that it is fair and equitable and-that it should
not be changed further. The militant left is challenging the
elected government. 200 delegates meeting in Sydney decided
that 2 million should strike not really over Medibank, but
on-a determination of left wing militant power.
The militant left wing unions have beent-looking for an issue
and have been seeking confrontation. They chose this false issue
in a damaging and nationally destructive way. M" r Hawke and
those who were with him know that the A. C. T. U. has had more far
reaching discussions with their government than they ever had
before with any other government. He knows we have been
responsive to their views. It is'a national tragedy that in
this issue, hie has thrown in his lot with the militant left.
On this issue he is their voice. The case is tragic because
our proposals are just, equitable, and fair.,
It is some trade union leaders who have forced this issue in
order to break democratic government in Australia. In all
areas of policy, the government is actively and constructively
pursuing policies which we believe meet the real concerns of
Australia. This is also true of our Foreign Policy.
Yesterday Mr Hawke said he was waiting for someone to ring
him up.* It is Mr Hawke's organisation that has caused the
strike. He knows how to use a telephone. He could easily
have rung me up.
Let me conclude by making a few remarks on foreign policy matters.
In foreign policy we * do not accept the view that Australia should
withdraw into silence or that Australian independence means a
fearful abstention from every foreign policy issue, even where
our interests are involved. Our policies must not be merely
reactive to world events. Australia must not merely go along
with any of the major powers, regardless of Australia's own
interests.
What may have surprised people is that the views Australia is
expressing are at the forefront instead of lagging behind. The
catch-cry in the past has been why hasn't Australia got this
view. Because of assessments of the current situation that have
been made not only by Australia but by the NATO powers and
other authorities the government has not accepted the strategic
assessment prepared for the last administration. These
assessments did not go into many world questions in sufficient
depth to provide an accurate assessment of their impact on
Australia. .18
Wider questions are now being asked. More information is now
available; the assessments of the past are in our view, not
adequate for the formulation of defence policy today. They
do not represent the present assessments of this government,
which basically accepts the conclusion reached by all the
NATO powers. We have asked for the assessment to be
broadened and we have asked additional questions. At this
stage, my speech of 1 June represents the considered assessment
of the government.
Un both foreign and domestic policy, the government is seeking
actively constructive approaches to major issues . facing Australia.
The problems we face will not be solved easily or quickly.,.
But if we are prepared to deal with them realistically as a
people free from dogmatism there is no doubt that they can
be overcome. This is a time when we have to ask ourselves
fundamental questions about the kind of people we are and the
qualities we will need to -show in surviving and prospering in
an uncertain world. Australians have demonstrated the kind of
qualities needed in building this country. Realism, independence,
imagination, enterprise, concern for others, and a capacity to
work together. These qualities are needed now, more than ever.
We as a government will seek to foster, develop and encourage
the expression of'these qualities. Our policies will be directed
to that end.
THIS RAVSCPXTFT IS TiAKER ZFROM A TAPE RE* : DT'c-IRR I
1TOT rxESPONSIEL' 1 FPOR ALE:? RRR OR 02115S1-0> 3.
PRTLU7-T4TN1ISTE-. T'JR. FRPvSER ADTJ35E cTI-AL
PRESS CLTJB LUU'-C} EEN. 7 JULY. 1076.
ROB CHiLMamS: ( Australianr Press Services):
Mr. Prime Minister, earlier in your speech--you gave credkit to
Mr. Hawke a-nd the A. C. T. U. for the stand they took yesterday on
wage indexation. Are you also congratulating the Left,. _ inZ
militants in the A. C. T. U. for their support 0f wage indexatio~ n
or are you saying t-hat they only control _ 711. Hawke on Medibarnk?
MR. FRLASER: Quite obviously the alignirents, within the uni. on
movement are* different on different issues.
BRUCE IT1ERCHM-TT:
Prime Minister, commr-ents you have made recently both here and in,
China regarding the -site and-priority for a new and -permanent16
Parliament House seem to be ' at odds with some government departments
and authorities. For example, an ( unclear) exists sig,-, hting the
building on Capitol iland a joint Parli-amentary Comittlee hnas
already met four~ tizies to start compiling6 : rateriai -which will be
the basis of a designed brief, and the N'atuional Capital Development
Commission has said that a new Parliament wi;_ ll ta : e up to 15 Years
to build and design. is the Goverment's attitude to a new
Parliament House and what sort of time scale are you consideri-ng
MR. FRASER: The Government's attitude would be that there are
more important financial requirements b-ef ore Australia.
