l" n .1t
2 5 JAM t968
EMBARGO: G) RA
NOT FOR RELEASE BY ANY MEDIA UNTIL 10. 30 PM
ON SUNDAY, 21 JANUARY, 1968
TEXT OFPRIME MINISTER'S " MEET THE PRESS"
INTERVIEW
Following Is the full text of the interview given by the
Prime Minister, Senator John Gorton, In the " MEET THE PRESS" programme
telecast by BTQ Channel 7 inBrisbane tonight.
The Prime Minister recorded the programme while In
Brisbane a few days ago.
Introduction by the Chairman, Mr Reg Leonard:
From this studio, exactly nine weeks ago, I was privileged
to introduce to you the Prime Minister of Australia. That, of
course, was Harold Holt. Now I don't want to dramatise what
has happened between and brought sorrow to this station, except
to say that five weeks ago today, Harold Holt, as you all know,
was swept to his death. And I want to add this. That tonight it
Is my great privilege to introduce to you his successor, to pre~ mit
In the second week of his high office, the new Prime Minister of
Australia, Senator John Gorton. Good evening to you, Sir.
PRIME MINISTER Good evening.
MR LEONARD The panel are John Wakefield, Elgin Reid and John
Athert on. We are going to talk to the new Prime Minister for
minutes. If I may say so, with great respect, before the questions
start, I have never known an Australian who has become so well
known In a few days as our guest tonight. But let me say this:
The Prime Minister Is no novice to politics. He has been around
for quite a few years in Canberra, and he has been the Leader of
the Government In the Senate. He Is,. If I may put It In a nutshell,
a very rugged Australian, with a great war record and a distinguished
academic record Master of Arts,, Oxford University.
Now, with those few words, please start the questtong.
Q. Prime Minister, what is the biggest problem that you face
as Prime Minister in your view. Put another way: What do you see
as this country's major difficulties over the next few years?
PM: I would have to give a general answer, and I will give It In
these general terms. Our great difficulty Is to try to see that the
competing demands that are made upon Australia can be met withot
putting burdens on the Australian people which might destroy their
incentive to meet those demands. We have requirements here which
have grown really enormously over the last few years. We have
requirements for development which must take place if we are to
grow into the nation that we can grow Into. We have requirements * e9oee/ 2
2-
PM. for looking after our less fortunate citizens, and so on through
( Contd.) education and health. Now there is also a limit to the amount of
taxation that can be put upon Australans In order to meet these,
and the real problem is the apportionment of resouirces amongst
these conflicting demands, not only In our Government but in
State Governments and Commonwealth Government.
MR LEONARD: Forgive me for Intervening very briefly, Sir, you
were asked about challenges to your Administration, which is very
new; would you regard the current troubles with our postal workers
and mail deliveries as a great challenge? I presume you would.
I know there are great difficulties about commenting on this In
any detail because the situation could change dramatically between
the time we are recording and Sunday night when we go on the air.
But wouild it be fair to ask you, as a general prlifcl' 4e in Industrial
troubles of this kind which hold up the nation's business, would It'
be fair to say that the Government would not retreat?
PM: I think that in this case not as a general principle but
answering you in this case, the Government could not retreat.
At least, the Government could not allow Australian malls to
pile up and not to be delivered. I think our attitude on this I can
summarise in a few words. We hope that the striking drivers will
go back to work as soon as possible and then use all the processes
of Arbitration which are available to put their case. We hope that
this will happen, but we can't wait Indefinitely for it to happen
while mail is pilng up because Australia's life blood could be
clogged If we did. We have no choice but to move the mail. We
hope the strikers will go back
MR LEONARD: I think, like you, most Australians will hope that by
the time this goes on the air it will all be over. John Atherto
Q. Prime Minister, getting away from that, Is there one particular
achievement you wodil like to pull off during your term as Prime
Minister?
