2 5 JAN 1968
L/ SRAW'
TELEVISION INTERVIEW H THE PRIME MINISTER
SENATOR THE HON. J. G. GORTON
ON A. B. C. TELEVISION NETWORK 21ST JANUARY, 1968
Interviewer Mr Robert Moore
MR MOORE Prme Minister, you came to office with a full hand, so to
speak. A foreign crisisr the British withdrawal from our part of
the world; a domestic crisis, a big one the mail strike. And
what we might call a political crisis a split In the coalition;
or at least the legacy thereof. Prime Minister, could it have
been worse?
PRIME MINISTER: I Imagine things could always be worse, yes.
Q. So you're fairly optimistic in spite of the last ten days?
PM: Yes.
Q. To turn to the British withdrawal if In fact there is a
need for British forces in South-East Asia, presumably that need
will remain when the British go. What exactly Is the need and how
does it affect Australia?
PM: Well, we, as I think I've made clear, greatly regret the
British decision to withdraw their forces from the Singapore/ Malaysia
area. ThIe need, I think, Is this first of all to have ground forces
there, not in large numbers, but some ground forces there, able
to be backed up swiftly by naval and air support. The purpose of
having them there Is not to resist a major attack from some other
part. It's to be a police force, to prevent small wars breaking
out, to prevent insurgency, I think to contribute to t he security
of the area, so that it can develop economically.
Q. Now, these conditions will apply whether the British are
there are not, In fact they may even be greater when the British
leave, and yet one gets the Impression from your press conference
that In fact we will perhaps diminish our forces there as a result,
of the British diminishing theirs, which seems to be an odd thing
to do if considerations still apply?
PM: Well, this has not been decided. We are certainly keeping
our forces at their present level there, over the period of four
years before the British completely withdraw. I Intended to give
the Impression In my press conference that we could not move In
and fill the gap that Britain is leaving..
Q. Sorry, Sir, Is this because we don't feel the danger is great
enough, or because we don't have the capacity?
PM: We would have the capacity, but we would only have the
capacity if we sacrificed other needs of Australia which I, myself,
think are of greater Importance to Australia. esseet / 2
-2
Q. Then In a sense the British withdrawal isn't as serious as all
that?
PM: Well, it's not serious enough for us to say we're going to
sacrifice our development we're not going to look after, with
compassion, people in this community we're not going to provide
better health and education and things of that kind. In my judgment, lt's
not serious enough for us to do that.
Q. If we're not going to Increase our military commitment there
as a result of the British withdrawal, do you see a much closer
diplomatic relationship between Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and
New Zealand, say?
PM: I think that would probably follow, although It is pretty close
now between those four countries. Singapore, Malaysia, Australia
and New Zealand have really got very close diplomatic relations now.
Q. It seems that Lee Kuan Yew, or even the Tunku perhaps, feels
that they're not quite close enough?
PM: L With whom?
Q. With Australia and New Zealand, and perhaps Britain
PK. Now, why do you say that?
Q. Because they seem to be pressing more strongly for fivepower
talks than we are?
PM: Oh, I see five-power talks as distinct from general diplomatic
relationships
Q. Yes, they seem to be moving much more towards a quite
specific alliance.
PM: Well, the five -pome r talks are something that we would attend,
but not something which we would initiate.
Q. Now, given the fact that our defence situation presumably will
change In the area once Britain leaves, do you feel that this may
perhaps require a new foreign policy to take account of this that
we may In fact develop closer relationships with Indonesia and
Japan?
PM: I would hope that the closer relationships which have been
developed with Indonesia In the last period, would continue to be
strengthened. I would like to see close relationships and friendly
relationships and diplomatic relationships encouraged between
Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore and, of course, with Japan which
Is playing a significant role in that area. Anything that we can do,
short of sacrificing Australia's own needs, to create an atmosphere
in which the standard of life can be raised in those countries the
burden or fear of aression can be taken away, or subversion, we
would try to do.
