PRESS, RADIO AND TELEVISION CONFERENCE
GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER, SENATOR
JOHN GORTON, AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE,
CANBERRA 17TH JANUARY, 1968
PRIME MINISTER Well, gentlemen, this is a press conference for the
purpose of enabling you to ask me questions In the hope that I will be
able to provide some sort of an answer to them. It Is not an occaabn
for me to make a statement but rather an occasion for you to raise
matters which are In your minds.
Q. V/ hat action will you take If you get a bad answer today?
PM: Well, we don't know of course what the answer of the
Union Is. They haven't yet decided as far as I know. But we will be
forced to seek to keep the . kustrallan mails moving. We hope that
commonsense will prevail and that the Union will go back to work.
That Is our objective. We don't quite know well I don't quite knowwhy
this inconvenience shouli be Inflicted on the Australian people
with such a history of events. Let me remind you of that history.
On the 11th, I think It was, a driver was dismissed. On the 12th,
agreement was reached for the reinstatement of that driver.
Subsequently there was a stoppage and I received a telegram from
the Union saying would I accelerate a meeting with the Public Service
Board from the date on which it was previously agreed to be held, and
I said yes, I would, so there is no dispute about the driver being
reinstated, there is no dispute about an accelerated meeting, provided
the men to back to normal work. There has been no attempt to
invoke any punitive clauses but the strike may go on. I don't believe
that any Australian Government could sit back and not attempt to move
the mail whatever the circumstances might be. Now, you would not
expect me, indeed I think It would be a matter for the Postmaster-
General and the Minister for Labour and National Service to explain
the steps that they would hope to take should such steps be necessary
as I hope they won't be.
Q. Jack Commins, ABC: Can you give us your initial
reaction to Prime Minister Wilson's announced cuts of yesterday?
Will there be any speeding up of the review by the Defence Comm ittee
of Cabinet?
PM: Well, I think we have already given a reaction to the
announced cuts because they are more or less in line with what was
suggested to us would happen by Mr Thomson when he was out here,
and we made a press statement after that, you will remember,
expressing great regrets that these ctitm-should take place, expressifig
our belief that in this part of the world Singapore, Malaysia In
that area, relatively small forces could contribute far beyond their
numbers to the maintenance of a security in the area which would
enable a proper economic development In the area. And we expressed
some concern that the Naval and Air supports, quickly and speedily
available in the area if necessary, appeared to be In doubt. Our
reaction to that is the same as It was then. We feel that If economic
considerations are those which has made the British Government make
this decision, then savings could better be made In some other part
of the world If we are concerned with keeping security. Other than
that I can't go any further than I have before, except to say, as
perhaps is known to you, that the British Government has extended / 2
( do& t period of their -withdcrawalof ground-forces by nine months after
discussions with Australia and the other countries concernied, and
It will now be 1 think It is four years, December 31st, 1971, before
the proposed plans are completed. We are pleased that this extension
has taken place.
Q. Now that you know the British plans, Prime M! rIister, and
In view of the guns or butter economic evolutionary pro.,. Qss that we
are going on with now, could you undertake to make a statement or
bring out a Defence White Paper which would outline clearly the
responsibilities that we are going to have to undertake over the next
two years?
PM: I'll discuss that with the Minister for Defence and the Defence
and Foreign Affairs Committee. But I think It must be clear that we
ourselves cannot step in and fill the place that Britain has been filling
in that part of the world. We would want to lend assistance as we
are now, provided the countries there continued to want us to lend
that assistance and said so, but there Is a limit I think to the amount
that a country such as ours can afford to expend on defence because
there are requirements of development, requirements of immigration,
requirements of looking after our own population which at Bome stage
must be considered as being something from which, in effect, has
some effect on Australia's defence potential rather than the mere
guns and ammunition which also have a direct effect. The amount that
we are expending on defence Is quite large. You mentioned guns and
butter. I don't know whether it's guns and butter exactly, but guns
and development and human relations in our own country must be
brought into a balance. I'll consider a statement In more detail,
although I think that this might have to wait perhaps untI there are
further discussions, until we are a bit clearer as to precisely what is
meant by one or two matters mentioned In Mr Wilson's speech, and
until we are a little clearer as to what the five powers concerned
might In concert do.
