PRIME MINISTER
" THIS WEEK"
Television Interview given by the Prime Minister,
T e Rt. Hon. William McMahon, for HSV7.
MELBOURNE
Interviewers John Boland
Max Grant JUNE 1972
Introduction Good Evening and welcome to " This Week" this week.
Much of our programme this evening is devoted to the first in-depth
interview the Prime Minister, ' r McMahon, has given since he returned
from his trip to South-East Asia.
Now to question the Prime Minister tonight, John Boland,
and Maxwell Grant of the " Herald".
Q. Prime ? inister, if there is criticism of you as Prime
Minister, there certainly was never any of you as Federal
Treasurer. And I have heard it said that you were probably one
of the most forthright and best Treasurers we have had in
Australia, and it is that area that I would like to deal with
first. With Britain letting the pound sterling float, most
financial experts believe that starling will be devalued when
foreign exchanges open tomorrow and the British Exchange opens,
I think, on the following Tuesday. Now if this happens, is it
possible that Australia's dollar would dvalue?
PM: I don't think so, and I think it would be highly improbable.
That's the clear answer I can give. I think that is the only
answer I can give in fact.
Q. Well, the devaluation of the oound sterling could affect
Australia's farm industries, and say bring a flood of speculative
money here, far more than has been potring into Australia
in recent months. Is this concerning you, and do you see some
vital areas of concern here
PM: The foreign exchanges will be closed at least tomorrow.
The British exchanges have closed and sp, too, have the Japanese,
so we have a little time to think. But what is important is
that the British Government through the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, has made it clear that there are no objective facts
on which Britain should expect a revaluation or devaluation
downwards, if you like. And I think that is probably true, / 2
PM: so that what has happened in recent days has been speculative.
cont'd. But even if there were some depreciation of the United Kingdom
pound, it would not necessarily have a severe effect on us.
As you know, when we were looking at this problem in December,
we decided tLLo detach ourselves from the pound sterling, and to
associate our Australian dollar with the United States dollar.
Consequently, for the two reasons that I have just given, we
doubt whether this will have a very big impact upon us and that
includes the primary industries as wall.
Q. The floating of the storling pound, though, would in fact,
tend to make our exports to Britain dearer
PM: That is true, yes. But we don't know yet to what extent
it might occur.
Q. But it will occur to some extent You wouldn't argue
with that
PM: I wouldn't argue about that, but I wouldn't speculate.
Consequently I would not speculate to the extent to which it
would affect Australia's primary industries. I do notthink
it could be very substantial.
Q. Has the Government considered floating the dollar, as
some Sydney and Melbourne university economists have suggested?
PM: No, we haven't because we believe and I think most other
countries believe in having a fairly stable exchange rate.
And we do like some areas within which the exchange rate can
vary, but we want the band to be not too big. And we want the
United Kingdom Government and I know it's the view of the
United Kingdom Government that it get back back to a parity
of exchange and it fixes the band within which fluctuations
can occur, as quickly as it can. It knows that is in the
interest of world trade and worlddevelooment, and so do we.
Q. You were Federal Treasurer, I thin when the late Harold
Hoitwas Prime Minister...
PM: Yes, that is true.
Q. Prime Minister, you took a very strong stand on the pound
sterling crisis then, and you did have trouble with the Country
Party at that stage. Sir John McEwen, I think, was Deputy
Prime Minister then. Now, do you expect pressures...
obviously primary industry will be affected... you would
expect pressures from the Count-ry Party again in this area.';
PM: It is much too early to speculate and dangerous to do so
because we will -not get the kind of fluctuations in the
exchanges that we had previously. And, in my own view, looking
at it as I do at the moment, I don't expect any trouble about
this problem.
Q. You p robably could.... would you be prepared to say there
is certainly no prospect at the moment of a revaluation of
the Australian dollar
PM: I would not speculate about this at all. I would be fairly
certain of this, that we will not change our parity with gold
or with the United States dollar, but that doesn't mean to say
that there might not be some fluctuation in relationship to
sterling, if it does devalue that is, move downwards.