Q. Prime Minister, we now turn to Viet Nam which I imagine one
has to see In context with the British withdrawal as well, but not
unrelated. How close in fact are we to taics with North Viet Nam? e. / 3
-3
PM: I don't think that at this stage we are particularly close to talks
with North Viet Nam, though people are exarnirt ng the possibilities
of such talks. There has really been no Indication that there would
be talks, from Hanoi, and as you know, the United States has kept
suggesting that there ought to be talks. All that Hanoi has done Is
say Cease bombing and then, maybe at some unspecified date In
the future, they might have talks.
Q. Now, supposing that said " Cease bombing, and we will",
what would -you say?
PM: I would say, If they said " Cease bombing,, and we will
have talks," I would think we should say " That" s fine. We' 1T
cease bombing, you guarantee not to send reinforcements In men
and material into the South, and the talks could begin at once.
Q. Then we say: " Cease supplying the South and we'll have
talks'". Is that what you say? In other words, we apply the
condition?
PM: We would say: " We will cease bombing". Which condition
they apply....
Q. Yes.
PM: " And we'll do that if you stop building up your forces
In the South, which our present bombing Is designed to stop, and
we would then be glad to see talks opened as soon as possible. I'm
expressing my view on this. I'm obviously not speaking for the
United States Government Y'm speaking for myself.
Q. Do you feel, Sir, that perhaps we might be at some
diplomatic disadvantage if it looks as if we are the ones who are
applying the condition now?
PM: I don't see why because one condition being applied by
North Viet Nam a condition being applied without any guarantee
of talks, and It seems to me perfectly reasonable if, as Is the
case, the present bombing was designed to stop the tnt to stop,
because it doesn't hamper and hinder the flow of men and raw
materials from north to south, that If we stopped that, and we
didn't get at a military disadvantage so that the flow of men and
materials from north to south could continue un checked, it would
seem to me all to be part of a packaged deal.
01 May we not be asking North Viet Nam to do too much?
To put It another way, aren ' t we asking North Viet Nam to concede
the war, If we ask them not to supply the south? In other words,
may this not be an impossible condition for them, however much
we desire It?
PM: I don't think so, because the suggestion is a bombing pause,
and during that pause, talks start. Now, if It's a bombing pause,
there ought to be able to be a reinforcement pause too, so that the
talks can go on, and I don't believe that anybody has conceded
anything except two Inter-related military operations would both
cease. e9* e * a/ 4
-4-
Q. Prime Minister, can we now turn to economic aid another
aspect of our relations with the countries near us how much economic
aid should we give, and why? What should be the reasons behind our
economic assistance?
PM: People tend to put a particular percentage of GNP as the amount
of economic aid one ought to give. I've never understood why pluck a
figure out of the air, and say this is the figure, we should attain that.
I think we should give as much as we feel we can give without seriously
interfering with Australia's own requirements perhaps interfering a
little with Australia's own requirements, but not seriously, because we
have a nation to build and a people to look after ourselves. Having said
that, the purposes of our economic aid ought, and again this Is a subject
with which I know different points of view can be put, ought to be designed
to build up a technological capacity of countries,. to enable them to look
after the machines which they need to expand their industry or to look
after their agriculture, or whatever it may be, and to provide a sort of
capital for them to enable them to grow.
Q. Eir, you've just said, and you said earlier In your press
conference this week that the amount of aid we can give is limited by
the need to develop our own country, and by our own defence requirements,
and this can sound either like good housekeeping ( W perhaps selfishness,
and I would like just to pin you down a little further on your attitude
here, because as many people have said, we don't know a lot about you,
but I suspect much more than people are admitting
In the Senate on October 26t h, 1967, during that part of the
debate which narrowed down to Australian economic assistance to the
Pacific Islands, after a brief comment by Senator Tangney, you went
on to say, and I agree It's out of context but I think it's still Indicative,
you went on to say
" I do not know that I have borrowed anything from humanity
in general; from my point of view, what we give Is assistancef
I must admit that I believe that that Is quite enough for the
Australian taxpayers to be asked to supply to that part c( the
world. Now, without being cyilcal, I don't think that sounds altoge ther
a mean attitude but it doesn't sound a generous attitude either. You seem
to me to be denying any kind of moral obligation that we might have
towards people In a worse posllbn than ourselves.