Press Club Luncheon,
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. AL AN REID: The Bulletin:
Mr. Prime Minister, if rolling strikes develop as is indicated
by the resolution of the how can you possibly deal
with that situation in a way that won't bring the con-munity into
discomfiture.
MR. FRASER: I think in that particular kind of contest to say
how you are going to deal with the situation would make those who
want to promote rolling strikes a good deal easier.
ANDREW POTTER: A. B. C.
Prime Minister, this morning Mr. Hawke issued you a-public
challenge, a challenge to debate on the efficiency of the Medibank
scheme. Will you accept that challenge to a debate, a debate that
Mr. Hawke says will show you to be an apologist for the doctors.
MR. FRASER: think what I have said today quite adequately
answers the question in relation to that.
BRIAN TOOHEY: ( The Australian Financial Review):
Mr. Prime Minister, would you please outline in some detail for
us the sorts of conclusions reached by the NATO powers which
differ so apparently from the conclusions as relates to our
strategic situation which was produced by the Offensive Committee,
senior Australian defence personnel last Ioveber?
MR. FRASER: Thank you very much Mr. Toohey for that question.,
At the NATO Ministerial Council Meeting on the 21 May, 1976 they
issued a communique which unfortunately wasn't printed I think in
Australia in any great depth and I could read it if I may, some
parts of it " accordingly Ministers felt that they must once again
voice their concern at the sustained growth in the Warsaw Pact
countries military power on land, at sea, and in the air, beyondlevels
apparently justified for defensive purposes. Should this
trend continue it could lead to an arms race of dangerous
dimensions." The NATO Offence Planning Co= ittee, which is the
meeting of Defence Ministers, the other meeting was the meeting
of Foreign Ministers, had this to say on 11 June, 1976
" Ministers were then given a briefing on recent increases in the
military strength of the Warsaw Pact and voiced their concern
that this continues to grow beyond levels justified for defensive
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER cont'd:
purposes. They devoted particular attention to the implications
of the increased emphasis on offensive capabilities if I could
read that again they devoted particular attention to the
implications of the increased emphasis on offensive capabilities in
the Pact forces, especially air forces.
The statement by the chairman of the Military Committee followed
on the current state of NATO defences emphasising once again
* the continuing change in the balance of forces -in favour of the
Warsaw Pact. Ministers took note with concern of, the ' substantial
advances in size and effectiveness achieved during recent years
-in every sector of Soviet military capabilities, confirming a clear
potential to use military force-directly or indirectly or the threat
Sof such force world wide
You might like me to read that last sentence again
Well: there are other authorities also but they are the two
authoratitive statements, public communiques, not private
communiques, public communiques, from the Warsaw Pact and I would
I said the Warsaw Pact the NATO Pact and I would think that
the essence of what they are saying is precisely the same as the
e. ssence of what I was saying in that speech of the 1st June.
JOHN LOMBARD: ( Melbourne Sun):
PrimeMinister, will you honour the commitment given by your
predecessor to grant Sir John Kerr a second term as Governor General.
MR. FRASER: That's a very interesting question. ( applause)
JOHNS LOMBARD: It was intended as a question that will be
considered in the proper manner-at the appropriate time
MR. FRASER: I have nothing to add to the answer
STEWART SIMPSON: ( Financial Review):
How do you reconcile Mr. Lynch's May 20 statement that the
Government would use its protection policies in an anti-inflationary
way, with the Government's increasing move for protection of major
industries, for instance the textile, steel and car industries,
and also may I ask, what is your own philosophy towards protection
of Australian industries, given your plea in your foreign policy
statement of June 1 that developed countries give greater access
to imports from the under-developed nations.
' IPress
Club Luncheon:
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER: Well I ' am afraid this is one of the areas where T.
must differ with the economic writers of the Financial Review.