Q. You think it is pcssible that the Australian dollar could
move downwards
PM:-The Australian dollar
Q. Yes.
PM: If I have created that impression, no, I do not. The
Australian dollar is strong and there is no reason why it should
do anything else than stay where it is, at least fcrthe time
being.
Q. Before Mr Anthony left for overseas, he told the Press he
was gravely concerned at the flood of investment and sp eculation
money pouring into Australia. He said he wanted decisive,
quick and realistic action on foreign investment. Prime Minister,
have you heeded those words How do you feel about that
PM: Well, Iwis the one who initiated probably the most farreaching
and in-depth~ enquiry into the Australian exchange rates,
and also the flood of money that is occurring into * Australia
from the international markets. Everyone who is really
interested in this problem should try and understand the analysis
that was made by the ~' easury. I have examined it, and my
officials have examined it in great depth, and we have decided
to present five papers to the Federal Ca) Anet dealing with the
problems that may emerge as, -for example, whethcr there should
be some regulation, or control of the flow of capital into
Australia, and whether we want better guidelines for borrowing,
whether we should do something about interest rates, whether
we should give greater flexibility for Australian corporations
to invest overseas and for overseas corporations to be able
to borrow money from us. Now, before anyone can come to a
precise conclusion which he knows will be for the benefit of
this country, he must have those papers from Treasury, and the
Government inust make up its mind what it will do. That doesn't
mean to say wee are not interested in them. We are vitally
interested in them, but wee want to be certain that when we make
a decision we do it in the best intcerests of this country.
Q. If you had to devalue, do you see this as being a sort of
political storm that could affect your electoral chances
PM: There is no prospect of Australia devaluing.
Q. Well, that is pretty final, Prime Minister.
Q. Before the next election
PM: I wil. Tive no other answer than tha-4t. There is no prospect
of us devaluing. ./ 4
0. Prime Minister, I " would like to turn to defence and foreign
affairs. What is the future of the Five Power Agreement,
particularly if Labor won the Federal election, and the recent
controversy which you have had on your South-East Asian tour?
It would seem there is some sort of uncertainty as to where this
Five Power Agreement is going. i know you have underlined and
said in the second part, yes, we are definitely going to continue
with it. But Labor has said, well, if we win, we are not going
to worry much about it.
PM: There is no uncertainty so far as the Liberal Party is
concerned, nor so far as the Coalition Government is concerned.
And I can state our position precisely. We have Five Power
Arrangements with Malaysia and Singapore. We will keep them in
full and they will not be changed. We have no intention of
changing them. We have troops stationed in Singapore and
Malaysia and we have no intntion of withdrawing or reducing
them. In other words, on both scores, as to the Agreements
themselves, or the Arrangements temselves, as they are
properly called, and as to the stationing of troops, we are
firm on what we do. And I believe, too, well, I know
it's not a question of belief, it's a question of knowledge
the Singaporeans and the Malaysians want us to keep thcm there
and they don't want any reduction. And I think that even in
recent days, not only when I was there, but probably subsequently,
that is the view of the Singaporcan Government. And it is the
view of Tun Razak, who most recently said that these Arrangements
provide an umbrella for them and that they are probably in the
enlightened interests not only of Singapore and Malaysia but of
Australia as well, I wouldn't substantially differ from that
view. It is to the advantaqc of the three of us that the
Arrangements are maintained, and we will do so. As for Labor,
nobody can tell you exactly what they mean, but we do % now
what their long-term intentions are. Tha-is to get out as
quickly as they can. This sets the dividing line . betwen
the Government and the Opposition.
0. Prime Minister, on this issue of the Five Power Arrangements
and keeping a battalion there, the thing that seems strange to
me is that Tun Razak has nowhere actually denied the statement
of his official in the background briefing of the journalists,
who subsequently after you raised the issue of a clarifying
statement and this most recent June 19 statement you referred
to about it being needed as an umbrella, he has nowhere dcnied
the public servant's ztatment. Do you find it strange?