PM: L I wouln't think that was right when you said deny any kind
of moral obligation. I think Inherent in that Is a statement that that
Is enough for us to give, which means that we are accepting that amount
of aid, and presumably because it is a moral obligation, but we have to
balance a moral obligation against the requirement of our own people.
I think that we have to bear In mind that we are twelve million people
with, as I say, a nation to build and a continent to develop. I think we
need to bear in mind that If all our resources were directed towards
assistance in these countries, they would not make a significant amount
of difference there.
Q. Sir, to come back to this quotation, I don't want to harp on it
of course, but in that you do suggest that you are worried mainly
about the taxpayer being asked to give too much in forms of econrmlc
aid. Are you .1 0 0
PM: I would like to see the taxpayer's money, which is the source
of all money, directed primarily to developing our own country and
looking after our own people, but to give some assistance, and I
couldn't give you a precise level in this Instance, but to give some
assistance even though It might slightly Impinge on that, but I
wouldn't want to sacrifice Australia's growth.
Q. You wouldn't see it being a big Increase In our budget then,
economic aid.?
PM: I don't think I would at the moment, no.
Q. Prime Minister, I'd now like to come home and to the mail
strike; I don't want to go Into the details of It. This Is not the time
and place to do that but I think It does raise a general philosophy,
which I'd like to explore with you of your attitude towards Industrial
disputes In general, and to paxhaps trade unions, and I'd like to do
this In what may seem an odd way by going back to your maiden
speech in the Senate back In March, 1950, which you made In the
first flush of the Liberal dawn, and referring to the 1947 Banking Act
as an abuse of government power,, you said this
" We do not believe that it Is the function of
government to work out the destiny of the individual. It Is
the function of the people themselves"
and you went on to say " This philosophy has illumined all people of
liberal minds throughout the ages, and among liberal minds
I Include trade unionists who, In the past, fought exactly
the same fight as we are fighting on this issue.
Now, my first point Is, couldn't the post office workers argue that
they are fighting for their own destiny In the very terms of your
liberal philosophy?
PM: Well, perhaps they could argue that way, but I don't think that
It would be a valid argument, because we have set up In Australi a,
and we have accepted in Australia, generally accepted the belief
that if people are dissatisfied, then there is conciliation machinery
and arbitration. machinery to which application can be made, and that
after application to conciliation and arbitration machinery, then what
Is decided there should be accepted, and this, I think, must prevail
unless there Is to be law of the jungle.
Q. Is what Is really wrong with the mail-strike the fact that
It inconveniences the community? Is that why it Is so serious?
PKO I think that there are two I think that is one very, very
se~ fous thing, but It does more than Inconvenience people', it could
clog up business; It could put people generally out of empl oyment
if It continued long enough; It could stop things operating that is
serious enough. But there is also a principle involved of upholding
arbitration, and I think both those are very significant.
Q. Could I come back to the first point. I-bw, In fact, do you
as a government balance the claims of a particular group of workers
in an essential industry against the needs of the community as a whole?
-6
PMV. How do we balance It? Well, I don't think it's the government's
job to balance the claims of a particular group of employees against the
nation as a whole. I'm not quite sure that I understand you, but I
think perhaps that's the job of an Arbitration Court or something of
that kind.
Q. What I was really getting at was, obviously, the degree of
reaction by the Government will vary according to whether the workers
on strike are In a very essential Industry, an essential Industry, or
in a trivial Industry, say like Ice-cream makers.
PM:. Yes, It will.
Q. You come to a stage where you must step In, where the
machinery has broken down. Now, it could be I'm not saying In
this case that It is a certain dispute; in fact, a group of workers have
a very legitimate claim, public opinion and the government are wildly
against them, but public opinion can be selfish too It can be in
certain circumstances, Now as a government, how do you balance
this conflict?
PM: I think any government must balance it this way. I think any
government must say that the vital needs of a community as a whole,
the vital needs of the nation, muet be protected not Impetuously, but
they must not be allowed to be destroyed, and this must be the
paramount and over-riding consideration, I think.