Q. Max Hawkins, Brisbane Telegraph: Do you see this
withdrawal as the end of the British Commonwealth Brigade there, or
do you see some other battalions or forces that the British are taking
out coming In to fill the gap,? Have we been asked to
PM: As I understand it, the British ground forces are, at the
end of the period to which I have been referring, to be withdrawn
from the area. If that Is so, and they now being a component part
of the Commonwealth Brigade, I don't see how the Commonwealth
Brigade would continue after that date.
Q. Armfield, Melbourne Age: Will Britain's decision to
scrap its Fill have any effect on the cost of the Australian order?
PM: This Is something I propose to find out quite rapidly but
can't tell you now.
Q. Will you be making a statement to Parliament very soon and
how soon will Parliament meet?
PM-. Padfament will meet in March, but whether in the second or
third week in March might depend a little on events but let's say
the second or third week In March. And I would think that, yes, there
ought to be a statement made to Parliament on a matter of this
Importance as soon as may be after It meets. a. / 3
3-
Q. Mr Prime Minister, have you any details yet on the programme
of the meeting of the five powers affected by British withdrawal from
South-East Asia?
PM: No. No details. Indeed, I don't believe there are any details,
Idon't believe there are any firm proposals as to when such a meqtIng
should take place. You will remember that Tunku Abdul Rahman
suggested some time ago that there should be such a meeting. The
then Prime Minister Indicated that Australia was interested in attending
such a meeting If and when It was held, but the other powers had to
express their views on it too. I noticed that Mr Wilson in his statpment
s aid, If I recall it correctly, he would be Interested In a five-power
conference but such five-power conference must start from the premise
of the decisions taken by the British Government. We, for our part,
would attend such a five-power contdrence but we are not at the moment
Intending to Initiate or call for It.
Q. Sir, on the Post Office again. Do you have any thoughts as to
a long-term solution of the problems in the Post Office because every
time there is a dispute it holds up communications of the country, as
we have seen In the past year?
PM: Well, I think It's a pretty hard sort of a question, If I may say
so, to ask a Prime Minister at this stage. The running of the Post
Office Is the responsibility of the Postmaster -General and the Public
Service Board also comes Into the picture. There has been, as you so
rightly say, a number of disruptions In the Post Office. I would hope that
we could, through the responsible Ministers, and I would include the
Minister for Labour and National Service in that, although they are
really a client Ministry for the Postmaster -General, to see whether
there was some underlying malaise which could be removed. But that
is a matter of looking into seeing whether there Is some underlying
malaise, to see what action could be taken If It Is there. I don't think
it Is directly concerned with the Immediate problem which faces us
today. But it is something clearly that needs to be looked at.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, I am sure that the war In Viet Nam must
be a priority for your consideration, and In view of this, I wondered
whether you would care to comment on the statement by Senator Mike
Mansfield, the Leader of the Majority In the Senate of America In
which he this week called for an end of the bombing In North Viet Nam
and an effort to persuade Hanoi to enter Into peace trks. VWhat would
your opinion be about this?
PM: Well, my opinion on the bombing of North Viet Nam Is this.
In the first place, tile United States could, If It wanted to, because it
has the power to do It If it wanted to, virtually destroy North Viet Nam.
It has not used that power and I would strongly be opposed to it ever
seeking to use such power In that way. What it has been doing Is using
bombing In an attempt to interdict, to interfere with, to delay the flow
of men and materials from the North to the South. If there were a
clear indication that shoukd that type of bombing cease, then the North
Vietnamese would, for their part, stop serxi-ig men and supplies to the
South and start talks so that during the period of time when such
talks were taking place there was neither bombing of the North nor
sending of the troops or mateilals to the South by the North, then I
would consider that a reasonable proposition.
