THE PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 23 JANUARY 1973
PRIME MINISTER: Ladies and gentlemen: I haven't had time to see
today's Australian papers yet, so I am not sure what cover there was
given to the decision by the New Zealand Government at its Cabinet
meeting yesterday which I attended to help the Australian Government
get a start with a Dental Therapist Scheme in the schools a School
Dental Service as they call it in New Zealand. The sum total of it
is that they will agree to take 50 Australian students in March this
year and another intake of 50 in September. This follows the
announcement I made a week ago after our own Cabinet meeting that
we would be taking specific steps to accelerate the intake of preschool
teachers in this academic year. So, therefore, while we have
been frustrated in undertaking any steps this academic year to increase
the output of social workers or of youth leaders, we have succeeded
in taking the necessary steps in respect to school dental nurses and
pre-school teachers.
Today our Cabinet ratified the arrangements which I have been able
to make over the last week with the New Zealand Government and the New
South Wales Government to have a committee of inquiry to prepare a
National Compensation Scheme in Australia to provide compensation for
personal injuries including injuries sustained on the road, at work,
in the home, in the school or elsewhere. I want to thank very much
indeed the co-operation I have received from the Prime Minister of New
Zealand, the Attorney-General of New Zealand and the Chief Justice of
New Zealand and the Premier, Attorney-General and Chief Justice of New
South Wales. Because of that co-operation, we have been able to secure
the services, as members of this committee, of Mr. Justice Woodhouse,
from New Zealand and Mr. Justice Meares from New South Wales.
The third member of the committee will be Professor Patrick Atiyah,
Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University here
in Canberra. Mr. Justice Woodhouse was the Chairman of a Royal Commission which
in December 1967 brought down a report on compensation for personal
injury in New Zealand. It was a pioneering and epoch-making report.
It has been read with very great interest in all common-law countries,
and we are very fortunate to have Mr. Justice Woodhouse serving on our
committee. Mr. Justice Meares is the Chairman of the Law Reform
Commission of New South Wales. He is a member of the expert group on
road safety which was appointed by our predecessors. You will remember
the report it brought down last September on the road accident situation
in Australia, a national review.
Professor Atiyah is serving under Mr. Justice Meares on the New
South Wales Government's Consultative Committee on Motor Vehicle
Accident Compensation. He has given evidence to the House of
Representatives Select Committee on road safety.
These gentlemen are acknowledged throughout the English-speaking
world in every common-law country as being experts, innovators in this
field. There have been, as you will appreciate, negotiations by letter
and telephone on this subject with both the Prime Minister of New
Zealand and the Premier of New South Wales and, in particular, the
wording which I can read to you if you like of the proposed terms of
reference have been drafted by the New South Wales Attorney-
General as weli as myself.
-2-
In fact the idea of having Mr. Justice Meares and Professor Atiyah
on the Commonwealth's committee of inquiry came from a letter which
the Premier of New South Wales sent to me at the beginning of the
month inquiring about the proposals that we were making for a national
compensation scheme.
Mr. Justice Woodhouse will come to Australia in about a fortnight's
time and he will confer in Sydney with Mr. Justice Meares and, I trust,
I haven't on this point had the opportunity today since the Cabinet rose
to speak with Professor Atiyah but I would expect that he would also be
able to be there with the two judges as they look at the terms of
reference. They will be invited to make any other suggestions to make
this report as complete and helpful as possible and it is quite likely
that at that time they will be able to make some preliminary
arrangements for the conducting of the inquiry, and where they should take
evidence and from whom. The other members of the New South Wales
committee will be invited to give evidence to this committee and, no
doubt, the advice and documents which they have already been able to
give will be very much in Mr. Justice Meares' mind as he takes part
in this inquiry with Mr. Justice Woodhouse and Professor Atiyah.
Now I can read the terms of reference if you like or you can get
them afterwards.
Well Mr. Walsh can give you the text of them afterwards.
Gentlemen; I very much appreciate, as I said at the beginning, the
co-operation of the New Zealand and the New South Wales Gover nments
and judiciary.