Q. Sir,, at your press conference a few days ago, you spoke of
what I think you called " an administrative reshuffle" when talking
about the Cabinet of the future. I wonder whether this mail strike
may not be one of the things you had in mind because It does seem to
me odd that this strike should involve the Prime Minister, the Postm
aster-general, the Minister for Labour and National Service, the
Public Service Board, with somewhere the Arbitration Commission
looming In the background. It all seems very confused now Is this
an example of what you would like to streamline?
PM: This wasn't particularly what I had In mind, nor is it
precisely. It's very nearly setting out the facts, but not quite
precisely. It does Involve the Public Service Board because Initially
applications are made to the Public Service Board for variations.
After such applications have been made, If either side is dissatisfied,
then there Is a public service arbitrator, and after the public service
arbitrator, then subject to the Arbitration Court Itself, there Is
a further application to a neutral umpire In the Arbitration Court.
The only way In which the Prime Minister comes Into It Is that the
Public Service Board Is under his administrative control, and Indeed
the only way the two ways In which I have come into it are these.
Firstly, In reply to a telegram to me asking If I would speed up
meetings with the Public Service Board, bring it forward before the
date when It was due to take place, I desired to minimise the chances
of conflict, and I sent a telegram back saying " Yes, I would have
a meeting as soon as they returned to normal work. That's one
way. The other way I came Into It was making a decision with my
colleagues that we have to keep the n-a Us moving, no matter what.
I would say to the community that having been done, then the process
of keeping the mails moving is in charge of the Postmaster -General and
the Minister for Labour and National Service comes into it because of
their general trade union relationships.
-7
Q4 Do you agree maybe it's not confused, but do you
agree that It's very complex anyway?
PM: It's not as complex as It looks, but it certainly looks
complex.
Q. I wonder If we could move on, related to what you said
there too, to your conception of the office of Prime Minister. A
lot of people have written a lot about this and said a lot about It,
that perhaps In Australia and Britain too, we're developing something
more like the President the Prime Minister is getting bigger and
bigger in the community and In Cabinet and so on. Now, do you see
yourself as Prime Minister as essentially Chairman of a Committee
or a Super Minister?
PM: L Well, I don't like that sort of super-Minister thing It's
got overtones of Supermac or Superman. I don't see myself that
way. Now, I don't see the Prime Minister as Chairman of the
Committee. Ideally, of course, perhaps if we had an Ideal world,
the Prime Minister shouldn't have to do anything at all except go
round and meet people because he ought to have Ministers in charge
of all various areas, and leave them to do the job, and they should
do it and talk to him about doing it, and he should just sit back and
think about what we're going to try and do next, the goals we're
going to reach. I don't think we'll ever reach that Ideal stage, and
there must be Cabinet responsibility for a number of matters. But
I would believe that the Prime Minister now or In the future Is not
to be Chairman of the Committee so that a majority vote In the
committee says what's going to be done. He should put to the
Cabinet or the committee what he believes ought to be done, and
if he believes strongly emugh that It ought to be done, then It must
be done.
Q. I'd like to move on from there. It's sometimes said that
the most important decision a Prime Minister has to make Is the
making of his Cabinet. Now, it isn't the time to canvass the details
of what you have in mind, but I wonder If I could put it on the
pessimistic side which zeems to be the quickest way of getting an
answer. What would you look for In deciding to drop a Minister,
if I can put It that way? What Is it that makes a bad Minister?
What is a failure In politics?
PM: I think that's a very hard question to answer. I really
do I don't think it's a question that, flung at me like that, that
I can answer.
Q. Can I put It this way? Is it because a Minister Is a
bad administrator or because he gives bad advice in Cabinet, or
because he's politically unsound? I mean, we could make a longer
list than that, but I'm just wondering what It Is In fact that a Prime
Minister takes into account when he decides that Bloggs must go?
PM: L So and so is a good Minister so and so Is a bad
Minister?