-4-
Q. John Jost of the Age: Has there been a decision on the
Victorian Turnover Tax, specially with regard to Commonwealth
Public Service salary?
PM: WNell, that Is a matter under discussion between myself and
the Victorian Premier at the moment.
Q. Did you raise this with him yesterday, Sir, when you spoke
to him?
PM: I made a courtesy call yesterday.
Q. Chalmers, Australian Press Services: Mr Prime Minister,
has Cabinet, or will Cabinet consider an official enquiry Into the
disappearance of Mr Holt?
DM: The answer to that is no. There has been an enquiry by the
Victorian Police Irto all the events of that tragic day. The report has
been presented. In view of some of the matter printed1 in It which
has perhaps led to your question, I propose to make the report the
Victorian Police have compiled available. It will require a day or two
to get it copied in sufficient numbers for everybody to have It, but I
think there Is no need to go any further than that.
Q. Stephens, Adelaide Advertiser: For the past eighteen nmonths,
there have been discussions going on at the Service level about the
future British defence role In Australia, In the Australian ar--a. In
view of the latest decisions, do you feel those talks are worthwhile
continuing?
PM: Well, yes, I think they are worthwhile continuing. The
British Government and the Minister who was out here have expressed
the view that defence arrangements are useful even though there are
no Immediate forces In the particular area that Is being discussed to
enable those arrangements to be put straight away Into practice, and
there may be something In this. Anyway, let me put It this way.
They are not talks which I would seek to break off ourselves.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, In view of your quite obvious sympathy
for Mr Lee of Singapore and his plight, Is Australia prepared to
consider giving him interim assistance during the period such as, for
example, paying for the Gurkha brigade battalions or something of
that nature or, at this stage, is our assistance merely restricted to
the planning side of it?
PM: No, at this stage, we are giving assistance to Mr Lee In
Singapore. The details of that assistance I don't carry in my mind, but
we are giving both economic assistance and military assistance in
various ways in that field. It Is not Intended, nor has it been suggested
that that should be accelerated or increased at this moment.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, there has been a proposal for the
estal ishment of a naval facility in Western Australia. Now I add
another one to this, there has also been the question of the future of
Woomera at stake. Is the decision made by the British Government
likely to affect both Woomera and the Western Australian naval
facility?
PM: I can't answer that question. I don't know enough at the moment
to answer It. I'm sorry.
Q. John Moses, Channel 7: In the absence of Britain, how do
you see broadly our defence and economic responsibilities to our
Asian neighbours, Including Indonesia?
PM: Our economic responsibilities, particularly to our closest
Asian neighbours, to Singapore, to Malaysia, to Indonesia, to the
Philippines but I think we are talking of the area Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore. this Is the area In which I would like to see
our major effort made in this economic assistance field. But there
are two provisos to that. One is that the countries themselves wish
for some physical forces present as an Insurance policy against the
Insurgencies, an Insurance policy against brushfire wars, not of
course with any concept of preventing a full-scale Invasion from some
other place but just to keep the peace in that particular area, to keep
the peace against small outbreaks in that particular area. So that
also is a field to which we have contributed, and that proviso cuts down,
to some extent, wh,-t we can do in the economic field. The second
proviso Is the one I started with, that Australia has to consider its
own development, Its own requirements In many fields, in health, In
education in social services, apart from development Itself;
It has to keep its immigration going, it has to develop its industrial
muscles and Its potential for the future. And these things cannot be
sacrificed to greater use either of overseas reserves which are heavily
called on by defence commitments or defence commitments In other
ways.
Q. In Commonwealth/ State financial relationships, you have been
described as something of a centralist. Could you state your general
attitude on this rather touchy subject?