Pm. No I don't. I do don't. I do not find it strange. I
believe that the statement issued at his request by the Foreign
Office itself was a complete enough cxplanation and I could not
have asked for anything more. When it was supported by the
communique, I believe that our position was clearly stated by
both him as Prime Minister of Malaysia, and myself as Prime
Minister of Australia. Mr. Sulong is an able man and I would
make no commontary about him. NH is a civil servant, and I do
not think it would be proper for me or, for that matter, for
anyone else in a position such as mine, to enter into any
controversy what relates to a civil servant. I am satisfied with
which the Prime K. inister, represanting the Government of Malaysia
has said, and what Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister
representing the Government of Singapore has said, and I don't
want to enter into any controversy which relates to a civil
servant.
Q. The ANZUS Treaty, Prime ! Ninister, is one which Australians
have grown up with now, and have looked on with great respect,
yet Senator McGovern who is a Presidential candidate, and I
believe has a reasonable chance of winning the Democratic
Presidential nomination, if not the Presidential election, says
that he is going to pull out of ANZUS if ho becomes President.
Where docs that Wcave us?
Pm. First of all you have said he might have a reasonable chance.
There could be disagreements of opinion with you on that score,
but I don't again want to raise the question of United States
politics in Australia. That is their business. And while we are
interested in it, I doubt whether it is a proper matter for me to
be discussing here tonight. This is a Treaty, and treaties in
the United Statcs are part of the suprema law of the l and. We
regard ANZUS as crucially important to use, and I know the
United States Government, as it excists, regards it as crucially
important, too, and I have had assurances from Senator Fulbright,
the Chairman of the Foreign Ro. lations Committee that ho and I
take it he means his Committce, too regard that as a Treaty,
that they will maintain and I have no doubt that they will. So
I cant go any further than that. It is crucially important to
us, respected by the Government of the United States, respected
by at least the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of
the United States.
Q. I am wondering, though, whether it is crucially important to
them and I agree with you about our knowledge of American
politics because we ara not in a position to say who will win the
next Presidential elections, But nevertheless these are
possibilities and I am wondering whcther the Americans generally
are treating the ANZUS pact as strongly as we dc?.
PM. I think you are raising a political problom that is so
hypothetical. that it cannot be poeci~ ely answered. I can say
no more than I have already said that so far as the g~ overnments
of the two countries are concerned, ANTUS will be sustained. We
regard it as crucially important as you know the Labor Party
is backing and filling about it, and nobody really knows where
they stand on the AN7US Treaty.
Q. Prime minister, getting bac! to Malaysia for a moment. How
do you feel about Tun Razak's greater emphasis these days on
greater indepcndence of nations in that area and ASEAN nations?
Pm. I respect his views about noutralisation of the ASEAN theatre,
yes, that is true. But as he has made it clear, and as I have
made it clear, there is no inconsistency between the long-term
objectives of Malaysia and the objectives that we all share in
trying to onsure the peaca, freedom and the independence of
the South-East Asian theatre of Australia and of the other
ASEAN countries. But this question of neutralisation is a long,
long-term project.
Q. Well perhaps five or ten years..... 2
PM: If I could just put it to you.. The idea is to get ten
nations into ASEAN. At present thereare only five, and when
that is done, they have to get guarantees from the three great
powers, and probably back-up from people like ourselves and the
New Zealanders and other countries. In other words, we wouldn't
be conceived of as a recinient of guarantees. We would be
looked at as giving some kind of support like the guarantor
countries.
Q. So you see Australian troops remaining even if this ASEAN
commnunity was expanded
PM: Well, if you use the word " expanded", that is a different
matter. I think thley would probably stay. But if you asked
me to go on for a period of say, five or six years hence, and
this is the time period we are thinking about, it is far too
long to try and speculate about it.
Q. SEATO gets under way on Tuesday in fact I believe you
are opening the SEATO Conference in Canberra?