There were a couple of other decisions which Cabinet made.
one is to fix a price for the sale of the Nomad-aircraft. We
take quite a pride in the quality and the success which this Australian
aircraft has achieved. We will welcome purchases at $ 285,000 each.
Mr. Barnard can give you further details of these arrangements.
You will remember that in my policy speech I placed particular
emphasis on our desire to build up some basic industries in Australia
for which there is certain to be a great demand in Australia, light
and fighter aircraft was one subject, pipelines, rolling stock,
shipping were the others I mentioned.
Also we decided to defer the hearing of the application for a
second commercial broadcasting station licence in Canberra.
Senator McClelland, the Minister for the Media, reported to us that
there are quite serious deficiencies in the present act. There maybe
conditions laid down for the grant of a licence. It is extremely
doubtful if those conditions can be sustained if challenged, and we
believe that before any new licences are granted that the statutory
position should be clarified and re-enforced.
There is one other matter I should mention to you.
I am pleased to announce that arrangements have been made for
Australia to ratify today two treaties relating to the control of
nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Seabed
Arms Control Treaty.
The first one, the N. P. T. you will remember was supported by the
Australian Labor Party over the last four years.
-3-
We have said that not only should the treaty be signed which Australia
did after some hesitation but should be ratified. Well we are now
doing that. The instruments of ratification are being deposited today
by Australia's representatives in London, Washington and Moscow
the three depository capitals. This action fulfills a longstandin6
policy of the Australian Labor Party and the pledge, you will recall,
that ' I made in my policy speech before last year's elections. It
reflects my Government's strong and unequivocal support for efforts
to check the spread of nuclear weapons and for the principles of arms
control contained in both treaties. A press release on this matter is
being issued to you by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Any questions?
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, may I ask you two related questions concerning
the French nuclear tests in the Pacific. Firstly, Sir, were you
disappointed that the Prime Minister of New Zealand didn't join you
in your proposed approach to the International Court of Justice. And
the second point is: you said during the election campaign that if
this approach failed the next step would probably be cessation of
relations with France. Does that still stand?
PRIME MINISTER: On the first one, the Prime Minister of New Zealand
has not declined I think that was your word to join in the Australian
approach to the International Court of Justice. The Prime Minister of
New Zealand has already said that he will make available to Australia
the considerable scientific data that New Zealand has collected on this
matter. It's quite probable that New Zealand can make out a stronger
case for nuisance in the legal sense nuisance arising from the
French tests than Australia can do. The Attorney-General of New Zealand,
Dr. Martyn Findlay, is awaiting the return of Senator Lionel Murphy,
our Attorney-General from London and Washington to concert further
approaches in this matter. Senator Murphy, as you know, has been
discussing this matter with likely witnesses and likely counsel in
London. Dr. Findlay will be taking an early opportunity to discuss
these matters with Senator Murphy and other matters which as you know
Senator Murphy has been raising in London. I never used the word in
the policy speech about cessation of diplomatic relations. I think I
used the word suspension. This is one of the contingencies. I want
to emphasise that we do not assume that France will in fact go ahead
with these tests. And furthermore if a favourable decision is given
by the World Court still less would we assume that France would not
obey the Court's decision.
Q. Prime Minister, on that question can we take firstly that the
ratification of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is linked with
the possible approach to the World Court in the sense that it will
strengthen Australia's hand?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. It's part of a pattern that we will adopt to
strengthen all means of arms limitation not least nuclear arms
limitation. Q. Well, sir, New Zealand I understand one of the contingencies
mentioned was the possibility of sending w.. arships into the testing
zone if the tests go on. Has Australia ruled out any possibility
of joining such a move?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a contingency. Australia has not ruled
out co-operation in such a contingency. New Zealand, however, takes
the same attitude as Australia. She does not assume that France will
not heed the resolution of the General Assembly last November and
particularly any decision by the World Court.
Neither country assumes that France will carry out further nuclear
weapons tests in our hemisphere.
Q. Sir, on a different subject, there are suggestions that the
submissions to the late Mr. Justice Moore in the Steel Price Inquiry
will not be made public. Does this procedure meet with your eicpressed
hope, for open government and for a public prices justification and
in answering this question, I wonder whether you might go on and tell
us whether you received any applications for similar inquiries from'
other industries and would you expect to, and would you like to?