PM: Yes, I think so. I don't think it is an accurate assessment of
my psotion to call me a centralist. It Is more a matter of philosophical
approach. I would have thought a centrd 1st was somebody who wanted
to take a field and to centralise the administration of that field In
Canberra through one public service, as it were, and that In the fields
In which the States are so heavily engaged would, in my view be
inefficient and wrong; particularly in such fields as education, I am
sure It would be wrong. On the other hand, we have a theory that the
proper thing to be done In Australia is to hand out sums of money to
various State Governments and leave it entirely to those State
Governments to divide those sums of money between the various
competing fields Inside that State between education and health, and
building of roads and all the other things the States have to do. Now,
in general, I would of course agree with ths, but In particular one could
find the situation developing where from the national interest, scmethinig
was being neglected in one of the six States and that State was falling
behind the other States in that field and this could be detrimental to
Australia as a whole. I think that It Is this kind of approach of mine,
I think It Is a kind of approach of, well, If water Is to be conserved
In Australia, it ought to be conserved where Its conservation will do
most-good for the nation as a whole, even if It means that It is in some
particular State where it would do the most good for the nation as a
whole, and therefore the money Is not divided strictly on a population
basis because we need it to be down there. That's where the water
that's where we get the most effectiveness from It, and therefore we
just don't divide it on a formula around the States. These are
qualifications which I put to the theory of complete handing over of the , o / 6
-6
PM
( Contd.) money and leaving it completely to the States to develop. This, I
think, Is the basis of a charge of being a centralist, but as I say, I
don't think It is a properly-based charge because I would not seek
to interfere In administration nor, unless It could be shown to be
something that were detrimental to the national interest, to try and
keep a balance In the fields between the States.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, when do you meet the State Premiers
to discuss these matters?
PM: I know what you when do we have a general
conference. But I think it worth saying that I have alzmdy had a
courtesy call on Sir Henry Bolte. I will be meeting Mr Pizzey on
Thursday. I will be having a chat with Mr Asldn during the weekend.
These are just talks to Individual Premiers. I don't know that I
could give you a timetable for a Premiers' meeting now because there
are a number of unknown factors, a number of unusual circumstances
just at the moment which make things awkward, but we would have
one as soon as we reasonably could....
Q. Is it imminent, before the next Parliamentary Session?
PM: I don't think it is before the next Parliamentary Session.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it might be.
Q. Would you consider redistribution during the current
Parliament?
PM: A redistribution of seats? Yes.
Q. Have you decided upon the Commissioners, Sir?
PM: I haven't had a great deal of experience with these press
conferences and I might be putting my foot In it. I think what has
to be done is that the Commissioners are provided by the various
State Governments... ( 1-terruption) let me finish The Commissioners
need to be provided by the various State Governments and I am not
sure whether I am at liberty to answer that direct question, but let us
put it this way that the State Governments know whom It Is that we
would wish to be provided as Commissiorers.
Q. I was thinking of the time factor. Mr Holt said he thought
they would be announced by the end of the year that has just ended,
and we are running out of time on the....
PM: I don't think it will be long.
Q. I see. Do you expect any trouble from the Country Party
this time?
PM: Why should I?
Q. Nancy Buttfleld, Macquaie Network, Adelaide:
Prime Minister, will you be looking into a new basis for grants
for the States?
PM: Do you mean a new formula? ** 9a / 7
-7
Q. A new way of allocating the grants.
PM: Oh, I hadn't thought of it but one never knows what might come
up at these conferences.
Q. Stewart Harris, London Times: I was wondering, Sir, if
there was trouble in the Malaysian/ Indonesian area, say over the next
couple of years, would you feel free to withdraw any Australian battalion
from Viet Nam, temporarily if necessary, and do you have such an
understanding with the South Vietnamese and American Governments?
PM: I know of no such understanding with the South Vietnamese or
American Government. You asked me this question out of the blue.
I know of no understanding, but it would seem to me that it would be
a very odd military situation to be in, to have a battalion integrated
In a force, engaged in opeations, liable to be withdrawn and disrupt
all the people with . vhom it was serving. I should think It quite unlikely.
