EMBARGO NOT FOR RELEASE BEFORE 10.40 PM ON 5/ 2/ 72
PRIME MINISTER
" THIS WKET6"
Transcrip-of Interview with the Prime Minister,
the Rt Hon. William McMahon, CH, MP, on Channel 7
Melbourne 5 MARCH 1972
Interviewers John Boland
Max Grant
Q. Prime Minister, this week you will celebrate
your first full year as Prime Minister, on Monday,
tomorrow, and I want to ask you two things. First of all,
has this been the hardest period of your p litical career,
this twelve months? With hindsight, would you have taken
the job, knowing what you do know now?
PM: I think it has been the hardest and most
unpredictable year I've known since I've been in politics,
or for that miatter, anywhere else. And even if I'd known
of the difficulties I would have still wanted to take the
job when it was offered to me by my Party.
Q. Well, now, before we discuss as many areas as
we possibly can, the question exercising the minds of most
Australians is " Where is the nation going in the
PM: It's all up to us. But the prospects are good,
providing only we stop looking over our shoulder or looking
down at our feet and look at the distant horizons. Because
no country has the same kind of opportunity as we have.
And if we've got the energy, if we've got the willpower to
go forward, of cou~ rse we will. I can give you all the
reasons if you want them. But the simple answer to your
questions is forward, certainly not backward, or marking
time.
Q. Now Prime Minister, the Gallup Poll and I'm
sure you're very conscious of 4, is last week showed that the
Government's popularity was down to something like 40 per
cent, and that your own personal popularity was down to
28 par cent, and M4r ' Whitiam's, of course, was not on a
crescendo either. But how do you feel with these Gallup
Pol. ls, and the situation as you see it with the polls as
they are at the moment?
PM: It couldn't have been taken at a more unfortunate
time for me or for my P-arty. Because we've had so many crises
of a kind over which we've had no control, that people would / 2
IPM ( Contd.) naturally bc disappointed and theyr would reflect their
disarppointmcnt in the bia-llotfz. For examnle, we had all the
troubles with the rural industries, which we are slowly
overcoming. We had the trouL'le in the international
exchanges. We had the trouble with inflation. We had a
dozen and one other kinds of trouble of an unpredictable kind.
But I believe we can solve t1-hem all and I think when we see,
f or example, the next figures relating to unemployment,
I think they will show we've turned the corner and that we're
going forward again. In other words, the ballot was taken
at a bad time for us and I think for the future, we'll look
forward.
Q. Would you be temptted to add to your answer
there " given time" " solve the problems, given time".
And perhaps go further and say, " Well, there's no chance of
an early election now"?
PM: It depends what you mean by an early election. What
I'i~* Cdve~ n done is fix a date until I've made up my mind
what the date is likely to be. But you could say in the
immediate future, say, the next one or two months, it's out
of the question.
01. But if you mention the number of crises, as you did,
wouldn't you need until November, the normally thought of
time for an election?
PM: Maybe. But I don't want to announce a time
prematurely. Prime Minister has ever done it and I don't
want to break the rules. Because conditions can change and
can change so rapidly. Why commit yourself when it isn't
necessary?
Q. But you wolildn't like to go to the polls tomorrow?
PM: No, I would not. You're right there.
Q. When you see a Gallup Poll like that, how does
it affect a man personally, and I'm talking about you, the
man, rather than the Prime Minister?
PM: At the beginning it worried me, yes, but on this
occasion I felt that it would turn out much the Way as it has
done, so it didn't worry me greatly. Witat has preoccupied my
thinking all the way through is knowing what the conditions
were, what I had tQ do as the Prime Minister in order to
change the conditions and in order to make certain that by the
time we had held an election they had so much changed, the
people would have changed their minds too.
Q. Would you agree that the state of the economy
will be the crucial election issue?