PM: It may surprise you to hear this: There are achievements
In the field of social welfare which I would like to see brought to
fruition during my time as Prime Minister. This I think will
Involve some rethinking of the methods by which a uch things as
pensions are paid, the methods by whicl uch things as
Repatriation benefits are paid, the approach to health problems
where at the moment somebody who has a long, continuing
illness can, In fact, be ruined and face ruin because he cannot
be covered. Now, what I would want to see, and It would not be
easy to work this out and I don't pretend It Is worked out In my
mind now, but what I would like to see Is a situation where
somebody who was genuinely Indigent as a result of the slings and
arrows of outrageous fortune not his own fault and had the
fear of that and the burden of that lifted from him. I am ndt to
be taken as saying I believe In a complete welfare state and handouts
all down the line, but I would like to see real misfortune overcome.
Q. Would you be Interpreted incorrectly If we said you were
favouring some kind of national Insurance? a / 3
-3-
PM: It might turn out that that could be a correct Interpretat ion
but that Is not the one which I give it at the moment. I will try to make
It clear: I haven ' t plans but plans can be worked out. They may or
may not involve national insurance.
Q. Prime Minister, how do you propose to overcome your
relative Inexperience In foreign affairs and your lack of contact with
internatbnal leaders?
PM! Well, let me remind you of a few facts. I was the Chairman
of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee for a long timei After
that time, I have acted as Minister for External Affairs on a number of
occasions, and when the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies,
took over the portfolio, I acted on all except policy matters. I have
been In charge of the running of the Colombo Plan, for example, for
a couple of years. I have met, and I know well, Harry Lee of Singapore.
I know Tunku Abdul Rahman, I know Tun Razak, I know Malik from
Indonesia. I don't claim great experience or great knowledge, but there
Is some experience there.
Q. Prime Minister, can you tell us please, we are assuming
or we know that you will be elected to the House of Representatives
next month can you tell us how soon after that you hope to be able to
go to Viet Nam?
PM: I think I must answer that, as much as I would like to,
I see little prospect of going there until after this Session of the
Parliament Is concluded which might be April or May, as far away as
that. You see, there are meettin~ to be held before the House reassembles,
there Is some preparation to be done. I see little prospect of getting
away until the Session is over.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, It has been claimed in some circles,
particularly overseas, that on Viet Nam you are a hawk. Are you,
and how far you willing to go to support peace Initiatives, not
necessVly ~ m America, on Viet Nam?
PM: Well, bird-like labels always need a little bit of explanation
before you can really know what they mean. On the whole, I think I
would regard myself as neither a hawk nor a dove, but as an owl In
this matter I don't mean you can't see very well, but you've got the
reputation,, I hope, for wisdom In It. All we want there Is that there
should be a cessation of fighting. Well, we could get that by withdrawing,
of course. But a cessation of. fighting which would leave the South
Vietnamese people able to work out their own destiny, and we hope
with our and other people's assistance, build up their own economy.
You have asked me, I think, about bombing. I have pointed out
recently with this question that the Americans could, if they wished,
comple tely destroy North Viet Nam, but that that would be a wrong and
a stupid thing to do. The bombing Is trying to stop the flow of men and
materials from the North Vietnamese to the South. It is hampering
It; It is not stopping it, but It Is hampering It. If there were an
undertaking, a package deal that talks would start when bombing stopped,
and that the sending of men and materials from North to South would
stop when bombing stopped, then that is a goal which I think we would
all like to see achieved. 9 / 4
4-
Q. Do you think there Is any chance of peace talks with
Hanoi be fore the next American Presidential election?
PlMt I am afraid I must say I am doubtful because I think
that the North Vietnamese are waiting and hoping that there may be
a change in the United States at the next election, and may be quite
intransigent until then. I hope not,, but I fear so.
Q. Do you imagine there would be any dramatic changes
if the Republicans won the Presidential elections? Last time it was
being said It would be unthinkable they would step things up.
PM:. Well, I don't like to comment on affairs in a foreign
country. It depends. Some people in the Reputlicans have some
views, some others.
