COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH BY 4\ X
The Rt Hon. J. G. GORTON, M. P.
ON
GORTON GOVERNMENT
Want of Confidence Motion
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates,' 19 November 1968]
Mr GORTON ( Higgins-Prime Minister)
[ 8.25]-l had thought that, when a motion
of no confidence was presented by the
Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam).
there might have been some significant and
reasoned argument on some major point of
attack on the Government, that some matter
of national importance might have been
developed, debated and pressed home. This
did not happen. In fact, nothing even
remotely resembling it happened. Instead,
the Leader of the Opposition scarcely even
mentioned defence, although that was one
of the terms of his motion. He put no views
to the House on what our defence strategy
should be now that Britain is withdrawing
from east of Suez or what the composition
of our forces should be. He did not even
mention the war in Vietnam or indeed any
matters of major national importance in
this field.
Mr Barnard-When will you give us a
statement on it?
Mr GORTON-All the Deputy Leader
of the Opposition, who is now interjecting,
did was to make a completely untrue statement
that never before had a motion of this
kind been moved without the Prime
Minister of the day immediately replying.
25657/ 68 The Leader of the Opposition, instead of
developing some matter of major national
importance, spent his time fluttering disjointedly
from twig tn twig, pausing to
mouth a few words on such matters of
national importance as the completion of a
few miles of railway here, the need for
legislation on sedentary fish-I wonder
whether he proposes to fight the net election
on the issue of sedentary fi; and
something to do with the Snowy Mountains
Authority planning the Eastern Suburbs
Railway. He dealt, if dealt is the proper
word-at least he mentioned tI em in
passing-on my count with fifteen subjects
in 45 minutes and dealt with none of them
in a significant way at all. In his peregrination
from twig to twig he managed to make
a number of inaccurate and misleading
statements, as is not altogether unusual. He
claimed, for example, that no orders for
defence equipment had been placed since
1965. My colleague the Minister for
Defence ( Mr Fairhall) demonstrated that
that statement is not true. The Leader of
the Opposition claimed that he and the
House had been given no previous knowledge
that the runway at Amberley for the
F1Il aircraft would need to be lengthened
for training pilots.
Mr Barnard-When are we getting the
Fill? Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable
member for Bass has already spoken in this
debate and will refrain from interjecting.
Mr GORTON-Let me go back, Mr
Speaker, so that the interruption does not
destroy the argument. The Leader of the
Opposition claimed that he and the House
had been given no previous knowledge that
the runway at Amberley would need to be
lengthened for training pilots in handling
the Fill with all up weights. Hansard of
2nd May, which was quoted by the Minister
for Defence, shows that that statement is
untrue. The Leader of the Opposition had
the naivety or the ignorance to suggest that
the Fill aircraft would have their range of
operations reduced because the distance
between Amberley and the north coast of
Australia would have to be deducted from
ithe striking range of the aircraft.
He completely ignored the fact, if he knew
it to be a fact-and he should have known
it because he was at one stage connected
with an air force-that Amberley is the
training centre and that Darwin is the centre
from which operations take place. It is
therefore not only ludicrous but misleading
to suggest that this range must be deducted
in this instance. Mr Speaker, I am sorry if a
catalogue of the misleading statements of the
Leader of the Opposition goads the Opposi-
. tion into interjections of the kind that are
being made, but it cannot deny the accuracy
of what I am saying, nor can this brouhaha
prevent what I am saying from being put on
record. Dr J. F. Cairns-But it is appropriate.
Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable
member for Yarra is out of his seat and will
cease interjecting.
Mr GORTON-To continue the catalogue,
the Leader of the Opposition had the
hardihood to claim, quite falsely, that in the
year gone by nothing has been done for the
sick, the poor and the old. What has been
done in this year, or at least a part of what
has been done in this year is this: Pensions
have been raised to a greater level than was
required by the rise in the cost of living.
Mr Barnard-What utter nonsense!
Mr SPEAKER-I have already requested
the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to
interject. I suggest that he refrain from
doing so. Mr Barnard-What utter nonsense!
Mr SPEAKER-I must also inform the
Deputy Leader of the Opposition that when
the Leader of the Opposition was speaking
he had the respect of the House.