PM: Not necessarily the crucial one, but it will
be one of the mnost important of them. And that's why, at the
recent Premiers' Conference, we took the very strong measures
we did, primarily to reduce unem~ ployment, and two, to ensure
that there was strong growth in the economy. 1 / 3
-3
Q. Prime minister, on the questions of the economy
and inflation, is it clearer to the Government now, that last
year's Budget strategy was wrong, particularly in view of the
large hand-outs that you've just mentioned, at the Premiers'
Conference, to stimulate the economy and create employment
opportunities, and twi~ ce, the lowering of the,.-bond rate as we've
seen in recent months?
PM-. If you look at the Budget strategy as such, I don't
think you could say it was wrong. In fact it was right.
But it was predicated on the assumption that demand would grow,
particularly in the consumption area, and that assumption didn't
turn out to be corrrect. And hasn't turned out to be correct
unless you can look at certain special areas. So you'vye got to
look at it in that way. We are worried that consumption demand
hasn't increased sufficiently, butthe potential for this kind
of demand to increase is pretty great and if it grew too fast,
then, of course, we could be in difficulties, particularly if
it superimposed itself on what we call cost inflation. So the
real nroblem that we face today and Sir Henry Bolte made this
clear on Thursday that if people could get a little more
confidonce and stop worrying, if they could spend their money
sensibly, ( and they have the money to spendj, then we'd have ahealthy
economy. And we'd get it much quicker than any measures
the Governmcnt could take. I think it Would be better for the
country toc.
0. I'm just wondering, though YOu've partly
answered that question inasmuch as ynu've said that " Well,
tie did need to backtrack on our original thoughts with the
Budget". Is that a fair assumption, so that there must have
been some areas there wher-e you felt you were right, but you've
been subsequently proved to be incorrect?
PM: On the basis of the assumption that demand would
grow, yes, we have been incorrect. It hasn't gorwn to the extent
that we wanted it to, or we eXpected it to grow. That is why
ever since, well, November/ December of last year, we've
progressively taken measures in order to give the econcmy the
ability to expanC and then to provide funds through which the
States could increase their works and local government expenditures,
provide more money for the unemployment benefits. Also in the
case of rural unemployment, we've provided specific grants
there. As well, on the private level, we've now taken three
different sets of measures to give an increasing amount of
confidence to the manufacturing industries the investment
allowance, research and development allowance, and now we're
just about to establish a training school for industry that we
hope will give them a little more confidence and a little more
reason to believe that the Governme~ nt is interested in them,
and wants to hElp them overcome their problems.
Q. But can you get that figure of 130,000 unemployed
down, and down quickly, because that is really what the voter,
the average voter, looks at sometimes irrationally, perhaps?
PM: I think you're right, and this is something I've
believed all my political life. I've lived for full employment
and I'll do evarything in my power to ensure it. And that's
the approach I will take no matter what the troubles might be
or who might differ with me. That's the approach I took during
the discussions with the Premiers. I regarded it as a conference
relating to uneriplcyment more than anything else.
Ccimtx?. r( Ed with overseas, some developing countries,
we're still high?
PM: No we are not. Thcere is no country of a
comparable kind that has a rate of unemployment that is as
low as ours.
Q. West Germany, JaPan?
PM: Well, West Germany may be a little different,
but you look at the United Kingdom
Q. Point seven in West Germany that's a growth
country.
PM: Yes, but every country wants to be a growth
country. There are very very few countries that have a record
comnarable tco ours. West Germany is an exceptica;-lcase.
Q. Also Japan, I believe 1.3 is the latest figure
th e r.
PM: Well, I can't argue with you there. But what I
can argue with you is that the United States, the United
Kingdom, Canada, and comparable types of countries, and if you
look at the comparable figures then undoubtedly ours are ever
so much better. But where-we have been good, and where the
economic management of the Government has obviously been good,
is that over the long period since Sir Robert Menzies first
came into office, our record has been exceptionally good.
Q. Prime " Ministei you must have been shocked in
your pleas for wages restraints and price increase restraints
when BHP increased their steel prices by 5 per cent, and now
the docto~ rs want to nut their fees up to as high as
for a night visit. Now, there must be something wrong somewhere
in your whole concept when these things can go on and you still
ask the unions to hold fas!' I think that was one of your owvn
expressions.