Q. I shouldn't have u~ ked that question, Prime Minister.
Q. Does Australia under your leadership, Prime Minister,
stand as firmly and as fully committed to the Viet Nam war as It has
done up until this point, and are you willing, if it Is considered a
military advantage, not necessarily a necessity, to Increase our troop
commitment there, Including more conscripts?
PM: The answer to the first part of that question is yes, we
are committed for all the reasons we first went Into It. VIe think
aggression must be stopped and must be seen not to pay. The answer
to the second part of the question is, at this moment, no. You asked
me If it wasn't a military necessity..... I believe we are now extending
all the effort that we can extend as a nation of twelve million people
with her other requirements In this kind of field.
Q. This means, does It, Sir, that we have gone as far as
we can go In Viet Nam?
PM; Well, subject to some complete kind of change. You know
we have recently decided to send the tank support and the engineer
support. I am assuming you are meaning that?
Q. Yes President Johnson has wished you well, Prime Minister.
Like your predecessor, are you all the way with him, or will you be
putting some new thoughts to Washilngton?
PM: Well, I think my predecessor had a tag hung around his
neck which was not really justified. He did say at the end of a rather
jocular speech, I think at the White House, " I'm all the way with LBJO
which at that time was an election slogan they were using, and this
has been taken to mean that he was saying that Australia would
slavishly follow the United States policy. Well It didift mean that
then, and it doesn't mean that now. I can assure you it doesn't mean
that now.
Q. Will you be putting any new thoughts to Washington? 000
PM: If we have new thoughts, we would not be inhibited In
putting them to Washington.
Q. Prime Minister, many people find it difficult to follow
Labor's policy on Viet Nam, mainly because so many people for the
party seem to speak on It. Now could you tell us what Is your
Interpretation of official ALP policy on Viet Nam?
PM: I don't think ar~ yhody could you tell you that for reasons
that you have spelt out yourself, but I believe that th well, I
know that the official policy of the governing Labor body Is that we
should say to the United States " Cease bombing North Viet Nam at
once; put your troops Into a holding operation" In other words,
make them stand where they are and allow them to be attacked but
don't allow them to attack...... " and If you, the United States won't
do that, then we will withdraw our troops from Viet Nam Immediately."
On the other hand, I did seem to remember during the Senate campaign
some claim from Mr Whitlam. that he was El Supremo and it didn't
matter what the Federal Labor Conference said. I doubt that, and
I think his comrades don't believe him.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, during Mr Holt's two short years
In office he made several trips to Vlashington for personal talks with
the President. Do you expect to k1eep up this personal liaison with
whoever will be President of the United States? Do you hope to?
PM: I do hope to keep up a personal Rlson but whether the
number of trips would be as many as Mr Holt took in those two years
I doubt very much. Some of those trips Mr Holt took were In fact going
over to a Prime Ministers' Conference in London or something of that
kind and he called in on the way. But I think I probably would not make
a large number of special trips.
Q. Do you indicate by that answer that you think Commonwealth
Conferences are falling on their face or
PM: I was only really Indicating that a number of the visits
that Mr Holt made to President Johnson were not specially for that
purpose.
Q. You might be going to Commonwealth Conferences then,
I take it?
PM: Well we'll wait and see.
Q. Mr Holt also made quite a number of trips to South-East
AsIa6 cb you propose to follow this pattern and visit Asia reasonably
frequently and keep in contact, personal contact, with the leaders there?
PM: Definitely. I think this was ene of the great things Mr
Holt did was to get a personal contact with the leaders of the countries
nearest to us with whom for years to come we will be most closely bound.,
and for the first time really, show that kind of Interest of an
Australian Prime Minister and get the benefits of the personal knowledge
that flows from It. I would certainly hope to do this. 9 o / 6
-6
Q. Conversely, too, Prime Minister, lately we have been
asking more leaders to our own country. Do you hope to keep that
policy going?
PMkv Yes. I do. I hope that before very long the Prime
Minister of India will be visiting us.