Mr GORTON-I trust that after this
catalogue he will lose the respect of the
House. Indeed, I think he is beginning to
lose it already. I was dealing with the misleading
statement made by the honourable
member who has the respect of the House
that nothing has been done in the last year
for the sick, the poor and the old. This is
the beginning of the catalogue of what has
been done this year: Pensions have been
raised, I repeat, to a greater level than was
required by the rise in the cost of living;
assistance has been provided to families
without breadwinners; an insured hospital
patient will be covered for the full amount
insured however long his stay in hospital;
supplementary benefits have been provided
to patients in approved nursing homes however
long the patients may stay in the
hospitals; there has been the initiation of a
scheme to develop home care and related
services; and we have increased the subsidy
payable for approved home nursing services.
Will the Leader of the Opposition rise in
his place now and say that in this year
nothing has been done, as he said previously,
for the sick, the poor and the old? The
honourable member must know-indeed, he
has no excuse for not knowing-that these
things were done. They were part of the
Budget discussions; they were part of the
Estimates; they were part of the discussions
in this House. Yet he has the temerity to
get up in this place and say that they did
not happen and this from the man who used
to talk about credibility.
The Leader of the Opposition even had
the effrontery, as part of his case of no
confidence, to say that the Government had
refused to bring on debates on Tariff Board
reports and the Government's oil price
policy. This is what he told us as part of
the attack on the Government, when he
knows, or ought to know, that the arrangements
made between the two sides of this
House were that we should finish with the
Bills before the House before the debates on
these statements were brought on. If he
does not know that, he should have known
it. If he does know it, he should not have
presented it to this House in the way he did.
It is not part of my purpose--
Mr Barnard-These arrangements were
not made, and the Prime Minister knows it.
Mr SPEAKER-Order! I warn the
Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr GORTON--He is slightly upset, I
think. It is not really part of my purpose to
follow the Leader of the Opposition down
every manhole into which he may choose to
disappear. Those who heard him could
judge the effectiveness of his case for a
motion of no confidence, and I believe that
all who heard him will acknowledge, either
privately or publicly, that this is the most
ineffective case that has been made in the
history of this Parliament, or probably of
any other, on a motion of no confidence in
the government.
But, Sir, I do want to discuss two matters
that he mentioned in passing. He attached
not as much significance to them as I do,
but I want to dilate on them a little. One of
these matters concerns the defence preparations
and the other concerns the Government's
oil price policy as announced in the
House. On defence the Leader of the Opposition
said that ' the paper on the long term
strategy, the basis of the Australian defence
policy, had been in our hands for 12 weeks'.
So it has. That is the first accurate statement
that I have been able to find him make
in the whole of his speech. The paper is
concerned with various assessments of our
strategic approach right into the 1980s, and
an examination of the various circumstances
in that period and what the future might turn
out to hold in that period. Is it seriously
argued, even by him, that 12 weeks is going
to make a significant difference in an
examination in that long term, in that long
distance, in a matter of such complexity,
when there are so many unknowns, so many
imponderables-in some cases imponderables
which are not yet clear but which
may, and which probably will, become
clearer over the coming year? But in the
short term, the period up until the end of
1971, by which time the British will have
withdrawn from Malaysia and Singapore,.
we decided in September in principle that
we would retain in the Malaysia-Singapore
area two squadrons of Mirage aircraft, two
naval ships and an Anzac battalion, and that we would participate in arrangements for
the conduct of the jungle warfare school in
Malaysia. These countries know, and have known,
of this decision in principle. 1 say ' in principle'
because -before that decision is made
with finality we need to know, as any
government would need to know, what
assistance and support will be forthcoming
from the countries in that area themselves.
What arrangements will be made to man
the radar to control the squadrons we will
have there? What infra-structure will be
provided in support of our ground troops,
and where and in what barrack complex
can they be most economically housed?
These matters have been the subject of discussion
between this Government and the
Governments of Malaysia and Singapore.
These -are indeed matters which should have
been discussed, and have been d-iscussed, in
regard to that period to the end of 1971.
There has been no lack of thought, no lack
of discussion and no lack of willingness to
decide for this period.
