MACQUARIE NETWORR WEEKLY PROADCAST
BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE P. T. HON.
WILLIAM McMAHON, CIT, s1P. 3 AUGUST 1972
OIL INDUSTRY DISPUTE
Interviewer: Paul Lynch
Q. Prime Minister, the oil strike is now officially
over. I think the first thing we would like to know from
you is where does the Government go from here?
PM: I have already given the Presiding Officers of the
House and of the Senate advice that because the strike is
over it is not necessary to call Parliament together.
Q. it has been suggested over the last week or two
that perhaps the Government did not do the very best job
it could do to settle this strike, that your Government
could have done something more positive. How would you
answer these suggestions?
PM: I deny that. You first of all have to ask yourself
what power we have under the Australian Constitution.
And the simple fact is that we have only one power, and
that is arbitration and conciliation, and that is in the
hands of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
When it appeared as though the Commission might have failed,
I resorted to the only alternative that was available to
us to prepare emergency legislation as Ir Chifley had to
do in 1949, and I had to do in the case of the Stevedoring
Industry in 1956. Consequently, I gave instructions for
this emergency legislation to be prepared and I made
arrangements, too, to call the House, that is the Parliament,
together in order that the legislation could be put on the
statute books. This was done in the interests of the
community. / 2
-2
Q. This amergency legislation w~ a2 popared for possible
use tomorrow morning. Now by that i would assumne that it
is all reody whenever you need it from now on?
PM4: Yes, it will be.
0. Can you enact it without there being an emergency in
the first place? In other words, can you add it to your
armoury of laws to help out, or must you wait for the
emergency before you can pass the law?
P! A: We could make it permanent legislation and therefore
it would not be necessary to introduce it as an emergency
measurc. But usually this is regarded as an affront to the
trade union movement, and for that reason, we p~ refer to
handle it on an emergency basis.
Q. Prime Minister, thera have been very strong suggestions..
. Mr 14hitlam particularly on this programme last Monday
night suggested that there has bacn collusion between your
Government and particularly the foreign-owned oil companies
in this country. The suggestion is that your Government,
as part of its attempt to curb inflation has tried to fOrce
the oil companies to refuse to negotiate with the unionists.
What do you ay to that?
PM: That is false, even dishonest. There has been no
colluginn. in fact, 1 have remained separated from this.
I have believed it was a matter for arbitration itself.
So I can't ag~ ree with them,~ and Mr Hawke himself last night
on television had to say that he couldn't prove there was
collnsion, but he thought because of a combilnation of
circumstances there might have bean. He answered for me
the accusation made by Mr ; Thitlam. I say emphatically
and I would say it over and over again there was none.
But I would have to go a stage further. We were acting in
the public interest, we were acting in accordance with our
donstitutional power, and we were determined that we would
do all in our power, first to end the strike, and secondly,
to prevent too much unemp~ loyment and too much damage to the
Australian people and to the Australian economy.
Q. Apart from forming this emergency legislation, have
you learnt anvthi ng in terms of ossible constitutional
change or have you in retrospect decided that there was
something else your Government could have done in the last
two weeks which wasn't done?
PM: I am what they call a federalist and consequently
I have never been what could be regarded as a very strong
believer in drastic changes to the Constitution. But I
have learnt, not only as Minister for Labour and National
Service but now as Prime Minister that there is one change
to the Constitution that must be made in time, and that is to
give the Commonwealth power to legislate in respect of
industrial disputes when they are of a national character.
And I believe the oil dispute and the failure in the transport
industry is a clear indication that this is a national
problem and that the Commonwealth Parliament should have the
cGunstitutional power to legislate. / 3
Q. And 1.-: oking back over thczf? last t isturbcd
do you think thz-re is canything the Govcrnment
could hIave c& hn that it didn't do?
PM: I don't think oi_ Th only action we could have
t: aketrn was to call the Parlia-: mcnt toq.: Ather and to introduce
ome rgcncy leagislatic-in to dt-; al with the kind of problem
that emerqca' as ~ a result of the strike. We did that, and
im ort: ! ntly, has to be remembcered that from theC moment
I announced th1-at we wr rprdtro recall Parliament,
so'. too, did all the other activities commence, As for
example, ' 4r justice M~ oore then docided that he would make
reccartuendations to the -t-q7o partCies for a resolution of
the dispute and to got tChe men back to work. So, too, did
you find other members of the trzde union movement,
particularly leaders of tho trade union, and in one case,
a Leade~ r in the Tracs Hall Council in Sydney, T,;, ere prepared
to make recor'xcncdtions to theic Australian Council of Trade
Unions that thev should let the men gn back to work. In
other words, T believe that our action was the beginning
of a process, and that process ended today when the men
decided overwhelmingly to go back tro wc-ir% and to accept
arbitration. Thanli-you very nuch Prime ' tinistcr.