Q. How deeply are you worried, & Sir, a, bout Britain's
earl y withdrawal from South-East Asia as it had been originally
planned?
PM: Quite deeply. Not from the point of view of the
Austra lian Continent's own security. I am not worried about ta t.
I haven't regarded the fox ce there, which is a small force, as
something directed towards the defence of the Australian continent
Itself. But I am worried about the removal of what, In effect, has
been a police force, able to stop small Insurrections, able to stop
small attacks by one country In the area on another. You will
remember the parachute raids that took place on Malaya itself
at one stage from Indonesia, the landing of troops. This kind of
thing they were able to stop, nip In the bud before It grew and I am
worried that this security Is removed from that area.
Q. Sir, just for my personal Information, and probably
for some of the others too, Mr Holt told us once in this programme
I think It was when Mr Healey, the British Defence Minister was
out that there was some examination going on regarding the prospect
of a shared base by Britain and Australia In this country. Can you
tell us what the situation is about that, now?
PM: Only that military discussions have been taking place
between the staffs in Australia ' and the staffs in Great Britain, but
they ha-ie been confined to planning discussions which have not yet
come up to either Government for consideration as to whether those
plans should be put Into operation or what the cost of them would be
or whether the cost could be borne.
Q. Would the announcement by Mr Wilson In the past few
days affect that plan work, do you think?
PM: Well, Mr Wilson has stated that the main purposcs of
the United Kingdom' s moves and decisions are to save foreign
exchange and for economic purposes,. so It may be that this thinking
could be affected.
Q. Witb the British withdrawal, Prime Minister, from
our near North, would you consider, if asked and I think indirectly
the country has been providing Austinlian troops to fill up the gap
In Malaysia and Singapore, and in the light of what you have told us
now about our commitment In Viet Nam, could we ever really afford
to do this? 2
PM: Well, I wouldn't consider putting In Austr alian troops
to fill up the gap the British had left because I don't believe we can
afford to do this. o, o / 7
-7
Q. isn't it a fact that Australians must face up to It that we
are going to drift In all fields further apart?
PM: There will always, I think, be special ties between the
United Kingdom and Australia, ties of family relationships, but I
believe that just as the relQ-tionshlp between Australia and the United
Kingdom now Is really quite different from what It was fifty years ago,
so the future too will see changes compared with what the relationship
Is now, but I think it must continue to be ties of sentiment, sentiment
must continue for many years ahead.
Q. Taken strictly, I know it isn't your Department, but can
you see an appreciable weakening of our trade ties with Britain, in a
way which may damage our rural economy particularly?
PM: Wiell you are quite right. This Is the Minister for Trade's
Department more than mine. But If Great Britain were to enter the
Common Market, and no-one knows If this might at some future time
be allowed to take place, then I think it could affect quite seriously some
of our industries.
Q. Sir, how do you see the future of the Commonwealth,
having In mind Britain's attempt to get into the Common Market, and if
it doesn't it won't be its fault, and the withdrawal from East of Suezdo
you think the Commonwealth will endure, and In fact, that Britain
really wants it to?
PM: Again I wouldn't want to comment on what Britain might or
might not want to happen. This would be quite Inappropriate for me, and
besides it would be silly. I think we can only wait and see what the future
brings and to provide in the future the answer to the first part of your
question will It endure, and If so, in what way, In what form.
Q. Now In our limited time, I think overseas matters and
foreign policy have haid a fair go. Could we get on to something
perhaps nearer home
Q : Prime Minister, soon you will have to face a review of the
composition of your Cabinet. Now, we don't expect you to go into
details here. But do you undertakce, if any changes are necessary,
that you will go ahead with them, no matter which personalities are
Involved.?
PM: I undertake that I will do all that is possible but one can't
Ignore completely the representation from the States and things of that
kind. But I don't think one needs to pay slavish adherence to them
either. You can't ignore them completely, though.
Q: ~ What we are getting at, Sir, is that If you have got a dud,
no matter where he is, will you root him out?