PM: Yes, I am.
Q. Tgis is confusing these days to Australians. It seems to
be the poor relation to the ANZUS Treaty. Now, what future has
SEATO got, and why do we need the two, Prime Minister
PM: Wbll, you are using emotive words. In the case of ANZUS,
it is only between the United States, New Zealand and ourselves,
and virtually guarantees our inde ' pendence. That is why it is
crucially important to us. The SEATO Treaty relates primarily
to South Vietnam and to Thailand. These are the countries
covered by the Treaty, and it is a treaty that concerns the United
States. The President hims, 2lf has stated that the United States
will keep its treaty obligations, and we would be a peculiar
people if we distrusted the President of the United States at a
time when they have given such unbelievably strong support to
South Vietnam. . and shown their desire that South Vietnam should
remain free and that the neople of that country should have the
right to determine their future. SEATO, I believe has some
value, and while we know it has some 7al I think it is
in the best interest of Australia that it be sustained. I can't
understand those who, recognising that it has some value, would
want to have it destroyed.
Q. Prime Minister, recently a symposium in Me-lbourne, I think
three weeks ago, which was opened by the Foreign Minister, Mr
Bowen, and attended by exports on China, China-watchers and
academics, completely threw out the concept of the y ellow-peril
. and expansionist theories of China, Now, from Mr Bowen's
observation, is the Government changing its views slightly
towards China and that has existed in the past
PM: I think I must put this in two different.., from two
different sx~ ect. to you. First of all, we do want to
normalise our relationships, our diplomatic relationships with
the People's Republic of . i'ina, but we do not want to do that
at the expense of Taiwan. in other words, if we can get an
Pi. accommodation with them which will recognise the present
( cont'dlrelationships between us, we would want to have recognition
with the People's Republic. That is our present position.
Two, we want the People's Republic to become part and parcel
of the world community, and we did take a fairly strong role
at the United Nations, not only to ensure that the People's
Republic became a member of the General Assembly, but that she
also had her seat in the Security Council. That was done,
we voted for them, we wanted them to be there. But that
doesn't mean to say that we are prepared to give up Taiwan
as theprice of getting recognition. Now, we have also in
recent Tonths if I can use words pretty close to those
used by 14x Bowen proceded in a normal way towards trying
to get a better accommodation and to improve the dialogue
hetween the two countries. Un to the moment, we haven't been
successful, but we will cantinu-with our efforts. And we will
do so in a way that we know is to the manifest advantage of
Australia, and we won't pay too big a price in order to
get the kind of accommodation that might otherwise be available.
Q. Prime Minister, what do you mean actually by " accommodation"
and " dialogue"? These are fairly vague terms. Are we actually
talking to representatives of the Peorle's Republic at this
moment or at this time?
PM. We have been talking in various capital cities and once at
the United Nations. We have been talking, yes.
Q. In Paris also?
PM. I don't want to mention which places we have been talking
in, but we have been talking in certain places
Q. Certainly in New York at the United Nations
PM: Yes.
Q. How are we going then Are we progressing more
PM: We are not getting ahead very fast, no. But the People's
Republic, the Gvernment of the People's Republic, knows our
position and they know just how clearly we are expressing
ourselves. In my view, and this applies under current circumstances,
I think you could take it that the ball is now in
their court.
Q. There has been no invitation to an Australian Minister
or no fresh invitation to an Australian Minister
PM: If there ever was one, there was no official invitaion
from the Gvernment itself. It came through sources in Hong
Xong that we could not have regarded as official. Rut since
we have not had any renewed invitation for an Australian inister
to go to Peking.
Q. Or a trade mission
PM: Or a trade mission.