There are always people who will believe on some hands that there
is too much protection and Others who will believe there is too
much free trade and in the conduct of the nation's business it is
clearly necessary to strike a proper balance. I believe that the
Government is striking that proper balance. The Financial Review
has a perfect right to differ. They would wish. to have a greater
degree of free trade and that would resulL; in the present..
circumstances as we believe in a much greater level of unemployment.
We're not prepared to see that happen.
MAX HA'WK INS: ( Brisbane Telegraph.):
In view of the continuing speculation, even since last Sunday,
that you might re-shuffle your Ministry at some time, and apart
from last Sunday's change, are you dissatisfied with your Ministxy?
MR. FRASER: I am' very satisfied with the way the Ministry worlzs
aS a Ministry, individually and as a whole.
AAI FITZGERALD: ( 2CA):
Prime Minister in your recent statement about foreign policy you
have implicitly read a requiem over detente. You have suggested
that it is a failure, yet the principle articulator or architect
of detente in recent years, Henry Kissinger, has suggested its a
continuing process, that one shouldn't expect it to be other than a
means to an ultimate end. What is the alternative then, in your
opinion, to detente. Do you suggest that only strategic and
military alliances are the answer to what you see as a one-way street.
MR. FRASER: It's the extension of the meaning put to the word
detente that the Government objects to. The use of that word
had led many people to believe that all problems were solved
between the United States and the Soviet Union and that no problems
remained. I think on nearly every occasion in which there has been
criticism of detente it has always been repeated that we support.
strongly the fabric of negotiation just as we support strongly the
development further of bi-lateral relations between the . Soviet Union
and ourselves and many, many other countries. But the view that may
people have of detente, that because of it, and how the word got;
this sort of mystical understanding or meaning is difficult to k: now
perhaps, that therefore there were no problems left, is a false view
Press Club Luncheon:
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER: and lulled people into a position of complacency.
Its worth noting I think that as late as the 25 June, 1976
Dr. Kissinger himself expressed a view which again expressed scme
concerns, While not mentioning the word detente, he has clearly
made it plain that he believes it necessary to maintain one's
vigilance and maintain one's strength and it was the use of the
word detente which tempted people to think that that wasn't
necessary, that has been so misleading and which my Government has
wished to dispel. I would like to read what Dr. Kissinger said
on the 25 June if I may, this year " Beneath the nuclear
umbrella, the temptation to probe with regional forces or proxy
wars increases. The steady growth of Soviet conventional
military and naval. power and its expanding global reach cannot
be ignored. In the nuclear age, once a change from the geopolitical
balance has become unambiguous it's too late to do anything
about it. However great our strength, it will prove empty
if we do not resist seemingly marginal changes whose cumulative
impact can undermine our security.
Again, I can't think of a better way of expressing that view.
The United States is of course one of the NATO powers and was
obviously a party to the other remarks that I read out earlier.
ALAN BARNES: " The Age":
Prime Minister in your policy speech of last November, and I quote
from page seven, you gave a firm undertaking " in the next budget
we will make the first major move towards adoption of the stock
valuation provisions of the Mathews Report. We will introduce
the report in full over three years." In the interests of the
businessmen who saw you last week, is that firm promise still
operative?
MR. FRASER: I think you might well be interested to know, and
the Treasurer has made an announcement about this that on Thursday
of this week he and I and other senior Ministers will be present
at a meeting with Taxation and Treasury technical officials and
technical experts from the accountancy professions, business, the
outside world, will be discussing the implications of the Mathews
proposals for companies. Now this particular meeting has been
arranged and it might also be of interest to note, which many of
you will not know, that Professor Nathews has come back to
participate in these discussions.
Press Club Luncheon: 6.
7/ 7/ 1976
ALAN BARNES:
Mr. Lynch said that was a technical meeting Prime Minister, he
said it was not a policy matter. I was after a policy undertaking
from you Sir.
MR. FRASER: Well I think that what's been said in relation
to those discussions would obviously not be taking place.
The discussions. wouldn't if we were not serious.
LAURIE O. XES: ( Melbourne
Prime iIinister, do you regard the Soviet Union as posing a
military threat to Australia?
MR. FRASER: I have nothing to say about the Soviet Union
beyond that which I have already said publicly.
PAUL KELLY: ( national Times)
Prime Minister, , in your answer to Mr. Hawkins you said you were
quite happy with your present Ministry. Can you tell us just why
you are happy having as Defence Minister a man who can say that
Australia faces a direct military threat from the Soviet Union and
then changeshis mind three hours later.
