PRESS, RADIO A111 TV CONFERENCXE
GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER, IMR. JOHN GORTON
AT PARLIAMENr HOUSE, CANBRA A. C. T. 18 JUNE 1970
PR IME MINISTER I'll be quite short, gentlemen, I thin:' w e have
recently concluded a Session which you will agree wao -full of
incident and which, I suggest, was full of some accornF, 113hment.
There have been significant statements on defence and on
foreign affairs, charting our course for the future. We at for 38 days,
which is a long Session, the longest Autumn Session, 1 think, in the
last ten years, and we passed 61 bills. Up to lunch-timle, the Senate
had passed 51, which is not quite a record, but, agair, close to it
for the last ten years. A lot of them were comparatively small
bills, but I think bills of some significance for a lot of people in
Australia and some of them for Australia -itself bills
dealing with capital assistance to handicapped children, dealing with
paying higher pensions to married couples who are separated,
setting up commissions of enquiry into dangers to the Barrier Reef
and into the Crown of Thorns star fish, providing a loan to the
Queensland Government for the development of central Queensland
which could be an extremely significant development for Australia.
And a whole variety of bills which I won't go into.
But three significant proposals, two of which have now become
law, two passed through the House during the time; one, the
establishment of an Australian Industry Development Corporation and
one, the Health Scheme which has taken some considerable debate
before it finally reached its present stage. And on the n~ otice paper
is still the bill for the territorial sea and the continental shelf. So
there was quite a lot of incident, quite a lot of accomplishment and
some significant things which I believe were done. I wifll now pass
this conference over to you. You will no doubt have other matters on
which you would like to ask questions but I hope there will be some
on what I have considered to be significant actions.
Q. lack Commins, ABC In the Senate just a while ago, the
DL? did say that it would vote against the Receipts Duties Bills
which would mean the defeat of the measures. Will the Government
take it as far as a double dissolution?
PM. Well it can't take it as far as a double dissolution unless
it is defeated twice, can it? All this legislation does is to enable
the Commonwealth Government, acting as an agent or, behalf of the
States at the States' request, to collect a particular portion of a tax
for them. We told the States we would try and do this . r: them. If
the States' House won't help the State Governments who have indicated
that they want this revenue, then that is a matter which affects the
States more than it affects us. But the question of a dou.: ie dissolution
doesn't arise until quite a period of time has passed and inatters are
rejected twice, as far as I can remember. a o. / 2
Q. David Solomon of the Australian On the same subject,
Mr. Prime Minister, will you have an election for the House of
Representatives because of the defeat soon to come of the Receipts
Duties Bill and will you provide money for the States to recompense them
the $ 50 million which they would have got under the bill, will you
provide this in some other way?
PM. The answer to the first question is of course wie won't have a
House of Representatives election on a matter which is not our legislation.
It 18 legislation we are acting as agents on behalf of the States for. As
regards the other part of your question, we would have to discuss that
with the States. In any case, there are always other op-ortunities, you
know, for continuing endeavours in these fields In that ) articular field
of legislation.
Q. Frank Chamberlain, AEP, Macquarie btr. ' Prime Minister,
on the question of States, you have a Premiers' Conference next week.
Will this question which was raised in the Senate today be discussed
with the Premiers?
PM. Which question was this?
Q. The receipts duty. Will you discuss that and also will the
opportunity be taken to discuss again the offshore minerals problem?
PM. We haven't had an agenda from the States on this. We have
asked the States for proposals they would like to have on an agenda,
but so far we haven't received them. I would doubt very much if
the offshore minerals. 1 et me call it by its proper tit'le The
Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill would be the subject of
discussion. If it was sought to be, it could be, and similarly with the
whole field of financial assistance to the States which could well involve
the attack on their taxation rights which the Labor Party seems to be
making in the Senate. You see, no matter what arrangements are made
in the future for Commonwealth grants r~ f finance to the States no
matter what arrangements are made in the future if the States are
denied the opportunity for us to act as their agen. ts to raise this
particular tax, then no matter how much we give themnthey will always
be denied the extra amount which they cotId have raised.