Q. Prime Minister, during your overseas tour it may have
been a little overshadowed, but you made some negotiations,
did you not, with the Government in Djakarta about the pos. 4ibility
of Australianbanks setting up there
PM: Not negotiations no that is not precisely the right
word. I did make enquiries about why there were no Australian
banks having branch associations there. And I was informed that
it was now too late. They would only let twonty-once branches
come in, or figurps of thatI--kind, anyhow. So I then looked at
what could be done. Could we have representative banks and
they said, yes, we could. Our groat hope is that we can
establish representative banks there. They won't be able to carry
out normal banking business, but they will be able to represent
their clients. And I want this to be done because undoubtedly
Indonesia is a country of great natural resourc e. Undoubtedly
its trade prospects will increase, and as they increase so, too,
will ours. So I want to be in the business as soon as we can get
there, and I would like representative banks, even branch banks,
to be established.
Q, Prime Minister, tur:. ing to unemployment and the local
economy now. The unemployment figure for last month must have
been a disappointment to you, particularly when it didn't drop
but it rose. Now what is the answer if this trend continues?
PM. Well, normally in the month that you are talking about it
does rise slightly, and it rose a little more than we wanted
it to or expected it to. As you know, we ever since Mr.
Menzies first established the Government in 1949, have not only
believed in but we have made a reality of the doctrine of full
employment. We have been remarkably successful. But we were
proceeding from a position where we had ovc-rfull employment and
measures had to be taken to control them and above all to control
inflationary pressures. Now unemployment has got a little or
somewhat too high for us. But we have taken action wherever
we have thought it has been necessary. As for example, in
September, again in February at the Premiers' Conference, again
at the Premiers' Conference last week, and in between times
as well, we have taken action in order to give a stimulus to
growth. And as growth proceeds, we hope that it will overcome
the difficulties that we now have relating to unemployment.
But if that isn't enough, then I can assure you we will take
further action. In other words, we will keep to the reality
of a full employment policy.
Q. Isn't it time, Prime Minister, to take it now. There are
something like 70,000 excess over job vacancies, and that is
more than twice what it was this time last year, I believe?
Pm. Well, I can't go into the detailed figures with you but
only last week we injected a massive ': tirnulus into the economy.
So I think we have taken the kind of action you suggested ought
to have been taken.
You think the handouts to the States ./ 9
PM. I wouldn't call them handouts because they are a reality.
We gave them a big increase in what are called general revenue
grants. We gave special assistance to New South Wales, to
Victoria and to Western Australia, and of course, there is a
flow-on of that to what ar: called the claimant States. We
have increased the amount of money that is available for what
we call the quality of life to give better sewerage facilities,
better hospitalsand better education, and by these means we
hope the stimulus will be sufficient. And I think it is fair of
me to say this, too, to you and to everyone who cares to be
viewing, that the technical exnerts themselves believe that there
is a lot in the pipeline from our past actions and that these
should very soon be making themselves apparent, not only in
growth and demand but in employment.
Q. Prime Minister, prices and wages though, are still going up,
and I am just wondering whether you had discussions with Mr.
Marshall, the New Zealand Prime Minister, when he was here in
relation to the wages and price freeze which they have imposed
for five months and apparently is having quite a deal of success?
Phi. No, I did not. They have a unitary system of government, we
have a federal system. They have the power, we do not have the
power. But I think you should understand this and I want
every person in Australia to understand this that our problem
is one mainly associated with wage increases in excess of our
production or productive capacity. And if those wage increases
become excessive, then there is very little that you can do in
order to restrain inflationary influences. As well as that,
with industrial trouble, with the strikes we are having, with the
powerful unions operating outside the arbitration system, of
course this compounds the problem for us. So what we are doing,
whenever we get the chance is to appear before the Commission, or
if we can't appear before the Commission, we do our best to try
and bring it before them and see if we can reduce the industrial
anarchy, if we can try and keep some restraining hand on
excessive wage increases, which are the basis of all our problems.
Q. I am wondering whether our system is right? It is almost
like the dog chasing its tail. Unless you can teg the two
because as soon as you get a wage increase, up goes prices.....