MR. FRASER: I am going to adopt one of the practices of one of
my predecessors, a practice that he did not always follow, but
one which he espoused when it was to his advantage to follow.
Its one that I will follow at all occasions, and not comment on
individual Ministers.
IAN MATHEWS:
Prime Minister in the latter part of your speech you mentioned
foreign policy matter's and you said that Australia must not merely
be reactive and that Australia is at the forefront not lagging
behind. In this context what is your Government's intention with
regard to the recognition of the Transkei when it becomes
independent of South Africa in October this year?
MR. FRASER: When I was saying the Government was in the forefront
and not lagging behind I was referring to the international
interpretations as I thin the context should make clear of changes
in the world balance of power in those particular matters. On the
question that you in fact mentioned quite obviously there would
need to be discussions and will be with Andrew Peacock and
Departments appropriately concerned, and also our views on apartheid
7.
Press Club Luncheon:
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRAS'R cont'd:
and majority rule in both Rhodesia and South Africa have been
made very clear and ve* aZr yla inlyknown on a number of occasions.
TONY WALKER:
Prime Minister, on the Bland appointment Sir Henry Bland as
chairman of the do you think it is the A. B. C. bureaucrats
who should be nervous about the appointment or the A. B. C.
' performers who should be feeling some concern.
MR. FRASER: I wouldn't have thought anyone should be feeling
some concern because Sir Henry Bland is the most vigorous advocate
and defender of anyone who does his job well. ( applause)
KEM RAtDALL: ( Financial Times):.
I would like to go back to some of your remarks on business and
the ones that you made in your address on the processes of
consultation Which you had. You did suggest at one stage that
you saw quite strong objections to the process of 200 union
delegates this week making decisions for 2 million union members.
Several of your Ministers have been enjoining the business community
to stop the fragmented approach that they take to consultation
with government and have formed something rather like the ACTU
a blanket voice for business interests in this country.
Do you think its really do you support those efforts, do you
think it is really practical that there can be for such a diverse
varied private sector as we have, that there can be a unified voice
of those people and if you do support those efforts broadly is
there really an essential-difference in principle between the type
of responsibility, advocacy, which the A. C. T. U. claims and the type
of advocacy which an organisation that would claim?
MR. FRASER: Well I think that there is a significant difference
in quality about the different things that you are talking about.
I think it will be difficult to get business to speak with one
voice in its consultations with government because businesses have
many differing interests at times and this sometimes comes out
quite clearly in the economic consultations that we have. There are
on the other hand some matters in which all business has overriding
and common interests and in many cases its the common interest
that I believe ought to be shared with their own employees but
whether or not they can form one voice in relation to matters
concerning consultation, that's one thing, but a body that uses its
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER cont'd:
one voice to suggest that 2 million people should go on strike is,
in my view, just as irresponsible as business if they one voice and
suggested that all businesses should establish a lock out and I'd
condemn that with equal vigour or. . greater vigour, so its a-quality
of the act. Being able to consult with one group i 1 relation to
the problems of that group is certainly useful. It's also worth
noting that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is not a
completely or the Trade Union Movment is not completely
monolithic. While the ACTU does represent most, it doesn't
represent quite all.
BRUCE JUDDERY: ( Canberra Times):
Sir, you expressed your ' interest in access to information
government information, and you initiated an inquiry into this.
Will you take the lead, Sir, by making available to the public, and
the Public Service, the reports of the Bland Committee, of the
Administrative Review Committee, so that people will be able to
judge on what criteria various administrative rank has been made
inthe Public Service area and Sir, will you release the individual
departmental ceilings on staff over the next year which you have perhapz
approved on the advice of the i. nter-depart-mental co-r-ittee and tn-us
relieve the serious damage to morale in many parts of the Public
Service following from the decisions you have announced.