PRIME MINISTER: I haven't heard any more about the B. H. P. matter which
Mr. Justice Moore is reporting upon since last Friday. I don't know if
there has been anything further on this matter. I haven't got the
letter to Mr. Justice Moore with me. My memory is that we said that he
could conduct the inquiry in any way he saw fit, and my memory is that
he made a public statement saying that he would be sitting on one day
in public when any interested persons could make oral submissions to
him.
And I think this also involved oral submissions on written submissions
which had been made to him. So whether these documents are made public
before Mr. Justice Moore makes his report depends on Mr. Justice Moore.
Furthermore, whether he refers to them in his report, of course,
depends on him. Or if he incorporates them, or quotes them in his
report. But the report will be public. There has been a letter from
another company. I discussed what the reply should be with Mr. Crean
and I haven't seen the reply I imagine it's been sent but perhaps
I shouldn't say any more until I know whether it was sent or what
suggestions or responses were made in it.
Q. You might answer which company, if you can, sent the letter to
you and if you've replied to it, and I'd like to know whether the
Government is going to put its own submission to Mr. Justice Moore
on these?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we hadn't prepared a submission last Friday.
I don't know what the position is since then as I told you. I think
the company's name was mentioned, wasn't it? Will you wait has
it been mentioned?. . the name hasn't been mentioned, so I won't give
you the name.
Q. On the same subject, it's been suggested that the B. H. P. inquiry
is going to be somewhat self-defeating simply because if you want Mr.
Justice Moore to report as quickly as you've suggested you won't really
have time to do much more than look over the B. H. P. books and the third
term of reference of any other material he considers relevant is really
quite meaningless in this context. Could you comment on that, and is
it possible that although obviously you want to get this inquiry
completed quickly, you might have a second run at it over a longer and
more comprehensive look at B. H. P. and the steel industry in general
before the next application for a price increase?
PRIME MINISTER: Gentlemen, I frankly didn't expect that you'd be
asking questions still on this matter because it was announced I think
on Friday week and we did have a press conference last Tuesday and I
haven't got the letter in front of me. I do remember some criticisms
such as you've stated. I don't believe that anything but good can come
out of Mr. Justice Moore's inquiry. His report clearly it can't be
as effective as a report by a standing statutory commission, but it is
the first time that any company has agreed to have such an inquiry
that the Government has been able to provide such an inquiry.
It will be open to the tribunal to look at the steel industry in the
light of everything that has transpired in the last month and between
then and the functioning of the tribunal itself. I don't think I used
the word tribunal I should have used the word tribunal. It will be
open to the tribunal to take all these things into account, including
the matters that Mr. Justice Moore is inquiring into and reporting on.
But, unequestionably, Mr. Justice Moore's report will be very helpful
to the Government in framing the legislation.
Q. Sir, did Cabinet consider the question of export incentives to
manufacturers, which are worth about $ 90 million a year and do you
feel that these should be retained?
PRIME MINISTER: Cabinet has not considered this matter. I'll express
a collective view if and when the matter is considered.
Q. Sir, did Mr. Kirk approach you in New Zealand and ask you to modify
your stand on the transit through Australia of the South African Rugby
team to New Zealand?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Q. It wasn't mentioned at all?
PRIME MINISTER: There was no mention about any modification of the
Australian Government's policy in this matter none at all.
Q. Are you agreeable to modify your stand, before that you wouldn't
allow them transit through Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: Not at all.
Q. You won't modify it?
PRIME MINISTER: No. We will not condone the South African Government's
policies of apartheid in any form.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, looking beyond the inquiry into the national
compensation case would it be envisagel that this would replace Third
Party Insurance or be in parallel withiThird Party Insu] rance?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter for the committee to inquire into
and report on. As you', 1ll see from the suggested terms of reference,
it is being asked to look into the question whether rights under the
scheme should be in substitution for all or any rights now existing.