Q. Sir, In the light of your emphasis here today on development,
are you yourself wedded to the concept that has prevailed in the
Government that defence spending should be limited to 5 per cent of
gross national product cr are you liable to take a more flexible view
In the light of the quick march of events in South-Ems t Asia?
PM: I wouldn't want to pin mysBlf to a particular percentage of GNP,
whether it be five or four or three or any particular percentage of GNP,
but I would hope, indeed It will be necessary to see that our expenditure
on defence, a good deal of which is already committed for the next
two years, does not cause us such commitments then or after then that
it interferes not with butter but with the development of Australia.
Q. just to take you back to the Premiers and the States/ Commonwealth
financial relations for a moment, are you prepared to go ahead
with the usual Premiers' Conference that is usually held in February and
also will you go ahead with this proposal of Mr Holt's to have a meeting
of Liberal Premiers
PM: Well, the meeting of Liberal Fr emiers is what I call a family
meeting. It is not a meeting which the Government as such is concerned
in having. It is not a meeting Indeed in which Liberal Premiers alone
attend. It would be a meeting which the Liberal leaders of the various
States, whether they were Premiers or whether they were Treasurers or
Leaders of the Opposition would meet with members of the LiAbaral
Party In the Commonwealth sphere for a family discussion, and that is
all it would be. It is not something that can be equated with a Premiers'
meeting or something of that kind, and I think that the tim~ etable'that
was in mind has been disrupted and it is very difficult to fix a date but
I would in princre expect that that should happen.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, the relations with the Country Party have
just been mentioned. I would like to ask you what action you have taken
or propose to take to heal the breach between Mr McEwen and Mr
McMahon?
PM: Well, we are starting a new Government. I. was never closely
associated with events in the last Government to which you refer, but
as far as I am concerned, at the sta rt of this new Government, the
book should be ruled off there, and a new start made. e 9 / 8
-8
Q. Is that feasible, Sir, In the light of discussions that ; have
gone on between the two Ministers?
PM: I hope and trust so&
Q. Will you yourself, Sir, be Influenced in your choice of a
Cabinet by any considerations of the strained feelings that have
existed between the Country Party and the Liberal Party, or will
you be guided by uour choice of whom you consider the best person
for a portfolio?
PM: You said would I be Influenced in my -choice of a Cabinet
Is that what you mean, or do you want to go further than that?
Q. The Ministry in the broad.
PM: I would not expect, indeed I know that Mr McEwen would
not expect that any people chosen by Liberals would be subject to
question or to veto by himself any more than he would expect any
Country Party Minister to be subject to question by myself. I think
he has made his situation quite clear, that he regards it as his
prerogative, and has regarded It as his prerogative to say who It is
that he will or will. not E erve under but that he regards that as the
limit to which he should go.
Q. Prime Minister, do you have any plans at this stage for a
tour of South-East Asia or perhaps even further afield to meet with
other world leaders?
PM: I want to go to South-East Asia as soon as it is possible to
do so, but I do have things which you have been mentioning to me in
the course of this press conference possible meetings with Liberal
leaders, possible meet ingswith State Premiers, by-elections one
by-election meeting of the Parliament, getting prepared for that,
and I don't see much chance cf this happening until after the first
Session of the Parliament this year.
Q. Talking about by -elections, Sir, can you give us the date
of the opening of the campaign, and your appearance in Higgins?
PM: The 13th February that is, if I am pre-selected!
Q. How long do you intend to spend in Higgins, Sir?
PM: During my campaign?
Q. Yes.
PM: I would expect to spend some days there, not necessarily
on end, but a number of scattered days during t he course of the
campaign in the electorate. Partly I would be Influenced on this by
the requests of the organisation in the area and the Liberal Party
in Victoria.
Q. Prime Minister, In the formation of your new Ministry, do you
plan to keep the same number of portfolios? Do you plan to keep the
same number of Ministers?