Q. Yes.
PM: I'd like notice of that question because It
8-
Q. I wonder if perhaps we could take It up another time then?
PM: Possibly
Q. Thank you very much. Could! I turn to the Coalition.
Mr McEwen, a few weeks ago, Indicated that he would not serve under
a particular Liberal Party leader. Now,, for your part, would you
refuse to allow a particular Country Party member to serve under you
as a Minister?
PM: No. I would not believe that I had that right; just as the
Leader of the Country Party doesn't believe that he has the right, to
say he refuses to allow a particular member to be made a Minister.
He believes his right Is limited to saying this: " i I will not serve
under so and so. He doesn't believe that he has the right to say:
77M~ f not serve with.
Q. So, in return, you would accept a package deal, if I can
use that word, from the Country Party?
PM: L Yes.
Q. Do you thinkc there Is any problem, In fact, in having
some Ministers less directly responsible to you as Prime Minister,
than others?
PM? I don't think so. I don't think Iis arisen in my experience,
with relation to other Prime Ministers, which I have been able to
watch from the outside, but it just doesn't seem to have appeared.
And we have an understanding, and I think the understanding was held
by Sir Robert Menzies with Mr McEwen, and by Mr Holt. We don't go
in there as two separate teams with Caucus beforehand, and decide
block votes beforehand, or put similar opinions. We try to, and I
believe we do, go in as individual members of a government, and on
many, many occasions you'll find discussions in which the Liberal
and Country Party Ministers agree to something, and Liberal and
Country Party Ministers on the other side raising doubts about it.
Q. You don't think that your position, In fact, may be
weakened by events of the past few weeks?
PM: I don't think so. No.
Q. I tikone ct the most Interesting things that observers
will be watching, with perhaps a certain degree of well-intentioned
malice perhaps, will be how you handle the Senate. There's a certain
irony In your becoming the Prime Minister, and you're on record at
the time of the postal regulations debate and so on, as suggesting that
perhaps the Senate is In danger of over-stepping its role In certain
directions? What are you going to do about it?
PM: Therdfa absolutely nothing anybody can do about it unless
you have a constitutional referendum, and I haven't got that In mind.
The Senate, I think, has not over-stepped Its role in the past,, except
that I was a bit dubious about that postal regulation one; I think that
perhaps that was perhaps a little over the line. But It hasn't rejected
Budgets; It hasn't refused supply,$ I t hasn't made the House of
Representatives go to the people. ' If It did, It would certainly be
acting, I think, irresponsibly, and wrongly. But it has a role to
0 0 0 / 9
-9-
PM examine legislation, to try and improve It, to make amendments,
( Contd.) to send It back for further examination. And provided It acts
responsibly, I think It has an advantage to a government.
Now, we have not had a majority In the Senate for some time,
but things -well, they've been held up, and there have been
arguments and so on, but things have gone on. We're In no
worse position now than we were before, In fact It might even
be said to be in a rather better one.
Q. I want to mention one name, and one name only. What
are you going to do about Senator Wright? Woo him, or contain
him?
PM: Woo him or coutain him? Wr,. qld you care to define
your words?
Q. Well, are you going to elevate him, promote him, win
him over, or are you going to try to Isolate him or bring him
into line?
PM: I've always had quite a regard for Senator Wright,
except from time to time when we've had an argument. But I'm
bound to say that during the period of time when I was Leader
of the Senate, and I think you'll see this if you look at the record,
that he was of great assistance to the Government. He came In
and supported the Government on a number of occasions, and put
our case for us very well.
Q. Did you say he supported the Government on a number
of occasions?
PIML Yes. I did.
Q. On other occasions?
PM. Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, actively supported actively
came in. We argued well and put active support rather than
just.
Q. Sir, I'd like to touch on one aspect of your own career
in the Senate, and one only, and I do it for perhaps not the
apparent reason. And that's the VIP affair, because I feel
anyway that if there was ever a time when you made your name
and came before the public as a potential Liberal Party leader,
If ever the occasion arose, it was then. My own personal view
Is that If there was ever a time that you made your run without
knowing it what Is interesting is that in the newspaper reports
of your tabling the documents in the Senate that day, the word
" Insist" crops up " Senator Gorton insisted on tabling the
documents" and this phrase did you In fact Insist, and if
you did, against whose advice did you Insist on tabling them?