But if the Leader of the Opposition is
suggesting, as I think he is, from what he
said, that precise longer term decisions
reaching far into the future should be taken
with finality now, taken in circumstances
which in some cases are different from
those which have ever prevailed before and,
in other cases, may be different from those
which have ever prevailed before, taken
before those imponderables to which I h-ave
refeired and which now exist are resolved
with greater clarity, as I believe they will be
shortly, I think he is advocating a completely
irresponsible course for the Government
of this country to take. I believe,
indeed, that he is seeking to play politics
with national survival, if this is what he is
suggesting, -and we will have none of it. The
plain facts are that our defence forces are
expanding. Much new equipment is still to
be delivered. Manpower is being expanded
to man that increasing quantity of equipment.
We have lost in this field no ground
at all. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition
has not even attempted to present a
reasoned argument to suggest that we have.
The second matter I want to deal with
are the allegations made by the Leader of
the Opposition on the Government's oil
pricing policy. He suggested in the House
this afternoon that there is some secret
agreement in existence, and others have
suggested that there has been generous
treatment of Australian oil producers. There
have never been, and there are, no secret
agreements, and there has been in my
belief no over-generous treatment of Australian
oil producers. The arrangements
made for the oil price policy have been
publicly announced in this House and I
have no reluctance at all in making available
the agreement of which I spoke to
this House. I ask leave of the House to
lay on the table papers relating to the Government's
oil policy.
Mr SPEAKER-There being no objection,
leave is granted.
Mr GORTON-I lay on the table the
following papers:
Aide-M6moire.
Letter dated 14 November 1968 from Comptroller-
General of Customs.
1 do that with some satisfaction, because it
was suggested-more than suggested-by
-the Leader of the Opposition in his speech
that something was being held back; that
either there was ignorance on my part or
I was deliberately holding something back.
I asked him to substantiate it then. He
would not substantiate it then. Those papers
substantiate the reverse now.
Mr Connor-May we have a look at
them? Mr GORTON-Of course you can.
Now. It has always been the Government's
declared policy that Australian crude oil,
when discovered
Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourabie
member for East Sydney is interjecting.
There are -too many interjections. I have
already asked honourable members to cooperate
in this matter. This is a censure
motion and is regarded by both sides as
being an extremely serious matter. As I
have pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition
was heard in almost complete silence
this afternoon. I think the same courtesy
should be extended to the Prime Minister.
Mr GORTON-It has always been the
Government's declared policy that Australian
crude oil, when discovered, should
be used in Australia and not left in the
ground while overseas oil is imported to be
used in overseas owned refineries in Australia. I should have thought that the
reasons for this were obvious. We want
oil to be discovered in Australia and there
is little incentive for this unless those who
search for oil know that if they do discover
it the Australian market will be available
to them. We need to conserve our overseas
exchange and the way to do that is not to
have Australian oil in the ground while
overseas exchange is used to import oil.
That is the starting point of our policy. If
it is to be challenged by members of the
Opposition-if they. do not agree with that
star! ing point-let us hear from them that
they do challenge it. Let us hear from the
next speaker, who, I understand, is to speak
on oil, that he disagrees with that basic
policy. This is the starting point of our
policy. We do want Australian oil to be used
to the fullest possible extent to meet the
requirements of the Australian market.
It was announced in September 1965
that all Australian oil producers-all Australian
oil producers-would be given 67c
Australian a barrel as an added incentive
to search for oil and that this payment
would apply up to September 1970. This
has been done. In the case of small producers
such as Moonie and Barrow Island
all the additional cost per gallon of product
together with freights from those oil fields
concerned have been absorbed into the
present Australian price structure without
any undue increase of price to consumers
or effect on the economy. But the dis: overy
of Very large quantities of oil in the Bass
Strait fields on which 67c Australian per
barrel was due to be paid would have
added quite considerably to the price per
gallon of product to the consumer and
would have had an effect on the economy.
Yet the commitment from the Government.
publicly given, was that this oil, in
common with all other Australian oil,
should receive the 67c per barrel payment,
and it would have been quite wrong for the
Government to have broken its word anti
retreated from this commitment by unilateral
decision merely because one producer
had discovered very large quantities
of oil. It was therefore necessary to see
whether by agreement the projected rise in
the price of petroleum products could be
minimised and the 67c per barrel which the
Government was committed to pay could
be reduced or abolished.