The Commonwealth Parliament if I may venture an opinion myself
would not be able to pass laws which would preclude negligence actions
in the Courts of the States. The Co* m monwealth Parliament can, however,
under the social services paragraph of Section 51 inserted at the
referendum in 1946 and, I hope, under the insurance paragraph which
has been in the Constitution from the outset be able to provide
attractive alternatives to such expensive, incomplete, time-consuming
procedures as actions in court for injuries arising from accidents
on the roads ( Third Party) or at work ( Workers' Compensation).
Therefore, if I may hazard an opinion, it is likely that the
Commonwealth's National Comppnsation Scheme will make other forms of
compensation redundant.
-6-
Q. Sir, is the Commonwealth intervening or contemplating intervening
in the oil tanker dispute in New South Wales in view of the fact that
a national stoppage is being threatened?
PRIME MINISTER: The oil tanker dispute of course is one which only
concerns governments insofar as they've been tardy, in fact irresponsible
in bringing in legislation Commonwealth and State to cover this
situation. The dispute arises through a demarkation or
representational issue this quite absurd position that we have in
Australia where unions can be separate legal entities in the Federal
arbitration system and in four of the State arbitration-. systems
New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.
I've been appalled to see yet another instance such as this arising
from this situation. The Labor Party's commitment as you'll know from
the platform, as amended at Launceston in June 1971, is to pass laws
for the integration of organisations registered under the Federal Act
and their branches registered under State legislation, and the
registration of a Federal registered union or its branch under any
relevant State legislation. You might remember that Mr. Cameron and I
have raised this matter throughout the lifetime of the last Parliament
in questions and, in Mr. Cameron's case, in speeches. I'd like to
quote from the judgment of the Commonwealth Industrial Court on
February 1969 in the leading case of Moore and Doyle: " A system of
trade union organisation is urgently needed which would enable the
one body to represent its relevant members inh both the Federal and
State arbitration systems and it should be possible for Federal and
State authorities to examine the question whether organisations and
trade unions can be provided with such a system. We'have decided to
refer our judgment in this matter and these remarks to the Attorney-
General for the Commonwealth in the hope that it may be possible after
consultation between Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General, the
trade unions both Federal and State and other interested Government
authorities to arrange for the examination of the important
organisational matters to which we have referred". That was a unanimous
judgment by Chief Judge Spicer, Mr. Justice Smithers and, I think,
Mr. Justice Kerr, now Chief Justice of New South Wales, and I regret
to say that Federal and State Governments have not given the necessary
legislation to their Parliaments, and in particular, as I understand
from inquiries I've made this afternoon through Mr. Cameron, New
South Wales and Queensland are objecting to giving State legislative
status to unions registered under the Commonwealth system. ' I have it
in miild to communicate with the two Premiers About this matter which
has been outstanding for four years, come one month and two days from
now. South Australia has passed some legislation which helps quite
considerably. The Commonwealth can not pass legislation which covers
the whole position by itself. We'll do what we can. But frankly,
if occurances like this are to be avoided in the future, then the New
South Wales and Queensland Parliaments have to pass laws as well as the
Australian Parliament and we will see if we can do something about it.
There is a meeting of the Labor Ministers Australian and State
a month from today when another attempt will be made to deal with this
subject then. But it's my hope that I'll be able to write to the
Premiers well before that, pointing out that the public is suffering
once again from the failure in our Federal system of the State
Parliaments to co-operate with the Commonwealth.
-7-
Q. Sir, when you mentioned the decision on the fixing of the price for
the Nomad aircraft, you mentioned it in-the context of an earlier
statement of your own the fostering of production of areas in which
I think you said there would be clearly local demand and you
mentioned rolling stock, pipelines, shipping and fighter and light
aircraft. Will policies relating to. producti ' on in these areas be
subj'ect to strict analysis in terms of the economic efficiency of
Australian production?
PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.
Q. And particularly in the shipping industry. will you recommit
the former Government's decision its second, decision to go against
the Tariff Board Report on the Australian shipbuilding industry?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't want to comment.. on'th e-second one the
shipbuilding. I'd like to talk to Mr.* Jones About this. I think he
is considering this matter. But I am unable to commit him and it's
not been discussed in the Cabinet. Can I give you the instance of
rolling stock?
There can be no question that the metropolitan railways in Australia
are becoming less attractive because of ' the'age of the rolling stock.