PM. I deny that it is a case of the dog chasing its
tail. Basically, it stems from the fact that there are excessive
wage increases, and I think anyone with an elementary knowledge
of economics knows that once you get wage increases that are
in excess of productivity, you must necessarily have an
inflationary impact, although it might be over a period of time
before it shows itself. So first of all, we have got to get wage
increases, or average earnings increases under control. This
is basic, and I believe that the Commonwealth Government is doing
all in its Constitutional and legal power to try and keep these
increases under restraint.
Q. Prime Minister, I want to talk about the Budget for the moment
and ask whether you are going to loosen the purse strings there.
But on April 7 at a oress briefing in Canberra, you mentioned
fourteen categories of policies.
Q. You said," We believe public opinion will best be served by not
cont. being hesitant in letting the public know what we think and why."
That was after a Liberal Party meeting. The categories were
the economy, development, defence, foreign affairs, quality of
life, urban development, arbitration, the law, national health,
national goals, education, social welfare and rural matters.
Now, have you really hit hard in each of those categories with
the strong policies that you promised to?
Pill. In most of them we have, yes. And you can tell tonight
what I have said about defence as to whether we are precise and
definite and know where we are going. The Lalbor Party doesn't.
Immigration, there is no doubt. Education, we took action
shortly after I made that statement to show what we are prepared
to do, not only for government, but for independent schools as
well. So we are prepared to take action as and when we think it
is necessary and as and when we think it is in the public interest.
And we give our reasons why. And the most recent example, and
the one I think shows just how quickly -we will act, is the way
in which we treated the Premiers at the recent Premiers'
Conference and Loan Council. That shows decisiveness of action.
That shows that we are prepared to do what we think is right,
and as I said a few moments ago, if we think more action is
needed, I can assure you we w~ ill take it.
Q. In the Budget?
PM. Yes, in the Budget or wherever else it happens to be. Before
the Budget if it was necessary.
Q. Perhaps with a decrease in personal income tax?
PM. No, I wouldn't speculate about details of the Budget at all.
In fact, I think any person who did that is, I think, doing a
disservice to the community. I believe it would be improper and
wrong. I certainly won't do it and won't make any forecasts.
Q. The 35-hour week, Prime Minister, is gathering quite a deal
of momentum now. Do you concede that it does have merit in somFe
areas where it could help unemplov~ nent?
I'M. I don't think it will hel unemplovmient. In fact, I believe,
that the 35-hour w.-ck, going over too wide a range of the economy
will create even greater problems for us than we have at the
moment. That applies particularly to inflationary pressures,
and the danger that inflation itself can cost us out of
international markets and create the probabilities or the
Dossibilities of unemployment. This is a point that I want to
keep on making. But I don't want to go too far about the
week at the moment because it is now before the Arbitration
Commission. I think that is the proper place where our arguments
should be put. I finish what I have to say on this, on this note.
I want every woman and every man in this community to know that
if we had a 35-hour week it would undoubtedly reduce production,
it would undoubtedly raise prices to a vcry high level, and would
create very severe problems for us in the future. This is the
biggest difficulty we face at the moment, and we will do all in
our power to try and restrain those inflationary pressures. / 11
11.
Q. Prime Minister, what is ha-pening to the taxation review?
PM. The taxation review? We have decided upon it. We are now
waiting to get a panel of names from whom we can choose the people
who will make up the Commission.
Q. National superannuation?
PM. National superannuation is a matter that we have been giving
a lot of consideration to, but we have not yet come to any
conclusions about it.
Q. So they are a couple of those policy areas we mentioned
that are still handing.....?
PM. Well one isn't a policy area at all. One is choosing the
personnel, and we haven't had the amount of success we would like
in getting the people we want on it. But the Treasurer, I believe
is getting close to the stage where he can make a decision. On
the other issue of policy, that is a matter that I personally
believe has to be looked at in a wide context of fiscal policy
and what we might think about even in the long term.
Q. Prime Minister, I would like to quickly turn now, because
time is going to be our enemy, to the French nuclear tests.