Q. Wal Brown, Courier Mail When do you propoce to proceed
with the territorial sea legislation in the face of the strong opposition
from several States?
PM. I would hope to proceed with it in the Budget Session.
Q. Do you hope to confer with the States again before you go
ahead with it? / 3
PM. We would be quite happy to confer with the Statces again. What
we would be conferring with the States about would be the heads of agreement
and the arrangements for administration and royalties and all the rest of the
matters which form a part, at the moment for example, of the petroleum
agreement. Now, the petroleum agreement deals with such matters as
administration, royalties, various fees, things of that k4-ind, granting of
titles, but it specifically puts aside without resolution the claim of the
States to have legal sovereignty, not only over the territorial sea but
right out to the limits of the continental shelf, and the claim of the
Commonwealth to have the same sovereignty. It puts that aside, it
doesn't resolve it, and the resoltuion of that is necessary. But it is a
completely different question from the working out of administrative
arrangements and spreading of royalties and so on, which would need to
be brought in to operation, no matter which way the decision in the High
Court went on this matter. So does that answer your question?
Q. Peter Martin, Seven National News Prime M-nister, does that
mean that there will be rno discussion on the question of the Territorial
Seas Bil1, on the question of the legal rights, but there may be discussion
on administrative arrangements for other things like the offshore
minerals?
PM. Yes, I think we need to resolve the question of who has the legal
sovereignty over the seas which lap Australia's coast. It seems to me to
be quite absurd for Australia to be the only nation in the world that
doesn't know, the only Federation in the world that doesn~' t know who has
got sovereignty over the seas around it s coast. And this needs to be
resolved. Now, it will' be resolved one way or the other. I mean, even
if our legislation didn't go ahead and I am not suggesting for a moment
that it won't but even if it didni't it would be resolved because this question
having been raised by the various High Court decisiozs, there will
undoubtedly be cases concerning fisheries or concerning minerals or
concerning something which will lead to a case which will ultimately
resolve it. But the sooner we can get it resolved the better, as the
Premier of New South Wales agreed with me the other day.
Q. Stan Stephens, Adelaide Advertiser While we are still on State
matters, Sir, could I get in a parish pumper which is rather important.
The South Australian economy, as you know, is geared to the motor
body industry and to the home appliances industry. The South Australian
Government is deeply concerned over the effects of the higher interest
rates and the credit squeeze on the South Australian economy. Will the
Commonwealth do something to help South Australia urgently? / 4 I
PM. 1 haven't studied this particular matter that you raise, nor has
it been brought to my attention by either the previous or the present
South Australian Government. Perhaps because one hasn't had time.
But you used the phrase " credit squeeze" and I wonder whly you used it?
Q. It was the term Mr Dunstan used. It was a pity I didn't introduce
the subject better, but he made an appeal for assistance for South
Australia. He made an appeal yesterday.
PM. It is not unusual for him to say that. I am intrigued by these
words that you used or he used " credit squeeze".* I have always thought
of a credit squeeze as an occasion where a government calls up money
from the trading banks and puts it into the Reserve Banlk or where it gives
directions or guidance as to fields in which money should be lent or
shouldn't be. 7The sort of thing that happened in 1961. 1Nw what is
happening today is nothing whatever like that. Last time I came and
talked to you gentlemen, you were talking about the economy and you
pointed out that the Treasurer had said there was a dangerous situation
those were the words, I think. Don't hold me to them....
( Interjection) Menacing.
PM. Menacing, right. And I said, " Well, I think it is potentially
menacing. But I think it is only potentially menacing because there is
going to be towards the end of this year a considerable decline in liquidity
because we budgeted for a $ 500 million surplus and that is going to have
its effect towards the end of this year, and it is having its effect, it is as
a result of the surplus which was budgeted for, tightening up the amount
of money available. But this is different, I thinklr, from what people
have in their mind, when they talk about a credit squeeze. And I
believe it will loosen again as soon as the financial year is over and
people begin to get refunds of taxation which will be quite considerable
in the first quarter of the financial year.