PM1: ' Show moderation". But could I put it in two ways.
First of all, we don't restrict the unions. We plead with the
Arbitration authorities to show modera.-ti-on in the increase and
the rate of increase in wages. But it is not the Arbitration
Commission alone that determines salaries and wages. In fact
they can have conciliation and arrangements outside the
Coramission. Or they can have a wages drift by direct negotiation.
So there isn't a real limit on wage increases in this country,
and the figures show that completely. insofar as prices are
concerned, usually they're the end result. They're the effect
rather than the cause. But of course we're worried about both.
But the critically important issue that you must understand
and everyone must understand, however difficult it mi,. ht be, is
that if you get wages and salary increases in excess of the
increases in production, or what they call Productivity, then
without any doubt at all., you're going to get inflation, as to
the difference be2tween the two figures. And as we have production
rising at the rate of 2 per cent, average earnings at
11 per cent, the~ n you've got an inbuilt inflationary factor.
Now we can take inflation at the rate of 2 per cent but when
it gets to 7 and 8 par cent, it really works against the best
interests of this country.
-6
PM: I am not sure whnether we have power to fix
prices. I doubt whether we have po'wer to fix wages. But Crown
Law officers are looking at this problem for me and they'll
advise me on it later on. But I'm one of -those who doesn't
believe in fixing prices, at least over the long haul. You
can do it momentarily and then give it up. Because if you try
to fix prices, then, without any doubt at all, you create
greater inflationary pressures because you divert resources
into the wrong areas of production, you create bcttienecks, and
we all know what happened in the immediate post-war years.
Twice Governments4 tried, by referendum to get power to control
prices, and twice, rightly, the people decided that they would
reject them. I've asked for a paper Qn this, and I want to
produce a White Paper in the House, to see what can be done.
But that doesn't end the matter be-. ause I believe that what we
have to do, even though there are price rises, is to show the
people that they are justified or are not Jistified. In other
words, a public Vclations exercise is needed in the interests of
convincing the people themselves. This bthe problem we face,
and how we overcome it is still in the lap of the gods.
But at least I am making the most detailed investigations and
enquiries I can make and I want to have this fuilly debated
in the House.
Q. But all the public relations in the world won't
cover up a bad economic mistake, if we could put the BHP
price rise in that category, polittally, from BHP's point of
view you stated your attitude on it you can't overcome
it can you?
PM: No, you've done rightly when you've said there's
a political and an economic problem here. Economically,
I think that the BHP Company could have justified their rise,
though no-t at the time they made their decision and announced
it. But politically, it could not have been worse, and even
if I can put it worse, more foolish. What is needed, as I've
said in cases like this, is some kind of method by which we
can show that i~ t was justified both in a political and in an
economic sensQ. In the case of BN-P, I understand the South
Australian Prices Commissioner is looking into this problem, and
we'll see what decision he makes about it. But I agree with
you. This was a major political decision, it was a major
political mistake, and it did greet harm to me personally and
I believe to my Government, particularly as the decision was
made known immediately after a triumph at the Premier's
Conference.
Q. Prime Minister, I wonder if we could turn to
foreign affairs and this is a subject which you've had a
lot of personal experience with, having been Foreign Affairs
Minister prior to the Prime Ministership now, co~ ming on top
of the Kibel affair last week, and the suqcess Mr Nixon has had
from his visit to China last week, when is Aqstralia going to
seriously get down to the recognition of China problem? / 7
7..
PM: We have been looking at the problem seriously
for a long time. In fact, I think we were early in the field.