I forget the percentages, but it is something like 50 per cent of the
rolling stock in Sydney and Melbourne is over 40 years old. In one
State ( I think it's Victoria) nearly half the rolling stock dates from
the First War and then we suddenly find a panic about wanting to order
new rolling stock. There is a continuing need for decent rolling stock,
signalling equipment and so on in the metr . opolitan railways and it will
be our objective to consult with the States in having a proper program
to see that there are carriages built-suitable for all these metropolitan
systems on an efficient, competitive basis for a continuing program.
It's quite absurd for a State Government all of a sudden to call tenders,
maybe only in its own State and without any consultation with the other
States or any consideration of tenderers in other States. We all know
that there is a crying need to have replenishment of all this rolling
stock and we ought to have a program in which all the authorities
running the railways collaborate. I myself believe that that would be
probably the Commonwealth.
Q. Well, Sir, if I may ask a supplementary question to that on that
specific issue of the rolling stock could you be a little bit more
precise about what you mean by a program. Is this some Common-. zealth
aid to companies or are you envisaging... what ' do you have in mind?
PRIME MINISTER: No, no, no. The Bureau of Transport Economics has
made a report you remember on some of the metropolitan railways systems.
I think they're the systems of Sydney,. Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.
The Victorian Government didn't give enoug~ h information about
Melbourne's metropolitan system. One of lhe features should be rolling
stock and I would believe that the Bureau of Transport Economics, which
has reported on the age of the rolling stock, should make recommendations
on a program for adequate vehicles to meet the demand, particularly
the demand, if rail transport becomes more attractive and competitive.
For instance, it is quite likely that we would be able to have a tenyear
program to see that all rolling stock in the metropolitan areas
was at least built since the last war. But there are several companies
which would be attracted to tool up for sudh a program in several of
the States and this could I can't myself see why the rolling
stock can't be effectively planned on the basis of all the State
capitals.
-8-
Q. Sir, in view of the failure of one of the engines on the two-engine
BAC-111 to New Zealand on Friday, have you considered getting an
aircraft with more engines a larger aircraft for Prime Ministerial
use and overseas trips?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, well these things don't worry me of course.
I've flown as you know for so many years I'm quite inured to these
things.. The most distressing incident I can remember was coming from
Sydney in a Friendship when both motors stopped. And there was
another, I believe that some of you will recall, going across Bass
Strait when all the motors in a Viscount stopped a minister believed
to be at the controls. But nobody could remain unmoved at the
reaction of the young men and women who were jravelling with me.
They have their lives before them. I have an obligation to them and
to those who depend upon them and those whom they may hereafter beget.
There were some persons of more mature years advisers from the
Public Service I thought that the Treasury would cop . anything, but
I was distressed how they went to pieces under this stress. I did my
best to comfort them. Ladies and gentlemen; this is too distressing
for me to discuss further. It's enough for me to say that I conducted
myself with the usual savoir faire and aplomb. The only thing that
distresses me is that so many of you gentlemen that were proposing
to come with us to Djakarta in this type of aircraft have cancelled
your reservations. I will consider the matter. But I can say that
there was a Defence representative with us and the emergency
concentrated his mind wonderfully on this incident.
Dr. Johnson would be proud of him. / 9
9-
Q. Prime Minister, I'd like to go back to the oil dispute.
You've mentioned long-term solutions to this type of problem
but will you be taking any action in the short-term to get these
men back to work?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not contemplating any sudden ad hoc approach
on this matter. It is a basic fault in our legislation, one which
the Commonwealth Industrial Court highlighted and stressed in very
strong terms which I quoted to you nearly four years ago. Well, the
new Australian Government will be doing something about it and asking
the State Governments which are in default to do something about it
too. It is a very clear example where the public have been let down
by inaction for four years.
Q. Prime Minister, on your Cabinet announcement regarding the
commercial broadcasting licence in Canberra, am I correct from the
way you expressed it, it seemed to me that you were saying that
you couldn't proceed with it because Senator McClelland had indicated
to Cabinet that any decision would be subject to legal appeal and
that you were concerned that this legal appeal would perhaps be
successful. Is that a correct interpretation?