Q. Does that mean, Sir, that you are suggesting that we can hope
that the Budget mightn't be as tight as at present it appears it might?
PM: Well, I am not going to talk about the Budget except to say that
I don't think that is completely logical because if there is going to be a
considerable loosening up of finaince available, then the conclusion you
draw from it wouldn't necessarily follow. I wasn't putting this in a
Budget context at all. I was just saying I believe that at the present time
there is a very tight money mark-et which was foreseer-, which I pointed
out to you last time we were here, which is a result of budgeting for
a surplus. This will again I say this this will, in the first quarter
of the next financial year quite considerably be relieved by a very
rconsiderable amount of taxation refunds which will tak,-, e place, apart
from anything else.
Q. A taxation adjustment for middle income groups, for instance?
PM. Wouldn't you be surprised, really, if I gave you answers to
things that are going to be in the Budget?
Q. On that very question, Sir. Your last preas curierence ended in
some confusion Barnes from " The on this question of taxation
cuts for the middle and lower income groups. At the time you said you
didn't want to discuss the Budget. What I want to do is to draw your
attention to the fact that you had already discussed the Budget in the
Governor-General's speech when you said the Government aimed to put
before Parliament specific provisions for relief In the next Budget. Does
that still stand, Sir?
PM. What you have quoted, let me repeat to you, vias that I said it
would be my Government's aim to put proposals before Parliament
designed to carry out our promises. Now, the Budget should be brought
down about August 18 and at that stage, your queries ought to be fully
answered.
Q. I just wanted you to give your aims, Sir. That's all, just the
aims....
PM. One always aims to do the best possible.
Q. Peter Samuel, the Bulletin In the middle of 1, Aril, the
Cambodian Government -switching to foreign policy the Cambodian
Government made an urgent request to the Australian Government and
other governments for military assistance to defend itsoelf against the
Vietnamese communists. For two months now, there has been no
response that we have heard about to that request. If there hasn't been
a ny response, when do you expect there will be a res' onse? And,
secondly, how important does the Australian Governme-nt consider the
independence of Cambodia,
PM. Well, in answer to the first part of your question, the request
has been under consideration by the Depart ment of External Affairs
and the Department of Defence. They have now :; repared a joint paper on
what they are prepared to recommend to Cabinet that it should do, and
we will quite shortly be deciding on what is suggested by these Departments.
We attach a considerable amount of importance, a very great deal of
importance to the independence of Cambodia. That, of course, was one
reason why we were so pleased that our Foreign Minister was able to go
to Djakarta to join in a conference with other Asian nations designed to
try to mobilise world opinion in support of the neutrality of Cambodia
and therefore of the independerce of Cambodia. I don't suggest that
this corference has had any concrete effect. I don't suZgest that. / 6
but I do, in answer to your question say that we regard it as of very great
importance indeed and that we regard the fact that this conference in
Djakarta was held as being of great importance, even though it may not
have any concrete effect.
Q. Laurie Oakes, Melbour-. ne Sun One of the problems with this
press conference format is that you don't get a chance to follow up
questions. Sir, you haven't yet answered Stan Stephenc' question atout
your attitude to the South Australian Government's appeal.
PM. Well I gather from Stan Stephens that it was made yesterday
apparently publicly and not through the normal channels and I would prefer
to wait and see whether it was made through the normal channels before
I consider it. You can't go answering anybody who rushes out in a
newspaper I beg your pardon, gentlemen anybody who rushes out in
public and makes these sort of remarks or whatever they are.
Q. And now my question, In September last year, you were quoted
in Parliament that the new Melbourne airport at Tullaryarine does not
necessarily come under the night flying ban. I know that you spent today
looking at files in view of the current controversy, but I am wondering
can you announce now whether you are prepared to lift the ban, or
whether you are sympathetic to Sir Henry Bolte's demands that you should?
