F77/ 148EMBARGO: AGAINST DELIVERY
PRWME MIN ISTER
FOR PRESS 13 July 1977
ADDRESS TO THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
It is very good to be able to address the National Press Club
again. A July appearance at the Canberra coliseum has become an
established a very productive part of my schedule.
When I addressed this Club in July 1975, 1 outlined a basic
philosophy for putting Australia back on the road to recovery,
and for restoring individual liberties and incentives eroded
by the public sector's increase in power and size. The Government
was elected later that year on a far ranging programme of responsible
Liberal reform which sought to put this philosophy into practice.
In my speech here in July last year, I summarised the principal
objectives of that programme they were: cutting government
spending and freeing resources to individuals and business
enterprise; providing incentives to investment; making governments
more responsible; protecting individuals against unlegislated
taxes on their earnings; helping those in need; and protecting
individual rights against an increasingly powerful and intrusive
state. The half-way mark has now been reached in the first term of this
government. This period has been one of real achievement in respect
of each one of the objectives to which I referred last year.
Government spending has been brought under control, and the
spiralling growth of the Commonwealth Public Service has been
reversed. This has helped to restore confidence and impetus
in the private sector and has played a major role in our
unremitting fight against inflation.
Inflation has hurt us all and as the. Henderson Report revealedit
hurt none so hard as the poor and the least privileged.
Australians recognise that getting inflation firmly under control
is vital to our future and that to do this, government spending
must be tightly controlled. Our anti-inflationary policies have
been notably successful. The C. P. I. figures issued in April
showed that the annual inflation rate, after adjusting for
Medibank, had fallen in just one year from almost 17% to
we will reduce inflation further. ./ 2
To hasten recovery and revive the private sector, we introduced
a generous investment allowance and other tax reforms. Changes
in the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the
states which will make Governments responsible for
their actions, are well advanced.
For individuals our promise of tax indexation has been introducednot
in three years but in one. This is an historic reform,
it caused a rise in everyone's paypacket last week, and will
ensure that any government which wishes to increase income tax
must legislate to do so. Even Labor has now belatedly endorsed
this reform.
In social welfare, assistance has been directed to those most
in need and has increased choice and individual self respect.
There is no better example of this than the Family Allowance Sche*
The indexation of pensions is also a significant advance, and
another-* of our reforms which Labor has now endorsed in principle.
We have vigorously protected individual rights against the
bureaucracy. Some of the things we have done in just 18
include: appointing the first Ombudsman; bringing in legislation
to establish a Human Rights Commission; commencing the work of
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and expanding its
jursidiction; giving every citizen the right to require that reasons
be given for any administrative decision which adversely affects
him; introducing legislation defining the powers of the
Commonwealth Police in criminal investigation; and, rationalising and
improving the delivery of legal aid.
We are moving to introduce Freedom of Information legislation
and to confer greater political rights on the citizens of the
A. C. T. and the Northern Territory.
This record of reform and I pay due tribute to the
Attorney-General, Bob Ellicott singles out this government as the
greatest Liberal reforming government since Federation.
These reforms have been introduced without fuss, without controversy
and have largely gone unnoticed. Yet I believe they constitute
an historic achievement of which this government can rightly
feel proud.
In industrial relations we have moved to further protect rights
of individual unionists, notably by the introduction of secret
postal ballots.
Lastly, and this is not an unimportant consideration, we have
established an efficient and better coordinated government. But
there are still significant problems in our society. There is
still much to be done. / 3
Unemployment is of the greatest concern. The present level of
unemployment is unacceptably high. Unemployment, for those who
genuinely desire employment, is a dispiriting and wasteful
experience which undermines self-respect. The Government has
implemented a number of innovative schemes to alleviate
unemployment, and the results have been encouraging. The
Community Youth Support Scheme imparts basic skills to some
15,000 young people under 118 separate programmes.
The National Employment Training Scheme ( or NEAT) has been
expanded to cover 18,000 people three quarters of whom have
found a job at the end of their term under the Scheme.
NEAT's special youth employment training programme is particularly
successful. It subsidises employers to hire young people who
have been unemployed for a lengthy period of time. Over 70% of
them retain their job when the subsidy expires.
The " CRAFT" scheme for promoting apprenticeships
has also been a notable success. It now covers over 35,000
apprentices and since its introduction, there has been a rise of
more than six percent in apprenticeships throughout Australia.
Relocation assistance is paid to those who have to move to
another area to obtain employment. The total cost of all these
schemes in the year just ended was over $ 83 million.
The Government has also commissioned the Norgard Inquiry into the
Commonwealth Employment Service, to see whether more effective
methods of serving the unemployed might be devised.