And we took action of a kind to liberalise our trade with them,
and we've got no trade restrictions other than on security
grounds. We will l. et our people go there freely, and we let the
Chinese come here as freely as they want to, ajain subject only
to security grounds. We want missions to come and missions to
go from the two countries. There's little more that we have
to offer But I stated in the early clays of being the
Foreign Minister that I wanted a dialogue with the Chinese
in order to normalise our relationship our total relationship,
with them, whether in trade and cultural relationships or
whatever else it might happen to be. Axnd we appeared tobe
going pretty successfully just prior to the tiMe when China,
became a member of the United Nations. So we've done a lotr
but we've not got very much response podtive and effective
response from them. But we're still pursuing it, and in
order to try and get greater access and greater ability to
communicate with them, we are establishing a diplomatic mission
in Hong Kong, staffed by pretty senior men in the Foreign
Office. We think this is a major step forward in trying to
achieve our objectives. If I could go further. While I wa-gs
not prepared to nermit Mr Peacock as Minister for the Army to
make a orivate visit, neither i nor anyone else in the Ca inet
would, if they were invited, object to a Minister making a
Ministerial visit to Peking and to other parts of the state.
Q. Isn't the real key to the whole question you,
the Prime Minister, seeking to go to China? Isn't this the real
key to it?
PM: Well, they have never put it to me that it ould
be the real key to it.
Q. But could you Put the initiative to them?
PM: I don't know, but I could certainly let it be
known to them, as I'm letting it be known to them now. They
appeared to be willing, but they ap~ peared to be willing to
have a track delegation as well, and when they got into the
United Nations they let us know that the time was not propitious.
But if they gave an indication that they would like a
Ministerial visit, of course we would permit a Minister to go.
And I would choose one who could. properly reopresent this
country, nne who would be able, over a very broad spectrum,
be able to discuss bilateral rel. ationships between the twc
countries, and our position in the Asian theatre.
Q. But if they'd like to see you, would you go?
PM: NoW, look, don't let's get too hypothetical about
these things because I think that when you are dealing with the
Chinese in particular, you must deal with them, as I've said,
with quiet and cautious diplomacy. Don't give all your cards
away at once. We gave all our trade advantages away in one
go, and we haven't got a resoonse from them. We don't want
to put all the advantages their way. We must play this game
as anyone plays the game in diplomatic relationships, by
doing it sensibly, wisely, step by step, and knowing that
it's going to be to our advantage when we make a decision. / 8
-8-
Q. Bt. . if Premier Chou En Lai contacted you
tomorrow and said. " Weld like you to come on a visit to
China", you'd go?
PM: I'd give it the most careful consideration. The
moment the invitation arrived, of course, I would discuss it
with my colleag4es, and I'd discuss it without any hard and
fast decisions in my mind.
Q. What's your stand on Taiwan at the moment,
Prime Minister?
PM: Our stand on Taiwan remains the same as it was
at the United Nations. We would like this country to have
the right to be independent, but we also take the view that
the resolution of the problems between Mainland China and
Taiwan is one for those two parts of China to be decided by
them. In ether words, we have tgo along with a view, and the
view that has been expressed/ CSi~ Fg Kai Shek on Taiwan claims
the Mainland. Peking claims Taiwan. In other words, both
parts on either side of the Taiwan Strait recognise that they
belong to one China, and we cap't deny that, and the Americans
haven't denied it either. But nonetheless we do feel that in
what is called a de facto way, and according to into: national
law, we feel that Taiwan has a right to be regarded, to be
treated, at international law as having jurisdiction over
Taiwan. But we can't be hard and fast on this. We've got to
be flexible in cur approaches to it, and so far as I'm concerned,
I'm determined to : e flexible too.
Q. Do you feel we have a need to take a more independent
line in Asia, and ha-e a more independent foreign policy,
independent from the United States that is?
PM: I believe we've got to take an independent line
based upon our own national interests. If they fit in with the
views or the declared policy of the United States, well and
good. If they don't, then we'll make up our own mind as
to'what we should do.
Q. Prime Minister, I'm wondering if I could put to
you you know, the Kibel affair exercised a lot of publicity
during the week throughout Australia. Do you feel that this
whole exercise did the naticn a lot of harm in its approach
to trying to get to know China better?