PM. Well, first of all, I have not spent the day looking at files on this,
but nevertheless it is an important question. I have been looking at it but
not at files. One of the things that fascinates me about it is the way everybody
rushed in and assumed and has gone on television on the assumption
that the Minister has said he wouldn't lift the ban on jet flying at
Tullamarine. As far as I can discover he has never said anything of the
sort. What happened, as I understand it, from examining it today, was that
a representative of the " Melbourne Herald" rang up the Minister and the
Minister said I quote from memory but it is pretty accurate " There is
at the moment no proposal before me from the Department or from any
other source for altering the hours of jet curfew." That's all he said.
That was comparatively faithfully reported in the " Melbourne Herald",
after which a whole lot of people made comments on the assumption that
he said he wasn't going to lift the jet ban. Now the position is this.
There is a joint Commonwealth/ State Committee which has been looking
into the operation of Tullamarine. It comprises representatives of the
Department of Civil Aviation, of the State Town Planning Authority, and
the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, and they have, so I am
told, just reported to the Minister for Civil Aviation and to the State
Minister concerned on their recommendations of how Tullamarine
should be operated, and both the State Minister and the Minister for
Civil Aviation are examining those reports. So, you know, it is not quite / 7
so frantic as it has been made to appear, and I think the line they are
taking when they operate these airports is to endeavour to see how you
can get the greatest operational efficiency out of the airport married with
the greatest protection for populations living around the airport. They
shouldn't be living around there anyway, but we won't go into that at the
moment, or the reasons why they are. But I think there is no decision
taken on this yet. This Commonwealth/ State Committee Report is being
examined in both places, and there is a report of our own House of
Representatives Committee which would also have an elfect upon any
decision which is ultimately taken, though I understand the Premier of
Victoria is not very well disposed towards Senate or -buse . d Representatives
Committees, but nevertheless, we would pay some attention to this one.
Q. Michael Willesee " Four Corners" Prime Minister, the Press
and the media have been under some examination recently. I wonder if I
can ask you what you see their funct ion to be in relation to what you
think their function should be in relation to government and politics. And
having told us that, I wonder if you could then tell us if you think that
function is being fulfilled adequately?
PM. What should their function be? I think they have got a very
important function, and quite inalienable rights in fulfilling that function.
I think their function should be to criticise.... well, let me change that.
I think their function should be to examine proposals which are brought
forward by a government and after that examination to give criticism or
support, supplyingtheir readers with the reasons for that criticism or
that support, not suppressing reasons, not inventing reasons, not
slanting anything. And also to report anything that appears to them to be
instances of governmental injustice to individuals or groups of people
or matters of that kind. This, I believe, is a function of the Press which
is essential if a democracy is properly to run. And they have that right.
Having that right, they have also got a duty because you cannot have a
right without a duty or an obligation in any field. And that duty is to
report accurately, to comment having given both sides of the question, but
coming down on one side not to suppress one side and only put forward
the other and not deliberately to misrepresent it. So they have the
right which it is necessary to defend to the utmost, and they have a duty
which I think they should carry out. I would add just one more thing to
this. I haven't been particularly terribly disturbed, as far as I know,
about criticisms of me, and I think the Press should never or the media,
let us say should never get into a position where they could be thought
to be saying " We are above criticism. Nobody else is, but we are.
We musn't be attacked for what we have done or what we have recorded
because we are above reproach." They haven't got that right but they
have got every other right that I have mentioned. / 8
The second part of the question, Prime Minster do you think
that function is being fulfilled adequately?
PM. I think it is being fulfilled adequately, though if you ask me
personally, I think there are instances I could point to where I would think
the criteria I have laid down have not been fully Zliowed,. so can Members
of the Cpposition. But I an not only talking of political inatters. I am takinig
generally. You asked me, let me give you an example ai2 a field which is
not strictly political where I don't myself think a full a: zd proper coverage
was given, and that is when " Four Corners" went to M' ze a story on
Duntroon. I think a great deal too much lam alot getting personal here
a great deal too much was devoted to people cleaning their boots and getting
shouted out by a sergeant-major walking around on a parade ground and
all that sort of stuff, and far too little attention given to the fact that it
is a place where more academic work is done than the sort of work that
was shown, that people come out of It with the equivalent of a university
degree, recognised by the University of New South Wales and that it Is
not really a spit and polish establishment and a place to bring up
automatons but a place to partak. e of a university education as well as the
discipline of an army. Now anybody can argue against that view that I
hiave got, but I have got a right to put it.