PM: Probably. 0 0 0 / 9
-9-
Q. On the assumption, Sir, that you win Higgins, how soon
after the by-election is declared, will you be remaking your Ministry?
PM: I would hope to announce a new Ministry and possibly some
different administrative arrangement orders as between the
Departments within two days, I think.
Q. H-ow strong is the possibility of an early election, Sir?
PM: I haven't considered the possibility of an early election
myself.
Q. In selecting your new Ministry, Sir, would you be influenced
strongly by the number of Ministers from particular States or would
you select the men for their own sake?
PM: I would seek to select the men whom I bdl leved had the
ability to carry out the work involved. I don ' t think you can entirely
disregard some State representation. I don't think you could, for
example it's a s illy example that you could leave the State of New
South Wales without one Minister, or say Queensland or any other
State or most States, but I would not be seeking to get a balance of
members of the Ministry as between the States, but you would have to
have some regard, as I have sa id, to some State representation.
Q. And some regard to the Senate? Will that be fixed and
absolute?
PM: Well, in this life nothing is ever fixed and absolute, you
should know that!
Q. Sir, may you actually have a reduction of Ministers, is that
what you....
PM: No, It wasn't really meant that way. I haven't been thinking
so much in terms of numbers on this, and you asked me so I didn't
want to say definitely" e" in case it turned out there was some
slight difference, so I Bald " probably".
Q. Are you likely to be making administrative reshuffles within
the Ministry, combining some portfolios and creating new ones?
PM: Well, there will be some changes In administrative
arrangements orders which are the orders which provide functions
for particular portfolios, or at any rate there are some which are
under consideration at the moment. But I think that is about enough
on that one!
Q. Sir, because of the decisions of Britain and the United States
over the past few months which have a direct effect on us, have.-you
given any consideration to a supplementary Budget?
PM: Not yet. At this stage I have . had no Indication of a
supplementary Budget.
Q. Sir, you have spoken of the need to visit South-East Asia,
have you given any thought yet to a tour of Australia as Prime Minister?
0 0/ 10
10
PM: Well in this week I will have been in Victoria, New South
Wales and Queensland. That is a tour of half Australia in the first
week, or an appearance in half of the States of Australia in the first
week. Of course It is not so long since a Senate election in which the
other three States were also visited. I am not sure whether you
mean will I wish to be travelling around to look at all the development
projects tl-roughout Australia. Perhaps that was in your mind?
Q. This would include part of it. ' Yes Sir.
PM: Well, no, I don't think so. Really, I honestly think I have
been travelling around Australia over the last four or five or six or
seven years pretty solidly and pretty continuously. i would hope to go
and see particular development projects but this is not a tour in the
sense of a South-E.-ast Asian country tour.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, after Britain's decision to devalue,
the Cabinet set, up a framework of m easares to deal with the
repercussions on Austra lia. Could you tell us what progress has
been made with those moves and how soon we may expect decisions
to be made?
PM: Well, I think we are waiting for assessments from the
Department of Trade and Industry in relation to any secondary
industries which may have suffered losses as a result of the Government's
decision, and from the Department of Primary Industry in
relation to any industries there which may have suffered losses.
And when I say " suffered losses'tI mean suffered losses, not
" failed to get gains".
Q. Vhen will that Committee be reporting There is an
inter -Departmental Commnittee considering this question?
PM: I will have to ask the Ministers directly concerned.
MR EGGLETON: Perhaps one more question, gentlemen.
Q. Prior to DIr Holt's death, Sir, there was a lot of talk
about a Viet Nam summit meeting. Has this now been negated because
of the series of talk. s that were held in Canberra during the period
of the Memorial Service or do you anticipate there will be a Viet
Nam summit?
PM: I.-thlnk there probably will be meetings of people leading
the nations concerned, but I know of no time set down for it and no
arrangements at this stage which have been made for it.
Thank you, gentlemen.