PM: I don't know where the newspapers got that particular
word from. You know, they have political corrspondents, and
they go round and talkc to people, and then they come out with
their own words as to what happened. I just prefer to put It this
way, that having discovered that these things were in existence,
and believing it proper that a House of Parliament should have
information as to the expenditure of public money how it was
spent. And the House having asked for that information, it was
a proper thing to do to provide it. 1
10
Q. Well, if you didn't have to Insist, did you have to resist
dissuasion, and there I'll leave it when you've answered that.
PM: There was some discussion about It.
Q. Sir, I'd like to end this discussion, to turn to your more
general political philosophy, and I'd like to begin on the economic
side of It. You are on record as saying that you oppose monopolies,
and that you're all for free competition, not for disastrous
competition, but for free compe~ tition.
Now, Is the logic of this attitude a two-airline system, a
three-airline system or a four-airline system?
PM: I think it's a two-airline system. You can't apply this logic
all across the board. You musn't say " I believe in this and
therefore In every field this must happen". I mean, I'm not in
favour of a two-railway system, that kind of thing. The philosophy
that I was seeking to express was this: That I believed that the
community was better served, and people themselves were better
served, and that they had more opportunity to develop their own
individual capacities and try somethi rg out and see how good they
were in fields where there was free local competition. But I
think history has shown that it Is not awfully comfortable always
for businesses to have competition, so they tend to amalgamate In
many fields, and after a while that might mean it could mean that
competition just wasn't there at all. Well, If competition wasn It
there at all, you would have a private monopoly that could be
controlled by government of course, higher taxes moving in, but
what would be a better way of controlling it, in my view, is to provide
competition from a government. It wouldn't then be a monopoly,
but instead of having a private monopoly, you provide competition
from a government Instrumentality,, and let them fight it out.
Q. I still can It see, Sir, why you object to having, say,
two private airlines and one government airline?
PM: Well I suppose the answer to that would be, perhaps not
philosophical, I suppose the answer to that would be that there is
just not enough traffic and passengers and revenue for an extra
airline
Q. Couldn't you allow the entrepreneurs who disagree with
you the right to go broke?
PMO Yes, I'm not sure that they'd go broke without expecting
to be baled out.
Q. One other point, Sir, and this is not strictly speaking the
concern of the Federal Government, but I think It Is a concern of
Liberal philosophy. Does your philosophy allow restrictions on the
production of margarine, say, or restriction of the consumer's
choice?
PM: I would have thought that that was a matter for S tate
legislation.
Q. I think it's still a matter for general Liberal philosophy? 0 0 A1 1
11
PM: Yes, It Is.
Q. What is your view on that?
PM: This is of course a matter for Liberal philosophy -you're
entirely right on this. It Is also a matter for decision by the
sovereign States. I wouldn't like it to be thought that I was
expressing a philosophy here which might be designed to interfere
with what the sovereign States thought they ought to do.
Q. So, you're not a centm list after all?
Well, Sir, I'd like to end on your quite specific political
philosophy, and I'll be very brief on this, but going back in your
maiden speech in March, 1950, you said that
" In the past there has always been a tendency on the
part of governments of every kind to gain more and more
power because, I suppose, Members of a government believe
that they are good men and will not abuse It. But that
danger always exists."
WNell, that's what somebody else has called " the neverending
audacity of elected persons".
Now that you're on the other end of the government stream,
how are you going to protect yourself from falling into this abuse of
power? Are you conscious of it?
PM: I would be conscious of It because It because
ever since Acton, I think It was, said " All power corrupts, but
absolute power corrupts absolutely' this has been one of the
things that one's always had In mind In the field of politics. But,
it still remains true that, although I might be conscious of it, I
might subsconsciously be led to say " Well, I know 11m right here
so I'm going to do It" and that danger exists.
Now, I'd try to stop it myself. If! I didn't, then I'm pretty
sure that the Party would, or the House of Representatives would,
or the Senate certainly would.
Q. Prime Minister, thank you very much for giving us your time.