Q. If I could just say one little bit more there, Prim-e Minister. Do
you go along with the sort of expressions that the Postmaster -General and
the Queensland Premier have made in the last week?
PM. I don't go along with the expressions o& the Queensland Premier...
I think one of them had something to do with me -if I reinember rightly,
and I haven't read in detail what the Postmaster-Gerteral said last week,
but surely, having just answered your questiort at some Length in the way
that I have, my own position ought to be fairly clear.
Q. Tom Connors " Financial Review" Githe question of assistance
to the wool industry, you said at the last confereince that we had that you
were waiting for the report of the Gunn Committee?
PM. Yes.
Q. I believe that they have completed their first report. I was
wondering whether the Government has received it and have you any
comment at this stage?
PM. Well, I haven't received the report of the Wool idustry
Advisory Committee. I don't think the Minister for Priniary Industry has
received it, but I was talking to him today and we expect to receive the
report within the next fortnight. / 9
Q. I just want to hop on to that question of wool. Mv~ r. McEwen is
going to Japan. I thought this might be an opportunity for you to clarify
the reports that when you were in Japan you discussed the idea of a
-negotiated price..., in the unofficial reports. Would you clarify this for
us, Sir?
PM. Yes, I think so. Clearly, the question of an auction system
completely unchanged from the present auction system; a system where
you have one purchasing authority which has been put forward without
any detailed explanation of what iAs meant by it by the various woolgrowers'
bodies; a question of some kind of rarrying of an auctica system and a
negotiated system for particular classes of wool are all possibilities and
this matter of seeking to shall I say sell wool in the na.: ne way as we
sell iron ore, or partly seU wool in the same way as we sell iron ore is
a matter that would need to be discussed and taken into consideration.
Q. Alan Reid of the Daily Telegraph Oil health. The New South
Wales medicos are reported to be contemplating a rise of nine per cent in
fees. How will this affect your health scheme? Rill it affect it adversely,
and if the New South Wales medicos take unilateral action, will this prompt
you to implement your suggestion of a part icipa tory scaeme?
PM. Well, I was talking to Dr. Forbes on this matter, perhaps two
days ago and I am not sure of the basis of the report, and neither is he,
that the New South Wales Branch of the AMA is consider~ ng adopting the
rise you spoke of. I understand there was some membex of an economic
advisory committee who leaked to the newspaper.-, or Leaked to somebody,
the idea that he thought that thio could be justified. But I have got nothing
so far to indicate to me that the New South Wales Bran-c'. of the AMA would
adopt his proposition. If they did, they would be adopting it in a way which
I think is not normal because normally they have been Waiting two years, all
the time, and it is only less than a year before there = as a ri se. So I am
not by any means accepting that this would in fact happen. Noiv, if it did
happen then of course it would adversely affect the patien ts of our health
scheme in New South Wales, because there would only be two courses open
to us. One would be to increase the scale of benefits so that the patient
didn't suffer, which would mean that the doctors at their own sweet will
could decide what burdenis the taxpayers would have to gay. One would be
to increase the scale of benefitoo, or the other wiould be riot to increase the
scale of benefits whereupon the patient benefits would be eroded. Now this
clearly would affect the patient adversely, and ' we would have to consider
if this became a common thing just what we could and should do to protect
a patient without slugging the taxpayer at some outside body's instigation.
As I said when I was talking to thie Liberal Conference, our health scheme
and any other health scheme medical benefits scheme must depend
on most of the doctors charging an agreed common fee and that common
fee only being increased at reasonable intervals and by reasonable
amounts. Now, that sort of co-operation is essential from the doctors
for any health scheme of this kind to work, and if it is not forthcoming
and I have no indication to say that It won't then we really will have to
look at how we can make it wor,.
Q. John Bennetts of the " Canberra Times" Does tie Government intend
to prosecute any of the people who in recent days have been urging defiance
of the National Service Act?