PM: Not a bit of harm. The Chinese are businessmen
from start to finish, and I don't think they'll take very much
notice of this kind of problem although they would make
political capital out of it if they could. But they're hard
dealers. If they feel that they will have some advantage
because of a rapprochement with us, then of course they'd
have the rapprochement. But they will be dealing with it in
the same way as we want to deal with it carefully, methodically,
and knowing step by step where their best interests lie. / 9
9-
Q. Now, it has been said that the Federal Liberals
are bowing to the wishes at the moment unti-I I think uou
took the firm stand with the DLP last week to the wishes
of two minority parties,* namely, the Country Party and the
DLP. Now this criticism has come strongly from financial areas,
sharebroking areas, particularly on the devaluation of the
dollar Australia, one of the strongest curren, 7i'es in the
world devalued and there's been a lot of criticism in the
financial world on that. And the time that Cabinet took to
come to that decision, and the opportunity lost to revalue the
Australian dollar to parity with sterling. Now I'xp wondering
whether ycu'd like to put this down in clear terms.
PM: I can put it down in very clear terms. When
You have a major decision like this, time doesn't matter.
TAhned acgraiitniscta lltyh e imdpoolrltaarn tfwteL ~ dhgi dnis' t tod emvaakleu e. t he Wer igahptp redceicaitseiodn . o'r
revalued upwards by, I think, 6.32 per cent, So, against one
of the major currencies in the world, we went upwards and not
downwards. And the second important thing is that....
Q. But you were already up, in layman's language.
Excuse me for interrupting, but in layman's language you
were already up above that dollar anyhow,
PM: No, no, we were not at the time. At the time the
decisions were made there was a little movement yes, but not of
the order of 6.32 per cent. So what we have done officially,
is we have anpreciated against the dollar although we h-ave
depreciated against certain other currencies.
Q. But overseas countries are casting eyes on us
because of the cheapness of the dollar. Takeovers bec,-Do.
more
PM: Now that may be so, and if that is so, then it's
up to us to find other measures to control the inflow of capital.
But if you felt as I dij, after hearing all the arguments,
and I made this decision personally that 6.32 per cent was the
right place to go, and I did~ n't change my mind, and it was my
decision at the finish, my decision. it was accepted by
the rest of Cabinet....
Q. Not Mr anthony's?
PM: No, well, Mr Anthony agreed with it, yes. He did
agree with it. Everyone in Cabinet agreed with it. But I was
the person who decided on the 6.32 per cent.
Q. In terms of collective responsibility?
PM:. In terms of collective responsibility, yes.
Q. Individually they may have differed?
10
PM: Well, I wouldn't say differences at the
finish, but in a Cabinet as. rigorous and healthy and with
different kindsof interests to represent, of course there
were differences of views expressed. But when it came to the
actual decision itself, after listening to all the arguments
by Country Party colleagues, and from others around the table,
and then at the finish when I said it's 6.32 per cent, it was
accepted. And I can give you the reasons why.
Q. Have the takeovers since then worried you,
including this latest one by Great Universal Stores of UK for
Pattersons, where you've got 80 stores throughout Australia.
It's a sizable one. And the Jaoanese investment houses
interest in Australia.
PM: Well, that is an interest, the last one is an
interest with'out any precise decision or definite decision as
to a takeover. The other, frankly, I have not had enough time
in the first two weeks of the House to interest myself in it.
But what I have done is this. I've told the Reserve Bank that
I want a complete analysis, in depth, of the problem of capital
inflow. I believe this is the right way to look at it, and I'm
getting a paper on it, and I hope to be able to introduce a
paper in the House, or if I don't the Treasurer will do it,
over the course of the next three to four weeks.
Q. But you may have to take strong action to stop
some of this capital inflow.
PM: It wouldn't be strong action. I believe some
other countries do it. Japan, for example, is doing it now.
mnd I can see no reason why we shouldn't do it. But I'm
not committing myself. I've said, and I've made it clear in
the House, I want an analysis of the pros and cons. And when
we have that, then we can make up cur mind what to do. But
what I do want to impress on you is this. We will act in our
interests as I've said before. The money that is coming in
now is fundamentally investment funds going into the development
of this country. In other words, it's building up our resources,
building up our capacity for increased development, building
up our capacity for increased employment. We've got to be
careful here, but above all, we've got to make certain that
we act in Australia's interests, and we don't let others get
too big a hold on Australian assets.