Australians feel, generally, that they are behind New Zealand in
taking steps here to prevent these French nuclear tests. Now we
were a little bit slow in the United Nations meeting on the
environment in Europe, and I am wondering whether you feel we
couldn't be taking a more positive approach on these tests.
PM. Well, I believe that we came in a little, a very little,
slowly at Stockholm. But I would like to emphasise thiis to you
since 1963, we have been a party to the Partial nuclear Test Ban
Treaty, and we have objected whenever we have had the power to
do so, the opportunity to do so. We have objected to
atmospheric nuclear tests, and we have always strongly objected
to the atmosoheric tests of the French, and we led the way. We
are a party to the non-proliferation treaty the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty we initialled the agreement. And since I
have been back, I personally have taken a very strong attitude.
We have made representations to the Conference on Disarmament now
sitting in Geneva. I personally took to task the French
Ambassador when he raised this matter at the opening of the
nuclear facility just outside Sydney a few days aco. I believe
that we have taken sensible action, but I am not satisfied because I
do not believe that it is proper or right that France should
explode nuclear devices in the atmosphere in the Pacific theatre.
And we are now considering what more we can do. I have only today,
and yesterday, becn discussing this with the officials and also
with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 3ut we
want to act rationally, we want to act sensibly, we want them
stopped, but we want to act simultaneously in the interests of
this country.
Q. What sort of actions have you been considering, Prime Minister? / 12
12.
PM. I don't think it is right that I should speculate on those
because I don't think it is right to create false expectations,
and I certainly will not do so.
Q. But you intend to take further action with the French
Government?
PM. I have written to President Pompidou asking him to stop
these tests, and he has replied saying that it is impossible, that
he willnot do) so. ' Where we will ao from there I will not
speculate now, but I will certainly be taking up more with my
colleague s.
Q. You have ruled, out, I suppose, the suggestion of a group., f
Ministers that we ought to oput.... .( inaudible)
PM. I have not ruled it out, but I don't regard it as a
prospect that would icad to success. I believe the one real
prospect is to mobilise world opinion, and with the New Zealanders
wie are doing what we can to mobilise world opinion. This is the
best, this is the wisest course to follow and we keep on letting
the French know where we stand and we hope to draw others in with
US.
Q. What do you think of Dr. Cairns wanting to sail in with the
" Esmeralda" into the
PM. That is spectacular but it would have no useful effect.
Q. Can you take any steps or would you, to stop the parachutiestS
who at this time, anyway, are scheduled to fly out tomorrow
morning according to them?
Pm. My latest advice, F-2 this was given to me within the course
of ten minutes prior to the time when I camne here, is that nobody
yet has asked or suggested to us that it should be done, and
certainly no-one has presented to us a fl~ ight plan. Although
we have reason to believe that it Mi ght hapen soon, but until
that happens, again I believe it is speculative. Without
discussion with my colleagues, I couldn't make a statement about it.
Q. Let's turn to~ the Federal elections now, cnming up in
November. Today's Sunday Press says that they are expecting
you to reshuffle your Federal Cabinet before that comes about and
that Mr. Bowen could be going to the High Court and also you will
have to find a Minister to take over in London. Now is this a
possibility, a reshuffle before the elections?
PM. I read the article in a Sydney paper. It is totally false.
I have not considered, and I have no intention of considering
a reshuffle before the next elections. None at all.
Q. Will Mr. Bowen be standing for his seat at the next elections?
PM. I hope so.
Q. Has he talked to you about T-hrcthor he may wish to stand down?
/ 13
13/
PM. I wouldn't talk about confidential discussions between
any colleague on any subject whatsoever. But I have said,
answering that newspaper article, that I have not contemplated
a reshuffle before the election, and I won't do so.
Q. And Sir Reginald Swartz.....?
PM. Sir Reginald Swartz is like me. He loves the place and
wouldn't leave.
Q. Prime Minister, there has been a call.... I would like to
turn to social services now there has been a call for a Royal
Commission such as New Zealand had into social services and
poverty. What is the possibility of such an enquiry in Australia
at Federal level?