MR. FRASER: Well I don't really believe there is that damage to
morale in the Public Service because when the first staff ceilings
were announced many people said, you won't possibly get to those
figures by the 30 June without retrenchments and sackings and all
the rest. The figures were in fact reached with the exceptions
of one or two departments about-two months before that time and by
the 30 June the figure was significantly below the figure that had
in fact been set and by voluntary action resignation and
retirement, and I would have thought that the present staff ceilings
in total are also reasonably based. The Public service Board and
Ministers and statutory authorities have been asked in the firmest
possible terms to advise me if there any particular difficulty in
reaching ceilings, any indication of a decision that would cause
personal hardship in matters of that kind and one or two Ministers
in relation to one or two areas have done that. At one point the
National Capital Development Committee did that if one remembers
back a little while. So I don't think that in view of that total
Press Club Luncheon:
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER cort'd:
situation there is any need for the concern in the public service
in relation to these particular matters.
So far as the Bland Reports are concerned they were written for
the Government, they were written as Sir Henry Bland obviously was
a past public servant of great distinction, in a manner that was
appropriate for the internal consumption of the government. Many
of the recommendations wereencompassed and over-taken by the
decisions that were made and announced in IMay of last year and any
administrative changes that flow from one department to another as
one particular time but I.-must . rgre t that on this occasion those
particular reports were not written for public consumption and it
w ould be most unfair for many people if they were in fact published.
PETER BOWERS: ( Sydney Morning Herald):
Prime Minister, you have repeatedly expressed your concern . at
the power imbalance in the Indian Ocean in favour of the Soviet
Union's surface naval fleet. When you see President Ford in
Washington later this month, will you be asking him to correct that
imbalance. And switching to the Pacific on the same subject, is it
your understanding that the United States cannot guarantee the
security of the Pacific sea lanes west of Hawaii?
MR. FRASER: I think it would be quite inappropriate to indicate
in advance what matters I was going to discuss with President Ford
as a result of his invitation to me and so far as the latter matter
is concerned I would obviously be in a much better position to
comment if it were appropriate to comment after I had been further
briefed by the Secretary of State for Defence in Washington.
RUSSETLL S T. TN
Prime Minister, does it concern you that Australia's top military
experts gave inadequate advice to the previous government on the
strategic forecast for our region and besides asking for wider
terms of reference to be implemented, will you be taking other
steps to rectify that this inadequate information doesn't occur again?
MR. FRASER: I think in many of these instances its a question of
the questions that governments put. So far as the future is
concerned, well that unfolds by itself.
L.
Press Club Luncheon:
7/ 7/ 1976
ANDREW POTTIER:
Prime Minister, in view of the governments raising $ 300 million
around $ 500 million from the IM. F, can you now scotch speculation
that the Government is preparing to devalue?
1IR. FRASER: I think that the Treasurer's statement in relation
to that particular matter made it quite plain that it was taking
advantage of short-tern shifts and changes and a right that ,. we
have in relation to the DIF, not related to the long-term situation
at all. I have nothing to add to my own past stateiments and the
Treasurer's past statements and Mr. Anthony's past statements on
these particular subjects, which stand.
BILL D'ARCY:
Prime Minister, in relation to your June 1 speech. To what degree
was that assessment made on deeply held personal beliefs?
In rejecting the advice of the defence chiefs, was it only made
on information that had been provided by NATO or was the
government privy to other information which suggested that they
were wrong? Is this government only going to accept advice that
it wants to hear? And finally Sir, will you give consideration
to using the considerable skills of Mr. Killen in another area?
MR. FRASER: This government will use all the advice available
to. it. It will make objective examination of the advice and the
information contained in it and it will come to an objective
conclusion as a result. It will not be bound in its conclusions
by ideologies which are false and misleading and one of the
assumptions in the question I think, in relation to rejection and
all the rest, carries with it animputation that really ought not
to be there and that's not, I think, the questioners fault,
it was in relation to the circumstances maybe in which past
Governments night well have put questions. But certainly whatever
might have been a deep conviction of mine, whether something was
or not, as part of a government, its the government's view that is
of importance and also having taken into account the full advice
of people from the appropriate departments.
In case anyone believes there was an interesting story in one accourabout
three people who had written that speech. I'm afraid I have
got to say, and I hope I don't offend the author, that it was a
somewhat fantastic story about the way the particular speech was
compiled, as a number of people here in the room at the moment know.
Press C2ub LZuncheon: 11.
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER cent'd:
It was one that was written through many drafts and consultation
with Foreign Affairs, Andrew Peacock, Defence and my own Department,
with all proper consultation with the people involved and it was on
the basis of that total advice that the speech was made as it was
and accepted by the Cabinet as it was.