PRIME MINISTER: Well I didn't forecast it would be subject to legal
appeal but what I amn saying is that the Australian Broadcasting
Control Board has been reluctant, and many people would think ineffective,
in insisting upon conditions which it has laid down for
radio and T. V. licences because it believes, and I forget the name
of the trade body concerned but it's the organisation of commercial
radio stations, has given'legal opinions to the Board saying, ah, you
can't do that to us'. The Act is weak. Well, we want to oblige
them. We want to strengthen the Act.
Q. Sir, Mr Gordon Bryant, during his tour of northern Australia
just recently said that the Federal Government should take direct
responsibility for the Palm Island Aboriginal settlement.
PRIME MINISTER: He's quite right.
Q. The basic response of the Queensland Government to this is
PRIME MINISTER: Oh. It's all right. I haven't read the papers but
I know what it'll be.
Q. What they've said is basically that they'd be prepared to accept
this if the Commonwealth Government would take responsibility for
all Aboriginal settlements. Have you considered this or are you
likely to do this?
PRIME MINISTER: No, but I think it'd be a great improvement.
Q. You are likely to do this?
PRIM4E M4INISTER: Well, I haven't discussed it with Mr Bryant,
but we are prepared to take all action which is necessary or
desirable to discharge the obligations which the Australian people
imposed overwhelmingly upon the national Parliament in the
referendum in mid-1967. The national Parliament has the
obligation it certainly has the opportunity we believe it has
the obligation, to see that the Aboriginal residents of Australia
have every opportunity that the Australian people as a whole can
10
make for them in their country.
Q. And this would include a direct Commonwealth financial
responsibility? PRIME MINISTER: Well, the Commonwealth can conduct any
reservations insofar as reservations are still an appropriate
form of advancement for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
I don't want there to be any suggestion that this is a matter
of State sovereignty. That is garbage. The Australian Parliament
was given this responsibility. We intend to discharge it.
By the way, I'm told that this is being broadcast and I should
therefore make it quite plain that my references to my staff and to
my advisers on the Tasman crossing were completely facetious. They
didn't refer to any living persons.
Q. Sir, I hope this is non-political to the extent that
PRIME MINISTER: Oh I'm sure coming from you... Is Channel 9
taking this?
Q. To the extent that both sides of the Parliament are involved,
have you any views on the principle of employing close relatives on
personal staff, Sir?
PRIME MINISTER: You mean Ministers' personal staffs?
Q. Not necessarily ministers, also the other side of the
Parliament as well.
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, I mean people who are ministers in a
government of any political complexion. I accept that your remarks
are completely bipartison and dispassionate.
Whom a Minister appoints, or any parliamentary office bearer
appoints to his staff is entirely a matter for him.
Q. I accept that Sir, but have you any views on the principle
of it?
PRIM4E MINISTER: No. I just state the only principle there can be.
In this case Ministers are given the right to appoint people of
their own choice and to sack people if they like and whom they
appoint and whom they sack is a matter for them.
Q. Prime Minister, last month you wrote to the Premier of..
PRIME MINISTER: I'm sorry, there's someone
Q. Oh. It's all-right he's my boss.
Q. May I continue, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, well I mean I don't want to come into any
of these industrial disputes
Q. Last month you wrote to the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Reece,
recommending an urgent joint Commonwealth/ State inquiry into the
preservation of Lake Pedder. Mr Reece has declined to join in that.
Do you personally believe it is still important that such an inquiry
be held?
11
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not going to express any personal views
in these matters at all. I'll express a collective view. It
doesn't come within my own ministerial responsibility and if whenthis
matter is considered by the Cabinet I will express the Cabinet
view. Q. Sir, Mr Cameron, the Minister for Labour, has forecast that
unemployment will rise to a record 150,000 this month. Does the
Government consider that further economic stimulus is warranted?
PRIME MI1NISTER: I believe that if you want to have a more
significant answer on this matter you ought to discuss it with
Mr Cameron or Mr Crean in whose responsibilities this subject mainly
falls. The great difficulty which has emerged, perhaps I myself
can say is, that there can be a situation where economic conditions
in general are favourable but there is still a large number
unemployed by Australian or Western European standards, and there
is a particular difficulty of course in people of maturer years
getting another job if they lose one. And they can still remain
unresolved where general conditions are quite prosperous or buoyant.