The Report is now before the Government. It recommends a
major overhaul of the C. E. S. and suggests many ways in which
the operations of the C. E. S. might be improved. Among the major
recommendations are: that the management of C. E. S. should
be vested in a statutory authority solely concerned with
employment and manpower matters; that other activities such as
administering unemployment benefits and collecting labor
market statistics should be conducted by the
Department of Social Security and the Bureau of Statistics
respectively; and the C. E. S. operations should be reorganised.
Mr Norgard has recommended that an immediate start should be
made on the introduction of computer assisted job matching;
that the placement function should be reorganised into a three tier
service in recognition that not all job seekers require the same
level of service a self-help service, a counselling service
for those with labour market problems, and specialised help for'
those who are significantly disadvanta~ ed; that counselling
and guidance services should be greatly improved to assist
special groups of job seekers who could be expected to find
job seeking difficult.
The Government has already agreed to a significant upgrading
of the staff and facilities of C. E. S. offices on the basis of
Mr Norgard's preliminary findings, and we shall be considering
shortly what further action is required in the light of
the findings of Mr Norgard. 4
Aprime cause of the unemployment problem, is, quite bluntly,
w age awards which have priced many people out of the labour
market. We have not yet recovered from the wages explosion
of 1974 when real male award wages rose by 17%. In money
terms they increased from $ 77 to $ 104. Over the same period
real female award wages rose in money terms from
$ 63 to $ 90. This may be compared to an average annual
increase over the previous decade of under three percent in real awar
As profits and investment declined, employers sought further
means to minimise their work force. It is a cruel irony that
the 1974 awards which appeared so favourable to the Australian worker
have in fact provded to be the harshest weapon ainst him.
Because of the high price of labour, employers-awrreluctant
to take on more employees even when their sales increase.
They prefer to purchase more labour saving machines. Excessive
wages impeded economic recovery and reduce employment opportunities.
This situation calls for a responsible attitude towards wage
increases by union leaders. In the present economic environment J
one man's wage increase is another man's job.
Another cause of unemployment in far too many cases is industrial
disputes. In our major export based mineral projects, stoppages
are having a most damaging effect. The industrial record
in the Pilbara is appalling, an average of over one strike a
week. The dispute between the Seaman's Union and the Utah Company
in Queensland has led directly to the suspension of the
$ 250 million development at Norwich Park.
The management company has had to postpone conclusion of subcontracts
and employment has been seriously affected. The same
could happen to other major developments which should play an
important role in our economic recovery.
It has been estimated that the use of Australian-manned ships
would increase the cost of freight for coal by 60-80%. The
demands of the Seamans Union clearly have grave implications
for the coal and iron ore industries which must maintain
competitive ' Drices to secure and maintain overseas sales contracts.
Mr. Nixon and Mr. Street will be reporting to me on these matters
I have asked the Premiers of New South Wales, Queensland,
and Western Australia to meet with me. We will be meeting
on Friday. Labor, as we all remember, was in government less
than two years ago. How did they see the morality of uranium
mining and export when they were responsible for their actions?
on 31 October 1974, the Minister for Minerals and Energy said
that Australia " will ensure that our major trading partners
Japan, Italy, and West Germany obtain an equitable share of
the uranium we have for export." In October 1975, the then Minister
for Aboriginal Affairs stated in the House " International
assurances have been provided by Ministers that Australia will
meet the uranium requirements of our major trading partners which
could amount to about 100,000 tons of uranium". In March 1975,
the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Cairns, and the Minister for
Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, visited Iran. At the end of their
visit, they issued a joint statement with Iran that " Iran would
be given access to supplies of uranium from Australia under
favourable conditions".
In the Parliament on 2 June 1975 the present Shadow Minister for
Minerals and Energy, Mr. Keating, said " Japan is interested in
moving into nuclear power and enriched fuel. We are prepared
to give the Japanese any amount of fuel that they need, enriched
if we can do so". " The only thing is that we would like to do
the enriching. Instead of sending just yellowcake at bargainbasement
prices, we want to get the profit that comes from
enrichment." At Terrigal in June 1975, the ALP Conference
resolved to develop Australia's uranium resources, and build a
uranium enrichment plant. At that Conference, a motion was
proposed that there should be a twelve month ban on uranium
development, while a full scale Government inquiry into the
problems of nuclear technology was conducted. Mr. Whitlam
flatly opposed the motion, because, he said, it would jeopardise
Australia's credibility and delay the negotiations his government
was conducting for the sale of uranium to Europe. He also said
that Australia had done all it could to see other countries
adhered to the IAEA safeguards.
Ultimately, only four Victorians supported the call for a
moratorium. Where was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then
hiding his moral scruples under his We all know where
one of the advocates of the indefinite moratorium the Premier
of South Australia was. He was promoting the establishment of
a uranium enrichment plant in South Australia. The only problem
/ he
-6
he could see with respect to uranium was whether South Australia's
water supply was adequate for the enrichment plant. One final
fact on November 28, 1975, Mr. Whitlam and representatives of
Peko Mines and the Electrolytic Zinc Company signed a memorandum
of understanding between the Government and the companies for the
development and mining of uranium ore deposits in the Ranger area
in the Northern Territory, and for the production and sale of
uranium concentrate from that ore.