In the result, this was done by free
negotiation and agreement. The producers
in the Bass Strait oil fields agreed to forgo
altogether not only the 67c per barrel incentive
payment but a further. 5c per barrel
as well. This of course meant a reduction of
slightly over 2c per gallon in the price
refineries would have otherwise had to pay
for the oil, and a consequent significant
saving to consumers of petroleum products.
Do the members of the Opposition object to
that? If so, let us hear about it when they
speak. For its part the Government restated
its policy that Australian oil must be used
to the greatest extent possible on the Australian
market-and that means to the
greatest extent possible. We also stated that
for a period of 5 years after September
1970 the price paid by refineries for Australian
oil would be the posted price of
overseas oil as at 10th October, less the
discounts allowed as at 10th October, plus
overseas freight and wharfage, and that the
producers would bear the average cost of
freighting crude oil from the customs port
nearest the point of delivery by the most
efficient and economical means possible.
Here it is important to note two things.
Firstly, the Government did not agree to
any finite price. The questions of fact of
what was the posted price at that time, of
what were the discounts allowed at that
time, of what were the overseas freight
rates, of what was to be the average cost of
freighting oil around the Australian coast,
were left for decision by a conference of the
industry and all interested Government
departments and, in the event of disagreement
as to fact, by an independent
arbitrator. This means that after September
1970 for a period of 5 years the price of
oil to the refineries should be no higher
than the price they are now paying except
for any increase in the case of some
refineries due to freight costs around the
Australian coast. In other words, the cost of
petroleum products as a result of the crude
oil component should be stabilised for
years after that date.
It may be that prices of overseas oil or
freights on overseas oil will fall during this
period. It may also be that in certain circumstances,
particularly considering conditions
in the Middle East, such prices may
rise. But the price of Australian oil will be constant and at what it is now. Indeed, if it
were not so it would -be open to overseas
oil companies to reduce their well head
price to one which would seriously disadvantage
the Australian producers-not
one producer but all Australian producers.
This policy will ensure that Australian oil
is used. It will ensure the mere minimum
of increase in cost to the consumer. It will
provide producers and those who are searching
for oil with a built-in incentive. If the
Opposition objects -to any of those things,
if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to
pursue his argument-and this is something
concerned with a matter of no confidencelet
them say so. Let them say so-they have
not done it so far-on a number of matters
which the Leader of the Opposition raised.
On the question of defence, do they object
to the statement made by me tonight, on
behalf of the Government, of our proposals
up to the end of 1971? Perhaps they do,
because the Leader of the Opposition is on
record as seeing no threat in that area-as
seeing no danger whatever from subversion
fostered by Communist China. He regards
this as a false and fallible theory and something
which cannot be tenable for a
moment. Mr Barnard-We reject your domino
theory. Mr SPEAKER-Order! I have already
warned the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I shall not warn him again.
Mr GORTON-The Deputy Leader of
the Opposition is very quick to spring to
the defence of his Leader. I anticipated that
that there might be some lack of memory
on the part of the Leader of the Opposition
himself, but since it is a lack of understanding
on the part of his Deputy I will
quote what the Leader of the Opposition
had to say on this matter. He referred to a
disastrously superficial theory-
Mr Uren-When is the Minister for
External Affairs going to enter into this
debate? Mr SPEAKER-Order! If the honourable
member for Reid interjects again, I will deal
. with him.
Mr GORTON-In dealing with the question
of subversion or of the threat of Communist
China, the Leader of the Opposition
said that it was a disastrously superficial
theory and that it was a fragile and fallacious
theory. Indeed, if this is what he still
believes, it would be as well for the House
and for the country if he said so, because
this must be one matter to be taken into
consideration if he formulates an alternative
defence policy, which he has not yet done.
Let us hear what he thinks, and what members
of the Opposition think, about another
matter he raised-that is, the protection of
a great Australian company, the MLC,
from being taken over by unknown and
undisclosed overseas sources. Does he object
to this? He mentioned it in a speech directed
to the motion of no confidence in the
Government. He did not say whether he
agreed or disagreed. Indeed, it would be
interesting to know.