Q. Prime Minister, still on the point of the two
minor parties in the Parliament, will Australia now press on
with its " get tough" industrial policy in view of the DLP's
decision to knock back this legislation in the Senate?
PM: I'd like to explain my position about the DLP
because I think that many or most of their major objectives
such as their deep dislike of Communism it's the same as
my own, particularly when it reacts against the interest of
this country. Secondly, they want a stronger defence effort,
and so do we, and others of their policies are the same as
ours. But it is ours, and particularly my responsibility
to ensure that when a decision is made, we in the Liberal/
Country Party make it. As to the recent decisions relating to
amalgamation, I long felt and the DLP knows that I long felt,
that we would not stop this amalgamation. We had good reasons / 11
PM ( Contrl.)
for not doing so. We had no justification for doing it.
But that doesn't mean to say that we give up taking action
where we think there are improper practices, or where the
will of the majority of the members in a trade union is being
thwarted, that we won't take action. In fact, if we find the
facts show that there has been malpractice, then of course we
will tzkc action, and I will be introducing, or the Government
will be introducirig, measures soon. And that will clearly
indicate where we stand.
Q. Even though the DLP may not let them get through
the Senate? You are prepared to face that?
PM: Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are
some measures that the DLP doesn't like. As for example, it
might be compuiscrv unionism. we can think about those, of
course, but -the measures that we regard as fundan~ ental we will
push on with.
Q. isuIt sounds as though you're backing down on that
PM: No. Well, you can put it that way if you want
to. But you've got to live in a world of commonsense. And
the issues that really matter, and I bE'Lieve we will make
our position on them more than abundantly clear in the next
few weeks, we'll push ahead with them.
Q. Did it worry you when the Federal President of
the Liberal Pa'rty, Mr Southey, said recently that the Liberal
Party. he virtually said that the Liberal Party couldn't be
sure of going into the next election and winning it. They
would'nt know as they went into the election what the result
would be.
PM: I thought his last statement was a good one.
P. nd as you've put it, I couldn't object to it. As you know,
we in the Liberal Party are liberal in the true sense in that
we don't try and compel people to stick to a rigid party line.
Q. I didn't really ask you whether you objected to
it, Sir, but whether it worried you.
PM: No, it didn't worry me because I know him well
enough and I've been there long enough to be able to listen to
something that's said. And even though I might think, " Oh,
I wish he'd put it a Little bit differently" or I wish he
hadn't said -it, in a few moments' time you've forgotten it,
and you might even ring and say, " Well, now look, Bob, I'd
never put it this way again. Bless your heart and soul, see if
you can put it a little more felicitously in the future".
Q. You talked earlier about thn need for public
relations. W-hat have you got planned to improve your image both
with the Party and with the electorate between now and the
elections, whenever that may be? / 12
12
PM: Well, I think my image with the Party is pretty
good. Not only within my own Party, the political Party, butbetween
the political and the administrative wings. And we are
doing all we can. But as to the publio image public image
will depend upon performance and results. We' tarted off in
last November as you know, because you asked ' e the question
about it but we started off last November in ' asing up on
bank control. We've given them more or less complete liberty.
For example, they can lend money for housing in a way that has
never before been practicable. At the Premiers' Conference,
we took the measures that I've mentioned a few moments ago.
And if we found that they were not enough, particularly so far
as employment was concerned, which I've told you is an article
of faith with me, of course I would make a decision personally
that we have to do more.
Q. Can you just be a little more specilic and say
what figure or what percentage you want to get unemployment
down to?
PMi No, I won't.. I won't be specific there. But I'd
want to get it don to a figure that I regard as acceptable to
the Australian people and particularly acceptable to me.
Q: Which would be below 100,000?
PM: Well, don't pin me to a ficure. I think my mind
and their mind would be identical on this problem. I'd want
it down to a figure where people wouldn't be worrying and I
wouldn't be worrying either.