MIKE S2ECARTI ( Sydney Morning Herald):
The Premiers, Mr. Hawke, and many economists all agree that your
economic policies will lead to increased unemployment. , Do you
accept that and how will that if ycu do how will that help
fight inflation?
MR. FRASER: There are many other economists who take a
different view and economists I suppose are like lawyers, it
depends where you are trained or what your views are or you can get
people on both sides of the fence. So just because economists have
one particular'view, doesn't necessarily mean. to say that that
particular view is right. Somehow people have to make up their
own minds, having taken again what facts are available to them
into account. The sort of view that I don't think it would
be unfair to him that Mr. Hawke would have been putting, is that
the Government ought to spend more money to pump prime the economy
in the Keynzian sense. Now it is the Government's view, and a
very . strong view that when you have high inflation, high interest
rates, coupled with high employment, you can't buy your way out of
trouble by spending more of other people's money and that there has
to be a transfer of resources to the private sector in a way which
will engender private sector growth. Now if you had a situation
of high unemployment, coupled with very low inflation or low
inflation and low interest rates, then the sort of solution proposed
by Mr. Hawke, the sort of solutions tried and which failed by the
past government, might well have been the appropriate ones, but
they're not the circumstances in which we live and if we try to
spend our way out of trouble I believe Australia is only going to
land in more trouble. And that's not only based on the experience
of Australia over the last two or three years, it is also based on
the experience of other O. E. C. D. countries and the way in which they
in fact have started to improve their economies.
I think there is one, in terms of deficit financing, there is one
factor that is not widely understood. In the United States, for
example, if their administration wishes to deficit finance they are
not allowed to go to their Reserve Bank and print money as people
L._
Press Club Luncheon: 12.
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER:
are allowed to under the various financing arrangements in
Australia and many other countries. In the United States there
is a positive requirement that under those circumstances the
government must go on the open market and compete for the ' funds
that it wants and that ( slight pause in tape)
I believe that potentially the statement that cane from China
in. relation to these matters carried very great signifiance,
not only for South East Asia but for other areas.
MAX DAWKINS:
Prime Ninister could I just ask you a further question.
Yesterday the Papua New Guinea Defence Foreign ILinister, etc.
Sir Naori Kiki was here and he is reported to have said that
* Papua New Guinea expected not simply a sea border between the
tip of Cape York and their country but an. air and apparently
sea line border." .' hen do you expect this matter to be settled?
MR. FRASER: I can't give a time scale on that because I haven't
had a report over the last few days about the processes of
negotiations but it is my understanding that they have been moving
forward reasonably well and with a reasonable degree of understanding
on both sides, but the broad principles of what both countries
would wish to have I think are understood and I think our
negotiators are making progress.
PAUL KELLY ( National Times):
Prime Minister, you talk about returning power and responsibility
to the states. Can you tell us whether you believe there is a
valid argument that the states should accept an increase in direct
financial responsibility for the tertiary education sector?
FRASER: Its a question of the responsibilities that
they have and the capacity to meet the responsibilities in relation
to their financial resources. As part of the federalism policy
we will'later this year be examining those areas which the
Commonwealth now finances which we might regard as being
appropriate for absorption in the general purpose grants thus
increasing those general purpose grants and the base which goes
to the states so that they could carry out the responsibilities
for themselves. That's the general proposition. I don't want
anyone to assume from that that the Conmmonwealth will cease to
. L x . LU . LjL; UiCtLUt U 13 .
7/ 7/ 1976
MR. FRASER CC'T'd:
be actively interested and involved in financing the tertiary
sector. It obviously will be.
MR. HAWK INS:
Prime Minister, we are running cut of time and I think if we
could close it, we have three or four more questions. If I could
just call Laurie Oakes first and there's about three others.
, LAURIE OAKES:
Prime Minister, in the interests of reducing waste and-extravagance
I would like to ask two ouestions at once. The fi'st one is,
if you are not worried about giving offe0se to people, why wont you
tell us if the Soviet Union in, your view is a military threat
to Australia and my second question is this the Remunerations
STribunal has recommended increases in salaries and allowances for
Ministers. Has Cabinet considered this. If so,
with what result. If not, when will Cabinet consider the question,
and what's your personal. view? Do you thin. k that in the present
climate you should get a pay rise?