PM: Well, I wouldn't say we had any duds!
Q. Again not going into details, Sir, could you just say are
you planning great changes in the Mvinistry? v / 8
-8
PM: I wouln't say great changes, no.
Q. You did talk at your press conference the other day
of changes or a recllotment of administrative duties. What did
that mean? It was rather a broad statement you made.
PkMt Oh yes. It means and I am a little Inhibited in
answering this because I don't want to go into too much detail
but it does mean that some Department which at the moment
has a number of functions to fulfil under what Is called an
Administrative Order could perhaps have one of those functions
taken away, and that function could be provided to a Minister In
aiolher Department. I am not talking of really significant,,
Important Departments, but there is, I think, a good deal of
tidying up which could be done to regroup the functions of
Departments. For example, just to give you a more concrete
example of sotatthing which might happe.... We did pass a
Referendum giving the Commonwealth authcrity to look after
aboriginals. Now at the moment there Is within the Prime
Minister's Department a Secretariat in charge of that with the
Minister for Territories having some connection with it. Well,
an Administrative Order change might put that under the more
direct control of a particular Minister whose particular
responsibility It would be. This is the sort of thing I see.
Q. It wouldn't go as far as amalgamating If that is
the word the Army, Navy and Air Force
PM: L No, it wouldn't
Q. Do you think, Sir, that 26 Ministers might be too
many?
PM: e I don't know how to answer that. On the
whole, I think they all have a great deal of work to do, and also
it does no great harm, in fact I think itc'. oes good for a Parliament
to have in it somebody who is responsible to It for some part of
public administration and for the expenditure of public money,
and who can be crosc -questioned on it. Let us suppose, for example,
ycu wiped out as people have suggested we should although I
don't believe we should Army, Navy and Air and just -had
Defence. I don't believe any Minister for Defence, even if he was
a genius, could answer to Parliament for the expenditure in Army,
In Navy, in Air and in Defence and would have to rely very, very
much more than at present on the Public Service Heads of those
Departments to provide him with information and he could indeed
In those circumstances, I think, claim with reasonable fairness
that he couldn't be expected to know all the details Parliament might
want him to kncwv. There are arguments both ways.
Q. Prime Minister, are you completely happy I don't
imagine : Wu are how unhappy are you, I should say, that Mr
McEwen, the leader of a minority party should dictate who will
not be Leader of the Liberal Party? a0.00/ 9
-9-
PM: I don't think Mr McC-wen did dictate who would not be
the Leader of the Liberal Party. What Mr McEwen did say was
that he wouldn't serve underneath one particular man. But that is not
to say either that was a decisive factor In what happened to that
particular man, and certainly Mr McEwen had nothing to do with
the choice of any of the other candidates who stood for the leadership.
Q. WTe don't want to embarrass you, Sir but assuming
that the particular gentleman had been elected Leader and Mr Mc~ wen
had carried out his threat,, what then would have been the future of
the present Government?
PM: Oh, I think It would have been extremely precarious.
Q. Mr Prime Minister, are you confident, the way it has
worked out, that the coalition can work smoothly, and tell us frankly
I don't know why we shouldn't mention his name how are you going
to get round the relationship between Mr McEwen and Mr McMahon?
PM: Well, again, something of this kind was asked me only
a day or two ago, and the answer I gave then, I give to you now.
This is a new Government. We want to rule the book off and to
start afresh. Given goodwill and I believe there is goodwill and
given knowledge that we must work together for the good of Australia,
I believe that the tensions which previously existed might not exist
In the future, I hope o.
Q. Will1 you forgive nm while I am on that point. I think
you will agree there is one part of the book you can't rule off, and
nobody knows better than you that you have got a hostile Senate...