PM. Well, you are talking mainly I take it of the Victorian Labor
Party Conference....
Q. And others.
PM. I think the really serious part about this is the Victorian
Labor Party Conference and what their delegateo said and did there, but
I have been in touch with the Attorney-General on that question and his
preliminary advice at any rate is that he believes there is not sufficient
grounds to prosecute and also there is the difficulty inherent in prosecuting
every member of a political party in particular which could be extraordinarily
divisive. But it is a very difficult question this one and one that
I would want to talk a bit more about with my Cabinet colleagues. But the
really serious thing in this is that not more than eight nonths ago there
was an election this country in which specifica4y the Government said
they believed ,' ey would have to continue Naticnal Service and they would
continue National Service, and they put that before the -eople. And,
specifically, the Opposition said they would abolish National Service and
they put that before the people. And by the ballot box, tae people
supported the proposition that we would continue Nlational Service. Now
it is a really grave and sombre thing in Australian politics so soon after
that, or at any time after that, any political party in Cp; osition could
urge not that the law be changed, not that all sorts of arguments should be
put forward to make the people change their mind or the Government change
their mind, but that the law, as propounded by a gover:. innent and supported
by a people should be broken, urging that it should be broken. This is
something new in Australian politics. Having been done in this case,
how many other cases can it be done in? Does it not really completely
break down the concept of democratic government we have got in this
country for any Party in Opposition to take this sort of line? In a shortterm
political way, it could, on my judgment, be advantageous for this
sort of thing to happen advantageous to my Party. In the long-term
Australian way, I think it is extraordinarily grave and dangerous.
Q. Bob Baudino, " Daily Telegraph" Talking about the law, it is
equally important to enforce the law as it stands. We have been told by
your Minister, Mr. Snedden, that there is something lik. e fifty people
who have broken the law now by refusing to register for National Service.
Nothing has been done against these people as yet. Is anything to be
done against them? 11
11.
PM. Yes, I think the law will have to be enforced. As you know, the
Cabinet was looking to try and find a civilian alternative for people who
reffused to carry out the declared obligations. I think you will forgive
me if I point out to you that there are many ways in which people can avoid
being called up for National Service. For example, if they join the CMF,
they do not have to be called up for National Service. If they can convince
a court that they are conscientious objectors, they are not called up for
active service. And there are the people who remain who take their chances
in a call-up, and 99. 8 per cent of them accept their obligations. For those
who don't and who can't show they are conscientious objectors, we
nevertheless looked to try and find a civilian alternative, a civilian
alternative which would need to be as subject to discipline as would service
in the Army, which would need to require as much dislocation of life as
service in the Army, which didn't give an advantage to the person who said
" I won't go into the Army". And we couldn't find one which we felt did
that, so we believe we will have to enforce the law as it stands.
QO Has the civilian alternative been abandoned, Sir?
PM. Well we haven't been able to find one which meets the criteria
that it doesn't give an advantage to the person who....
1Q. Sir, you say you will prosecute 2O-ye rx-old youths who don't
register, and yet you imply you are not going to prosecute the Victorian
ALP Conference delegates, Sydney poets, professors, and GPS headmasters
w~ ho defy the Crimes Act. Isn't this selective enforcement of the law'?
PM. Well, it is two different laws for a start. One is the obligation
to render National Service and if the law was not applied in that instance,
then you might as well not have National Service because anybody could
just say, " I won't go into Natiornal Service" and nothing would happen, and
the whole concept of National Service would be destroyed. The other area
is an area inciting people not to register which is different from the first,
and that is, I think, a difficult field, but I would draw a distinction between
that and refusing to render National Service when one became liable for it.
Q. Is one a less important offence in your mind?
PM. In my own mind, it is~ less important, a less significant offence
to say to people, to say to somebody else you don't believe he should do
something than to refuse to do it, but when I say that, I am not saying it
it unimportant. / 12
Q. Aren't they saying rather, Sir, " We believe you should not. You
should defy the law rather than. I
PM. Well, some are saying " We believe you should defy the law",
some are not. Everybody has got lumped together in this, but the
Victorian ALP Executive was saying they believed you shaould defy the
law.