Now it is this sort of matter where Mr Cameron and Mr Crean are
particularly giving their attention. They want to see that there
are retraining schemes made available in Australia such as there
are in many Western European countries Scandinavia in particularand
I think now in the United States. There are new structural
features about the unemployment situation.
Q. Sir, one questicn on staff again. Have you yet decided how
big the staff of the opposition should be. Have you approved any
staff arrangements there and if so can you tell us how you see the
proportions, the cut up say between the Liberal and Country Parties
and the D. L. P.?
PRIME MINISTER: I've only given a general attention to this since
our last Press Conference. I'm looking at the increased number and
status of the staff accorded to the 27 ministers in this Government
compared with the 27 ministers in the late Government and, I would
offer my present information is to offer to the non-government
parties in each House/ gimilar proportionate increase in numbers and
status of their staff. I can't at this stage make any suggestion
as to how this would be split up, but my general idea is that there
should be a similar increase in numbers in let me use the word
non-government parties. I don't want to be drawn into this argument
as to which party or parties constitute the Opposition.
Q. Sir, on that subject, you said that who a Minister appoints
to his staff is a matter for him alone but we, the taxpayers pay
the salaries, could I ask you the reasons for the appointment of
Professor Harry Messel as a part-time adviser to Senator Murphy at
I understand a salary of $ 11,000 a year with overseas trips as
optional extras?
PRIME MINISTER: Professor Messel is not a member of Senator
Miurphy's staff in the sense as are people about whom the previous
questions w. ere asklled. Professor Messel is in the same position as
any otner advisers. He is of course very well known in his
consideration and exposition of scientific matters and he has
been engaged by Senator Murphy to advise him on scientific matters
particularly of course the pending litigation about the French
nuclear tests. He is helping in finding witnesses in this case.
My memory is'that his fee is not what you say, but I don,' t know
12
what it is. But anyway I shouldn't rely just on my memory of
what his fee is in this matter.
Q. To clarify that, Sir, are you saying that the appointment
is only while the fuss over the French tests lasts?
PRIM1E MINISTER: I think it's only for this year
Q. Because I would have thought it would be more appropriate
to advise Mr Morrison, the Minister for Science.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but the litigation is in the hands of the
Attorney-General.
Q. Sir, it's only a temporary appointment?
PRIME MINISTER: Well he's engaged for this year. There are a
great number of advisers that the Government engages in all fields.
This is one scientific adviser on litigation.
PRIME MINISTER: Gentlemen I think you have had a statement from
me on the death of President Lyndon Johnson. I don't know if you want
me to repeat it here.
Gentlemen, Lyndon Johnson will be remembered as one of the
great reforming presidents of the United States. Nothing should
be allowed to diminish the memory of his achievement. He came to
office in the most difficult and tragic circumstances and he assumed
his great responsibilities with valour and distinction. He went on
to secure in the Presidential election in 1964 the greatest plurality
in the history of the Republic. Under his administration the
Congress was among the most active in his country's history with a
record of achievement and innovation in social and welfare
legislation unmatched in our generation. In all such domestic
matters he was the greatest president since Franklin D; Roosevelt.
President Johnson involved his country more deeply in the Vietnam
War than his predecessors. He was in a real sense a victim of this
disastrous conflict yet no one would have welcomed more warmly the
present steps towards a peaceful settlement. Australians have vivid
and cordial memories of his visits to Australia in 1942, in
October 1966 :. tnd in December 1967. He was the only American President
to have visitel. this country while in office and he visited it twice
in office. His presence at the memorial service for the late Prime
Minister Harold Holt was a signal demonstration of his affection
for the Australian people and his own high estimation of the value
of the Australian-American alliance. On behalf of the Australian
Government I extend to his family and to the American people our
profound sympathy in the loss they have sustained.
Q. On that very question, is there any proposal by yourself, your
Ministers or members of the non-government parties to attend the
funeral?
PRIME MINISTER: At the moment I am inquiring to see what other
countries are doing.