PM: Oh,, that is a different part of the book. On the other
hand, I have had quite a lot of experience of the Senate when we haven't
had a majority. Vie haven't had a majority for years and years and
years. The DLP and Indeyt adents have held the balance of power for
the last two years, and now It Is a switch to the DLP holding the
balance of power. Well, one just does one's best and we do seem not
to have done too badly in the Senate, and from a Parliament's point of
view as opposed to an executive's. The Senate has made some
improvements in bills. If they were stupid enough, and silly enough
to reject the Budget or something of that kind, this would be quite
wrong. They haven'c done that.
Q. Also apropos of ruling off the book, Sir, Labor probably
won't want to, and wouldn't you thinkc that the fact that the Deputy
Pr! me Minister has said that he does not trust the Deputy Leader of
the Liberal Party will be fully exploited by y. iir political opponents
at election time?
PM: I have no doubt whatever that they will seek to make the
greatest use they can of this...
Q. Do you think they will get much mileage out of it, Sir?
0 0 0
10
PM: Well, It depends I suppose partly on how much it is
overshadowed by what Mr Caiwell has to say about the present
Leader of the Opposition.
Q. Touche!
QO Can we clear. up a point, Sir? In your candidacy for the
Prime Ministership, did you enter into any agreements with any
groups of supporters on mutual support for some other candidate for
some other position or did you offer any promotions or anything?
PM: Absolutely none. I am happy to say that there Is not one
single person who can say that they were promised anything as an
Inducement to support me, which Is a great benefit and a great help.
There Is not one. What I did do was to advise Mr McMahon
personally that I thought he would be wise not to stand for leadership
but for stand for Deputy Leadership. If he did that, I thought he would
consolidate his position. But that is not an Indication of any promise
or any deal or anything of that kind.
Q. As you made no arrangements or gave no guarantees and
you don't expect many changes in the Ministry, I take it we won't see
many new faces around the place at the Administrative level In
Canberra?
P K: Well, I was asked did I contemplate great changes, and I
think that was the question I answered.
Q. I was talking about personnel changes.
Q. Sir, no doubt you have been appraising your opponent, Mr
Whitlem for some time, just how serious a political rival do you
regard him, having in mind the elections?
PM: I think he has got a very good TV appeal, particularly if they
don't make him up too much, and I think he presents a case very well
Indeed, and has an appeal, and I would regard him as quite a competent
Leader of the Opposition, a very competent Leader of the Opposition.
Q. Prime Minister, perhaps you will concede, at this stage anyhow,
more Australians know him than know you. Now, how are you going
to pick up the leeway befcte the next general election?
PM: If you ask me to come and talk to you again, I'll do that and
that will help what has been happening now and I will be making up
the leeway. generally
Q. The House of Representatives, Sir, 18ka rather more turbulent
Chamber than the Senate to which you have been used to. How do
you think you will go in the House, and how do you think particularly
you will apprcach Mr Whitlam, an experienced~ Representatives man,
over the centre table?
PM: Well I can tell you that I am not filled with any apprehension
about this, and this Is partly, of course, because I am not only
facing Mr Vihitlam, I am facing Mr Whitlam and the Labor Party,
and I have behind me the Liberal Party and the Country Party, and I
am happy in my support, so I have no apprehension. 0 0. a / 11
11
Q. Mr Prime Minister, would you concede that Mr VWhltlam has
welded the Labor Party Into a greater force to be reckoned with than
your side of the House has had to face In elections for some time?
PM: On the surface It certainly appears that way, particularly
when one doesn't look too hard at Victoria.
Q. Tell me this. I think you will agree that one of the weapons
in politics, particularly In the House of Representatives as long as I
have known it anyway, Is this needling technique. Are you satisfied
that you won't fall into traps caused by that?
PM: You mean, will! I be able to dodge water quickly
Q. Do you feel that you won't be ruffled by this kind of
technique?
PM: I can only say that I hope I won't be.
Q. Prime Minister, how do you propose to acquaint yourself with
the particular problems of the various States?
PM: I haven't the slightest doubt, from experience and foreknowledge,
that the particular problems of the various States will be presented with
great force and clarity, and over and over again by the people speaking
for the various States. I don't think there will be any chance that I will
not be fully aware of the particular problems.