Let us consider the question of tariffs.
Another member of the Opposition-who,
I notice, during the whole of his speech did
not mention the Leader of the Opposition
by name--spoke on the question of tariffs
at some length and attacked the Government
on its approach. Mr Speaker, this is
the Government's position on tariff policy
as stated in this House, and on the position
of the Tariff Board:
The Government has considered this report in
the context of our established and well tried
tariff policies. There has been no change in these
policies. The Government is committed to ensuring
the growth of a strong manufacturing industry
which is in fact at the very foundation of the
Government's population building policies.
The development of manufacturing industry
is encouraged in many ways, and most notably
by means of the Tariff. The Government has
always been prepared adequately to protect, and
will continue adequately to protect, economic and
efficient industries. The Government will also
afford adequate protection to industries of high
importance from the standpoint of our strategic
or very vital national interests.
Tariff policy has been and remains the responsibility
of the Government, both in general and in
relation to every single decision. It will, ot
course-I would hope that this would be true under
any government--
continue to be the Board's role to advise--
Without instruction on how it is to adviseand
it will continue to be the Government's role.
in determining levels of protection, to decide
whether or not it will follow the advice given.
These have been our policies and they have served
us well. We have no intention of changing them.
In case it should be thought that that statement
of policy, as it has been suggested,
might have led to a lack of confidence in this Government by the business community,
I point out that I have received
today two telegrams from the Associated
Chambers of Manufactures. These are the
people who were supposed-according to
the honourable member for Yarra ( Dr
J. F. Cairns)-to have been so upset. Let
us see whether, in fact, what the honourable
member for Yarra said was happening is
happening. The telegram reads:
This telegram confirms firmest and most sincere
expression of loyalty and support from the Federal
President and Members of the Associated
Chambers of Manufactures of Australia. Australian
industry recognises your Government has
diligently pursued important aims of economic
growth and national and social development.
Would honourable members have expected
that telegram, h. aving listened to the speech
of the honourable member for Yarra? Anybody
who listened to him would not have
done so. Would honourable members have
expected that to support what the Leader
of the Opposition put forward-that the
business community was distressed at the
way in which this Government was acting?
Mr James-Gee, you are a good bloke.
Mr SPEAKER--Order! The honourable
member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
Mr GORTON-The terms of the motion
are that the Government has failed to make
decisions on matters concerning defence.
That has been demonstrated to be untrue.
A further term is that the Government has
failed to make decisions on development.
That received so little credence, even from
members of the Opposition, that it has
scarcely even been mentioned by any
speaker on the Opposition side. A further
term is that the Government has failed to
make decisions on social welfare in the last
year. That has been demonstrated to be
completely untrue. A further term is that
the Government has refused to debate such
matters in the Parliament. Anyone
who reads Hansard will be able to see with
their own eyes that that is untrue.
Some reference was made during the
speech of the Leader of the Opposition to
young Lochinvar. If I remember correctly
the ballad goes on: ' Through all the wide
Border his steed was the best.' If we are
to apply this to those who sit on this side
of the House then I would gladly accept it
as a reasonable description of those who
support me in this place. But what a weak
and puling attack--
Mr James-Dear John.
Mr SPEAKER-Order! I can recognise
the voice of the honourable member for
Hunter almost anywhere, and I do not
appreciate his musical efforts in the House.
If he offends again, I will deal with him.
Mr GORTON-I do not appreciate his
writing me a ' Dear John' letter; it is not at
all appropriate. What a weak and puling
attack this has turned out to be in the way
it has been presented and, indeed, in the way in which it has been spoken to by
members of the Opposition. It is a broken
winded, broken mouthed, broken down old
crock of a motion put by a rider worthy
of that kind of steed. If it has served its
purpose, if it has served any purpose, I am
convinced that it has not served the
purpose of leading anyone to lose any confidence
in what the Government has done
and is doing, but rather it may well have
served the purpose of showing up in stark
relief what little confidence can be placed in
an Opposition and a Leader of an Opposition
who can present such a motion and
support it in such a way.
Printed for the Government of the Commonwealth by W. G. MURRAY, at the
Government Printing Office, Canberra