Q. Prime Minister, time is running out on us and
there are two very important subjects which I would like just
to discuss with you as quickly as possible. There's tremendous
criticism within the Parliament on both sides of the House on
who controls Australia's off-shore and continental shelf
what distance Australia can rightly control and where the States
can fit into this picture. NOw Mr Gorton has threatened to vote
on the other side Of the House this Session if you don't do
something about offshore legislation. There" is the question
of oil, there is the question of fishing rights. Now how
seriously do you view something being done abut this particular
area?
PM: Well, in the course of the last two weeks, I have
been discussing with the Leader of the House, and particularly
with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the combined effects of
all these problems that you've mentioned. Soon there is to be
an international conference on the law of the sea and associated
problems, and he will be stating his position before he leaves
Australia to discuss them at the international conferences.
I believe, too, although I'm not perfectly certain about this
because it's a little outside my jurisdiction, and I haven't had
the time to cross-examine him ccmpletely on this, that he will
be discussing it with the States and will then be taking it into
my own Party Room. I'm just sorry that I Cant give you the
answer to this, but I'm not u, to date on it. If I'd had the
glimmer of a feeling that you might raise this, I would have
discussed it with him this morning, but I didn't do so. ./ 13
13
Q. Are-you consc ious, though, that there is need for
something-to be done, and are you conscious of Mr Gorton's
threat? This-is the point.
PM: Yes, conscious of both and I know the Foreign
Minister and the Leader of the House are both conscious of it,
too, and they believe that i~ t can be overcome.
Q. So that all things being equal, we're likely to
see legislation in this Session?
PM: I don't know about legislation, but I believe the
way in which we are operating, or the way in which they are
operating, which they will recommend to Cabinet, will to a
considerable extent overcome our problems. But you've got
me here, and I have to say this, in an area where I'm not
fully briefed, but I hope to become briefed as soon as a
submission is presented to us.
Q. The other p~ oint I'd like to put to you is the
Constitution. The States met last week to discuss at Attorneys-
General level, a new Constitution. The present one was
described as a horse and buggy Constitution, I think, by the
State Attorney-General, Mr Reid, in Victoria. Now does the
Commonwealth see a need for a change in the present set-up-r
PM: I certainly do. The only trouble I've got is as
to the changes that m'ight be made, and the kind of Commission
we need or Parliamentary group we need in order to come to a
common view about what changes are necessary. But more and
more as I've been in the off ice of the Prime Minister, I've
wrung my hands feeling, " Heaven if ever there's an occasion
when we ought to get a change in the Constitution, this is it."
For examinle, in industrial relations, a control of associations
and organisations, control of interest rates and overall control
of the economy. I believe that we ought to have increased
powers, and I think we ought to be able to t~ Jk to the States
about it. But equally, too, do I believe that there ought to
be greater power for the States to administer, to have the
funds through which they could administer matters that could
be more satisfactorily handlad by them than by us. For
example, hospitals, schooling, roads and matters of that kind,
matters that are very close to the people, because I think they
are closer to the people than we are.
Q. You're almr-st saying taxing powers of some
description?
PM: my own view is that we really want some sort of
a commission on this before we make up our minds. I think you
should know, too, that because there hasn't been quite enough
detailed analysis of the problems of State and Commonwealth
relationships, I have agreed' to the provision of fundIs so that
a school can be established at the National University in order
to give us guidance on this problem. It will give us guidance
from an objective source rather than keep it in the political
area, the political arena, and one that will be a no1kical
football.
14
Q. Mr Prime M~ inister, wh-. at hope do you see for the
recovery of the motor car ind1ustry?
PM: I couldn't g~ ive an immediate forecast, but if
people would have a little more confidence, then I think you
would find the motor car industry would quickly revive. Above
all, I do hope that because of the recent measures we took
to ensure that the -manufacture of small vehicles took place in
Australia we want a large Australian content in small
vehicles then I think you'll find that the production cf
motor vehicles in Australia would increase pretty quickly, and
we'll have. a very Australian content, and we'll have much
increased employmnent by Australians that's the goal I want.
Q. Prime Minister, for " This Week". thank v,-u
very much. I