Q. ' Would It be a fair thing to ask if you think they are getting as
fair a deal as it Is possible at the present time?
PM: t It is a question that could be looked at but I couldn't ansme r
at the present moment. I think we must remember this that neither
the State Governments nor the Commonwealth Government are able
to do all the things they want to do and should do. Wlhat I mean by
" should do is co~ uld do with advantage. There is a general feeling
around that the Commonwealth can do anything, that the Commonve aith
can do this or that. It can It. It is Inhibited too.
Q. Prime Minister, will you give us a quick run-down, please,
on your attitude to the contentious question of northern development.
PM: Why is It contentious?
Q. Because a lot of people think up here there is too much talk
and not enough action
I
PM: I see. I was wondering whether you were thinldivg of the
theory put forward by some social agronomists that you get greater
return from Investment In the higher rainfall South than you do from
investment In the North. Well, my approach would, I am sure, follow
the indications which, before I assumed this office, I gave. I was
responsible for telling the CSIRO to put the Tropical Pastures
Laboratory in at Townsville. I took part In the decision made by the
Cabinet not to build an Army camp in the South where, for military
reasons and administrative reasons cud economic reasons It would
have been better, but to remove It to Townsville. I have played,
as I think they will tell you, quite a considerable part In helping to
expand the university college at Townsville, and the teachers' college. **. 9e/ 12
12
PM This is perhaps not the ktind of development you are thinking of.
( Contd. ) You may be thinking of roads, water conservation and things of that
kind, but It is a very real kind of development.
Q. Sir, we are not talking only about Queensland. We are talking
about the North, too, and Western Australia where there have been
problems, too.
PM: L I see, I thought you were mainly referring to Queensland.
Q. No, we are trying to approach this on a national basis.
PM: I see. Well, then what I was trying to do was to give some
indication which, quite fortuitously happened to be in Queensland.
I think the development of the North is one of the real problems we
have got. I am Inclined to think1 , although at this moment without
being dogmatic, that the conser vation of water in that area is one
of the great developmental projects which can take place. But I don't
ever see a situation where the North will be as closely populated
as the South. I don't see this happening becats e of some natural
disabilities, but that doesn't stop It being developed to the top of Its
bent.
Q. What Is your attitude, Sir, to migration from Asia? In the
last couple of years there has been some further liberalisation, Do
you want this to continue, this coutinuing liberalisation of migration
from Asia.
PM: Well, I think so. What you are talking of Is the length of time
people have to stay here before they become naturalised and that
kind of thing. Yes, certainly, I agree with that. My general attitude
to this problem Is thi1s. We have In Australia at the moment, I think,
almost no racial consciousness, almost no colour consciousness.
There is, I am afraid I must say this In some areas this kind of
feeling against aboriginals, but against Asians, I believe It doesn't
exist. Now I don't ever want It to exist. It Is a matter of judgment
at what point, how big a percentage of the population you have before
this kind of thing begins. 1~ YOU can avoid that kind of
development, as long as yo a~ n%# p1ople In short supply who can
help us nurses and doctors and dentists and people of that kind
then subject to those two provisos, I am quite glad to see the path
the Government has been following.
Q. Prime Minister, what are your thoughts on conscription?
Do you like our system at present of being able to call up young men
for active service abroad under the lottery system?
PM: L I can't think of any other way of doing It which could not be
attacked on the grounds of complete unfairness. You would, I am
quite sure, have suggestions of undue Influence, suggestions of
well, corruption Is a word, if it couldn't be seen, and it couldn't
publicly be seen that that was the way In which pecplc. were chosen.
I think myself that it Is the fairest way.
Q. When we mere kids this was long before your time, Sir
we all had to go Into cadets. Everybody had to go In. Wouldn't that
be a fairer way, assuming you could train them, of course? 9 o / 13
13
PM: Oh, well, of course If you put every twenty-year-old
youth in the Army, then, clearly, there would be no need to select
particular people, but In our day, all we needed was a tent and a
303 and, I think, a clip of five rounds of ammunition. This wouldn't
do nowadays. I think you would find the cost would be quite crippling,
not only of equipping and housing the youths but of taking them out of
the development of Australia.