Q. Has your attention beer. drawn to the fact, Sir, that the New
South Wales ALP followed your concept, in other words-, advocated the
change of the law rather than the breaking of It.
PM. Yes, this appears to me to be the only proper a!-d responsible
way for a political party to go on.
Q. On a related subject, Sir, can you give any details of plans
to withdraw our troops from Vietnam?
PM. No more than when I announced in the House that we would be
withdrawing troops and they would be out by November....
Q. One battalion only....
PM. Yes, and some supporting troops.
Q. Peter Barron from the " Sydney Sun" On the civilian alternative,
you said " We have not been able to find a suitable altern: ative". Did
you mean " we, the Cabinet" or " we, the Government Parties"?
PM. We, the Cabinet. I am not sure what is inhereat in your
question. We looked for a civilian alternative in the Cabinet and we
put to the party room a possible civilian alternative. The party room
itself was very strongly against it on the grounds that I put forward that
it did not provide for submission to discipline in the way that going into
the Army did; people could get home for weeke--i-ds arind Ypeople wouldn't
have to have leave and people would in fact be living a civilian life
instead of an Army life.
Q. Yes, but when Cabinet put this, was it satisfied that it was a
suitable alternative?
PM. Well, we were satisfied that we could put to the party room for
its views a possible alternative. / 13
Q. Barry Wain from " The Australian" On the subject of conscription,
regardless of what you say, the impression is still comig across that in
the case of the Victorian Executive, perhaps no action will be taken there
simply because of the numbers involved as you pointed out, it is difficult
to prosecute all the members of a political party whereas in the case of the
very few 20-year-olds who are refusing to register, refusing to answer
the call-up, they will be prosecuted.
PM. h'es, well, if they were members of the Victorian Executive and
who refused to answer the call-up, they would be prosecuted
too. Don't get the two things mixed up. Oae is refusinr, to accept an
obligation imposed by law. The other is particularly in the case of the
Victorian ALP, a significant section of the ALP, I think quite clearly an
attempt to grandstand, an attempt to pose as martyrs, an attempt to get us
to be in a position where we could be claimed to be attacking a whole
political party, and this is a matter which is, I think, quite different.
Q. Ya are not being intimidated by the fact that they are members
of a political party?
PM. I think we would be playing into their hands.
Q. Wouldn't a better solution be to change that part of the Crimes
Act that says " to incite" and transform it into action?
PM. Well I am bound to say that my inclination is tliat if you have a
law either you apply it or you don't have it.
Q. Prime Minister, in this case whether tihe laws are different, the
fact is that various people have broken the law. There h-ave been cases
in both Sydney and Melbourne completely outside the ALP Executive.
Are you saying that one law is one that should be applied and that this
other law should only be applied if you don't think it is going to lead to
some political disadvantage to yourself?
PM. I am saying one offence is quite differe: t from another offence.
I am saying that if it is an offence for a youth to refuse to answer the
call-up, and you don't apply the law to that offence, then you don't have
National Service. I am saying that in the other case, the offence has a
different result.
Q. Sir, the Deputy Prime MUnister said the Senate election will
be in November. Can you confirm that2
PM. No I don't know he said it and I can't confirm it. Did he say it?
/ 14
14.
Q. Yes. When will be the date Sir?
PM. Towards the end of the at present thtnhdng.
Q. Ted Barker " The West Australian" VW the Federal
Government continue its subsidy to the gold minzing industry after the
present subsidy expires on June
PM. There is a paper before Cabinet on this at the momnent.'
Q. Stewart Harris, " London Times" I was just going to suggest
if you talk about the duty of obeying the law, and it is your duty as a
government, Sir, if there is a low which you are not enforcing, to repeal
that law. Otherwise the law gen~ erally cetnnot be respected.
PM. Is that a question or a statement?
Q. It is a question because I would like to hear your view On it?
It is a statement and a question. Don't you agree with it?
PM. PMIn. general, yes.