MR. FR. SER: I had thought Oakes that you could read
-I've said that I have said on June 1 that I'd stated attitude to
the Soviet Union, that I had nothing to add to it, and I thought
that's plain enough. No. It's on the record. And it was
quite a long speech And secondly, in relation to the Tribunal,
that has not been considered by Cabinet. I don't have personal
views in relation to these matters. I have Government views when
the Government has formed its views.
ALANT FITZGERALD: ( 2CA):
Prime Minister, there seems to be some doubt about your
Government's intentions to implement its promise to introduce
self government to the Australian Capital Territory. After all,
this year you are visiting the United States where part of the
justification for that revolution was the cry of no taxation
without representation' Here in Canberra residents have been
subjected to some fairly savage imposts and rate increases at
a local level in the implementation of a national strategy.
Now we have no control, our local government has no executive
responsibilities. Do you intend to grant some executive
responsiblity in local government in the A. C. T. or are we to
continue with a situation where the national government can impose
7/ 7/ 1976
ALAN FiTZGERALD cont'd:
its taxes without due process of representation?
MR. FRASER: There are moves that are being undertaken which I
think you would be well aware of, examining these particular
matters and there is however one difference between the situation
in relation to the A. C. T. and the Northern Territory for example
which I think has to be recognise( The fact that the national
capital is in the A. C. T. does alter the relationship to the form
of local government that develops in the A. C. T. compared to that
to the Northern Territory and I think that that wol. d have to be
recognised but the Minister is pursuing this matteo, there are
examinations under way and moves will be made. I've got no doubt
that this one of the areas where those actively involved in pressing,
such as yourself, would want us to hasten quicker, well I take note
of what you say.
MICHAEL FOSTER' ( Canberra Times):
You define participants in talks up coming as being quite definite
and others as being from the outside world. Would you mind
defining so that those of us who are in or out, or vica versa,
would you mind defining the outside world.
MR. FRASER: Look, could you repeat the question please?
MICHAEL FOSTER: I would have thought you could hear sir.
In an earlier answer you defined participants in particular talks
which are up ccr. ig as being quite specific and otherwise from the
outside world. So that those of us who are in or out know exactly
where we are at, could you define the outside world?
MR. FRASER: Look I am still I'm afraid at a loss. I apparently
don't understand and maybe I am at one with Mr. Oakes in relation
to these matters his fault is in one direction, my fault is in
another If you would like to have a go at rephrasing the question
I'll see if I can understand it properly so I can answer it.
MICHAEL FOSTER: I decline Sir, and accept your apology.
MAX HAh,' KI'. TS: Well we have got three questions. I couldn't see
under the lights I'm sorry, but you know you should advise me
about these things there's a questio under the lights, I still
can't see who wants it.
7/ 7/ 1976
QUESTION Primne iMinister you said today that you'd like perhaps you
invited Mr. Hlawke. to get on. the telephone and have a chat to you.
Are you suggesting that you mi. ght be willing to rmake some
compromise before next Nonday and do you accept that if a
compromise is worked out, I mean, that it has to be compromise
not just a solution? And to add to that question I would just
like to quote from a statement issued by you yesterday in which
you say. " If Mr. Hawke had been able to begotiate and had had
the power to say to us that if a change is made and. there will
be no strike then the discussions with him could have been real.
You do seem to be suggesting there that if the A. C. T. U. had been
willing Ito give a'bit, you would have been willing to give a bit too.
MR. FRASER: Well I don't believe that the proposals we have,
and. I think I made this plain earlier today, can in fact be
changed, but there is never any harm in talking with people.
It is Mr. Hawke's organisation that has called the strike. It
has been reported that he was sitting at the end of a telephone
waiting for a call but you know, he is capable of lifting up
the receiver as well, and dialling, if that's what he wants, and
I'd be delighted to talk with him at any time. I believe that
the kind of change that we have in fact made is the most
significant change that we could make and probably the only real
one of substance and that is to allow Medibank to insure and
compete with the private funds for intermediate and private ward
treatment. One of the problems was in the discussions that it
was said time and time again that it just wasn't possible to
give any guarantee of what the outcome would be unless the totality
of the ACTU demands were met and-the Government believed that that
. would not be in the best interests of health care for Australians
and that it ought not to be a demand that should be acceded to.