Q. Prime Minister, we just didn't clear up one little
point " by lottery for overseas service".
PM: Yes, well, you are suggesting they should be chosen
by lottery for overseas service?
Q. Oh, no. I am saying is It fair, or do you think it is
fair? You said there is no alternative, or it is the best way to
call up men for military training because there could be no rigging,
but these lads have-to go overseas, some of them.
PM!-Yes. What decides whether rtey go overseas or not
Is the unit they happened to have joined, The initial choice is, as
you say, by taking a marble out of a barrel. They then join a unit
of one kind or another and are trained as a part of that unit. If that
unit goes abroad, I think It would be quite impossible to start taking
component parts or individuals out and send it away.
Q. Prime Minister, you mentioned as one of your aims,
or hopes on becoming Prime Minister e~ zRier tn this session, of
helping the unfortunate. Now the Opposition claims that ten per cent.
of Australians live below poverty level. Have you got any thoughts
on what you feel about that?
P ML Well, I don't believe that ten per cent, of Australians
do live below poverty level, but I do believe that there are numbers,
quite eignificant numbers of people, living in great hardship or In
poverty, and those are the people that one wants to help, particularly
if It Is not due to their own fault.
Q. Very early in the programme you said that and
expanded on it a little. Do you include In that a desire, If it is
possible, to Increase the pensions for the unfortunate people?
to achieve
PM: Well, whatever means can be taken/ the end I have tried
to set out will be taken
Q. What about the thrifty, Sir, who are hit by the means
test? Do you think abolition of the means test is ultimately practical?
PM: I don't see it happening. 0 0YO say " ultimately".
Ultimately is a long time. I see great difficulties in its way, although
as an objective it Is part of the Liberal philosophy, of course. You
remember in England there was a pension payable without regard to
the recipient, and after a while It turned out that it was a small addition
to people who had enough money but It wasn't enough to live on for thcas
who had uo m~ oney at all, so there had to be a supplementary pension
Introduced which was subject to a means test, and this Is the sort of
problem you get Into, particularly as prices do and will rise gradually
year by year.
14
Q. Prime Minister, It has been said that the security
authorities of this country, following the death of Mr Holt, and
perhaps Influenced by the Incident with Mr Caiwell, want the Prime
Minister of this country to have more consistent and constant
security. Is this so, and what are your views on the question of
guarding the country's leader?
PM: I am not quite sure what the view of the Security
authorities Is. I think it Is fair enough to attempt to guard a leader
when he Is walking through crowds or in an election campaign In which
he may be attacked, as on occasions Mr Holt was, but I can tell you
that my own Ideas are that If I couldn't get Into my own car and go for
a drive where I wanted to and visit some friends when I warted to
without someone following me, I would tell the Security people what
they had to do.
Q. No matter how discieet the surveillance?
PK. Yes, I don't like It.
Q. Well, gentlemen, that Is a good point to close on, I
think. You want to be free. You don't want to be watched?
PML. Yes.
Q. That's the freedom you seek and which no doubt you
will. demand if you can get past the the Security boys, and I daresay
the Prime Minister can do lots of things that ordinary people can't
do. If you will forgive me now, I will close on that one and come
back in a moment to thank you.
Well, Mr Prime Minister, in the last week and a bit
you have certainly had your share of television and press Interviews
and I think It can be fairly said by people who don't share your
political philosophy as well as those who do, that you have not
attempted to dodge qiuestions but have been frank when you didn't
know the precise answers, and who can blame you for that after only
a few days in office. And I want to say, from this station's own
point of view, that we are immensely proudto have had you he re within the
first fortnight of your office, and we do want to thank you very, very
sincerely for having come, and believe me, when you said half way
throtgh this programme that you would come here again, we are
going to take you up on it.