M~ r. Ehitlam's press statement announcing the umemorandum, said:
" The Government believes that the Ranger project can be a major
export earner and it will be working with Peko and EZ to bring
this-fully Australian mining project to fruition." Those who
speak about the morality of the decision should ask themselves:
T~ what morality is there ia resolution that takes the unprecedented
step of declaring that any contracts entered into by-* anon-Labor-
Government would be repudiated? What morality is.-there in a
resolution that pays absolutely no heed to the ' world's need for
energy resources? What morality is there in a resolution that
does not look at its consequences for-other nations? What morality
is there in a resolution that ignores that one of its consequences
would be an accelerated move to the plutonilm economy? What morality
is there in a resolution on which the ALP's' leading figures refuse*
to even speak despite their reservations?
There was no reference in the Labor Party resolution to the energy
needs of other nations. Mr. Dunstan, outside the Conference,
summed up Japan's needs very well. Japan, he said " does not have
an alternative energy technology to the development of nuclear power"
But he showed no sign of concern about this no interest in the
impact of this on the Japanese people and Japanese society. He
only referred to the grave economic consequences to Australia of
refusing to sell uranium to Japan.
Our decision, however, does not only affect us. It affects other@
nations. Its impact on them must be considered. It affects the
nations of Europe who are short of energy supplies. It affects
the future development of the third world. Moral issues deserve
debate, positions need to be put, their consequences assessed.
Mr. Hawke made some pertinent observations on this issue. He said
he was not convinced as a matter of intellectual integrity of the
arguments for leaving uranium in the ground. He said a decision
against mining would not " do anything about the dangers, the
disposal of nuclear waste, about terrorists acquiring weapons."
It could lead to an increase in the price of energy and to the
cost of living in developed and developing countries.
These were important observations which should have been argued
out. Mr. Hawke, Mr. Hayden and Mr. Whitlam sat mute during the
Conference debate. They were the very people who had an obligation
as leaders or aspiring leaders to discuss the issues. Their words
were uttered before and after the resolution was discussed and
adopted not during it. It was not pure hearts and simple minds
that caused the resolution to be carried, but a cynical political
/ deal
-7
deal in which the major opponents of the resolution kept quiet
* during the debate and spoke up later.
The Government of Australia has cornr-tenced its consideration of the
desirability of uranium mining and export, and the many other issues
raised by the Fox Report. We have al * ready announced that if
uranium is permitted to be exported, the most stringent set of
safeguards will be applied, both through compliance with the
requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency and through
bilateral agreements between Australia and each user-country.
Mr. Whitlam in the House on 29 March in a debate on uranium, laid
down a set of safeguards which he argued should be applied to
uranium exports. The Government's Safeguards Policy encompasses
all Mr. Whitlam's requirements and indeed goes beyond them in many
respects, particularly as regards eligibility of customers and
added safeguards to be contained in the bilateral agreements.
We do not simply have to make one fundamental yes or no decision.
SA whole range of inter-related decisions are required which affect
V not only Australians but people throughout the world.
Let me mention just some of the issues involved. We must consider:
the adequacy of international safeguards to prevent nuclear
proliferation; our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
V Treaty, and particularly Article Four of that Treaty; the problem
of the disposal of nuclear wastes and the fact that the reliable
supplies of Australian uranium can defer the move to the plutonium
economy, a deferral which would provide greater time for an
international solution to be found for effective controls on the
hazards of plutonium and high level waste; the urgency of the
world's needs for uranium supplies to provide energy and the
ethical question of whether we are entitled to withhold them; the
world tension which would be created if we refused to supply uranium;
our reputation as a stable and assured supplier of natural resources;
the effect mining will have on aboriginal communities and all
other Australians living near minesites; the appropriate boundaries
of national parks near minesites; the impact of mining on our economy
particularly on our foreign reserves, on unemployment, and on the
economy of the Northern Territory; the proper regulation of mining
if it is to be permitted, including its effect on the environment.
Above all, we must consider the impact of our decisions, not only on
ourselves, but on our children, and future generations.
We spent most of yesterday's Cabinet discussing environmental issues,
and the possible impact of mining on the aboriginal people.
These are fundamental issues, and no decision will be made on
mining until we are absolutely satisfied that the needs and
interests of the aboriginal people are safeguarded, and that the
environment is fully protected.
Our deliberations are continuing. Decisions of this importance
will not be decided overnight, nor should they. But when we have
finally reached our conclusions, they will form a proper and
considered response to all these inter-related and complex issues.