QUESTIONER: If I might take one more point Mr. Prime Minister,
what did you mean then in that statement yesterday when you said
that if-a change, and I presumre you mean a change to Medibank,
is made, if Mr. Hawke had been able to have the power to say to us,
that if a change is ad ( ralf. ILCth e ndoiissceu) ssion would have been real.
MR. FRASER: Oh there are very great differences in a situation
in which there are initial discussions an'd discussions under
threat of a national strike.
Press Club Luncheon: 16.
7/ 7/ 1976
MAX HTAWKINS: Finally Rob Chalmers and then Brian Toohey.
ROB CHkAT-LERS: ( Australi1 Press Services):
Sir, do you agree with the Melbourne Agc that one of the more
disastrous aspects of your visit to Peking is that you and
apparently your Foreign Affairs advisers assumed that the break
between Moscow and Peking was permanent. Did you consider
the possibility of a rapprochement between Moscow and Peking,
perhaps following the death of Mao or perhaps following a. change
in style in the Kremlin. If the axis should be re-established
where would we now stand?
IR. FRASER: Well of course the question is based on an
assumption, and I think it is based on an article that-might
have been written while we were still4-n Peking if I'm wrong
about that I'd apologise to its author but while we were still
there, obviously the people who were writing were not having the
full background of what had in fact taken place, what was taking
place and permanency in international relations is something that
is most unlikely. Permanency in any particular relationship was
not assumed in any sense, shape or form, but it is worth noting
T think that there have been certain drives about the policy of
some major powers and the Soviet Union included, that are historical,
that have continued for a long time, that haven't vastly changed
when the regime radically changed somewhat earlier this century.
RAli TOOHEI ( Fi--ncial Review):
Mr. ' raser, in answer to one question on tariff protection policy
you said that you differed from the point of view of some economic
commentators and you had to strike a balance and in this case you
struck the balance that unemployment might occur if tariffs
were to cut off quotas were further lifted, even though you
tacitly admitted that the protection increases priced this
( question a little unclear).
In an answer to another question you said that the Keynzian
approach of increasing government spending in an attempt to get
around unemployment was no good because it really led to increased
inflation. Well if you didn't want to increase government
spending because of increased inflation, even though your Treasurer
said in a major statement to Parliament that cuts in government
spending at least in the short term increased unemp: Loyment. . hy
do you have this different stand, given that your advisers will
be saying that in the long term reductions in tariff, just as
Press Club Luncheon: 17.
reductfions inñ gov ernm2cnt sr'sndinL nee~ d not lead to irncreased
unemployment? Whyv the di ffeorent emp:-qhasis on un emnpl intv. versus
inflation b-etix-ee n the tw,. o elem-rents?
MR. F. RP. SFJ?:-TheyT are different questions about diflocrent
thing& and I think you are trying, to draw a conclusion that they
wzere being treated Ln different tiescales. I do not believe
they ere being treated in different tim-e scales and if d id
some studies of cor,~ jaarat ivre bLesis of os and comnparatuive wage
rat~ es betweern Austratlia and her maljoir trading partneds I thninrk
you might'U well be suirprised at thie results,
MA! IX Hk.' XTUS: And finially La-, urie Pfowe, x> Ill. sorr Lauri e I
Ididn't Eet youzr messae stick.
I appreciate the derr-ie-r thrusL DID'. Chai. mqn. I would. like to
add as ani addendum to a question a: skRed earlier by a. ne-wspaper
cousin Mr. Op,*'! es aboutll whether Jkt. Lssia posed a threat to Australia.
Your reply I believ-, e Prime ~ Insecwas that your posi'tion
oh' that was What you hdstuate:, d publicly-, and I ask this -whether
the leaked transcripts of the d~ suseson. the -first day with
Premier Hua was -n tcact a public position by you, with regiards to
Ru s s a.
M* R. FRZASr-R: I've -ot' no intention I'm afraid of cormmenting
on. leaked. transcri pts, tL-heir accursacy or ixiaccuracy. The
published stat eme-nts I w., as talkingu about were the statements
on June