PM. On social services and poverty?
Q. Yes.
PM. My own belief is that on social services and poverty it is
up to the Government to find out what is wrong and when it knows
what is wrong, or when it even regards there are difficulties,
to solve them itself. And that is my attitude and I believe it
is the one we will take. And I think you could take it if you
look at our social services policies, ever since we have been a
Government way back since 1949, you can take it that we have
always been anxious to ensure that there is a continuing increase
in the purchasing power of the pension and we have always
widened the scope of our social service payments. This will
remain our policy. I can say no more about it at the moment,
because this is a Budget matter, one of the matters that has to
be kept for the Budget and I don't want to have it thought that
I am in any way at all compromising the attitude of the Treasurer
or the Minister for Social Services in the presentation.
8, Health and dental... these seem to be two areas that we
don't seem to be making much progress in. These costs are going
up and particularly dental fees are getting completely beyond the
average man in the street now. Is some consideration being given
here, in this area?
PM. Well we established the Kerr Committee, and Mr. Justice
Kerr was superseded by Mr. Justice Mason of the Supreme Court of
New South Wales. And he made recommendations relating to the
common fee in New South Wales; We adooted those. We increased the
Commonwealth contribution to the common fee in all States, and
we did that because we regard the health of the person who is
sick as of paramount importance. They will not have to pay any
additional part of that fee. We will pay it. But what we hope
to ensure is that a much larger percentage of the population will
be covered by the common fee than hitherto. And we have been
talking to the Australian Medical Association, the AMA, in order
to see if we can ensure that they will be the authority throughout
Australia for the fixation of fees. If we can ensure that this
done, I can assure you that we will have much greater prospects
of success with the National Health Scheme, whether of medical or
of hospital benefits. / 14
A A 14.
Q. Incorporating dental?
PM. No. No, we have not looked at the problem of bringing
the dental services under the medical health scheme.
Q. On a more personal note, Prime Minister, it is about three
months since we last saw you, and you are still lonking fairly
fit. How many hours a day would you work?
PM. Oh, I suppose about ten. I work pretty consistently. I
don't have very much etertainment, but I would imagine it would
be at least ten a day. But you can't tell, you see
Q. What time do you get up, and what time do you normally get
to bed, in an average day?
PM. I get up probably.... I wake up round about six o'clock and
do some personal thinking between say six and seven. I get home
probably anything between half past eleven I am talking now
when I am in Canberra or if I am at home then I would work
until half past eleven, till round about twelve or one, sometimes
a little bit later, but that is probably a normal routine.
Q. Prime Minister, you have denied the Federal reshuffle. I am
wondering if you win the next election you will, of course,
have to form a new Cabinet whether you would consider inviting
Mr. Gorton back into the Ministry?
Pm. Don't tempt me to answer questions that are extremely
difficult to answer and are hypothetical. I wouldn't answer that
sort of a question, but in any event, so far as Mr. Gorton is
concerned, I refuse to discuss him in public because I don't
think it is proper.
Q. 1ow do you feel about the Government's fortunes at the moment?
Are you still glad it is a few months to ge before the next
election?
PM. Yes, I am, but what I can say I can make two comments.
First of all, we are doing all we can, and I believe we are
administering not only the economy, but the Government pretty
effectively under what have been in my view the most difficult set
of circumstances i can remember in all my experience of government.
So with all the difficulties, I think we are doing pretty well.
And I will have no hestitatinn whatsoever in any administrative
theatre, whether it haopens to be, say Papua/ New Guinea, whether
it be medical health and social services, whether it happens to
be the exchange rates, whether it happens to be in urban
development, " or urban renewal. In all these matters, we will
give the closest attention, and pretty devoted attention, too.
And I hope by the time the election comes round, we will be able
to get the approval of the Australian reople, and carry on in the
way we have carried on since R. G. Menzies won power for us
in 1949.
Q. Prime Minister, thark you very much for appearing on
" This Week".