THE PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 15 MAY 1973
PRIME MINISTER: ( Answer to a commnent). There is no
Government which has made so many announcements in the
Parliament. Not only what it was doing in the Parliament but
what it was doing in collaboration with the States or with
other countries. As you know we table promptly the minutes
of all Commonwealth/ State conferences and so on. The last such
one was with the Premiers last Thursday, and I thought I would
bring together what's happened since then.
The following day the Secretary to the Australian Treasury
met with the Under-Treasurers from each of the States and they
recommended as follows: there should be a main committee of
Commonwealth/ State Treasury officials at Secretary/ Under-Secretary
level. Secondly there should be four Commonwealth/ State working
groups. one on prices justification which the Australian Treasury
would convene, another on restrictive trade practices which the
Australian Attorney-General's Department would convene, a third
on land prices which the Departments of Urban and Regional
Development and Housing would convene, and the fourth on building
costs which the same Departments would convene. Then there's a
fifth working group on consumer protection under the control
of the Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, as you heard the
Premiers and me agree on Thursday afternoon. The working groups
are to be convened as soon as possible this week. The main
committee is to meet in Melbourne on Saturday 26 May.
Because the Cabinet met yesterday you've already been given
information of the decisions that were made then.
Are there any questions?
Q: Sir, on this question of Cabinet decisions, you explained
to the House this morning that you found it difficult to follow
the line that you'd put while in Opposition about Cabinet
decisions Government decisions being made to the House before
they were made public. I was wondering, in view of what's
happened over the last few days, could you explain to us why,
if the Cabinet sits on Sunday you are unable to announce to the
House any decisions that Cabinet has made before you hold this
Press Conference? If the Cabinet sits on Tuesday morning and
the House sits at 2 o'clock on Tuesday you are unable to announce
to the House any Cabinet decisions before you hold this Press
Conference on Friday. Would it not be easier for both the Houses
of Parliament and certainly for us if the basis of these decisions
were announced perhaps after Question Time two hours before you
hold this Press Conference?
PRIME MINISTER: PTRIhMeErMIeN'IsT ERb: e en one Cabinet meeting on Sunday.
The decisions were given to the Press that afternoon.
There's been some on Monday, the latest yesterday, and the
decisions were given to the Press that afternoon. I suppose
it would be possible to announce the decisions of Cabinet on
a Tuesday morning after Question Time on Tuesday afternoon.
This would have to be done in the form of ministerial
statements I suppose. But nevertheless there is no regular
procedure for that to be done. I suppose one could always
promote a question on the subject and give the information
that way. But I thought there'd been no demur by any of the
Press or any of the public to our announcing Cabinet decisions
on the day they were made. Also announcing Caucus decisions
on the day they are made. That was always what we did in
Opposition. I would expect that you would expect and that
everyone in Australia would expect we would do the same now
that we are in Government.
Q: Prime Minister, following a statement made by Mr Snedden
today, that he is quite happy to have a double dissolution
over the issue of amendments to the Arbitration Act, and similar
statements made by the D. L. P. and the Country Party can you say
today whether you're quite happy to have a double dissolution
on those amendments and if such an event will occur?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know what the Senate's conduct will
be in regard to any of the Government's Bills. I doubt if
many of the Senators have made up their minds yet either.
The fact is that there will have to be an election for half
the Senate at some time between the first Saturday next July
and the last Saturday in June next year. The whole question
is whether, if the Senate makes the Government's business
unworkable, there should be an election for the whole of the
Senate and for the House of Representatives some time in that
period. It would be many months before there can be such an
election for the two Houses. As you know, there has to be
the rejection by the Senate of a Bill from the House of
Representatives or the undue delay of the Bill or the unacceptable
amendment of the Bill. Then, after a lapse of three months,
the same fate must befall the same Bill again. Quite obviously
this would take some months. If the Senate takes the same
attitude towards two of the Bills which have gone through the
House of Representatives the Electoral Bill and the Arbitration
Bill then that would be the first rejection of Bills of
substance, and then those Bills, if they're put up again in
three months time and rejected again, there would be the basis
for a double dissolution, then, as you know if, after an
election, there is a majority for the Government in the House
of Representatives but not for the Senate there can be a joint
sitting of the two Houses and they debate and decide the Bills
which were the cause of the double dissolution. Now there are
other Bills, of course, of substance such as the Sea and
Submerged Lands Bill or the Pipeline Authority Bill or the
Prices Justification Bill. I don't know what the attitude of
the Opposition Parties will be to such Bills as that.
Q: Prime Minister, do you consider that the Government Party
acted correctly in the Senate last Thursday in calling off for
pairs in the Thursday evening debate?
PRIME MINISTER: This matter has been raised at Question Time
in both Houses. I will say nothing about it now.
Q: Why not?
PRIME MINISTER: Because one of the protagonists is out of
the country.
Q: Prime Minister, you've received a reply from the Government
of Yugoslavia. Would you say if you are satisfied with that
reply and if not why not?
PRIME MINISTER: I can say this: the Yugoslavian Ambassador
handed over a note last Saturday in reply to the Australian
note which was passed to the Yugoslavian Government on the 14th
of last month. The Yugoslavian note doesn't provide all the
information we were seeking. It reiterated however a willingness
to provide details of the trials of the three Australians
executed following their participation in an illegal incursion
into Bosnia as well as further information about this incursion.
Our Ambassador in Belgrade is pursuing this matter with the
Yugoslavian authorities. He is also discussing the cases of
other Australians about whom we have had representations or
reports that they have been detained. Although the Yugoslavian
Government insists that under the terms of The Hague Convention
it is not obliged to give Australian Government access to dual
nationals arrested and detained in Yugoslavia. The Australian
Government believed that we had a right to this access on
humanitarian grounds. I think I mentioned to you a week ago
that I am referring to the Joint Select Committee on Foreign
Affairs and Defence this question of dual nationality which
affects scores of thousands of migrants, not only from
Yugoslavia, but from many other countries, I suppose most of the
countries which have the Roman Law the Napoleonic Code.
Q: Sir, could you tell us whether you oppose or favour the
construction of the proposed tower on Black Mountain and whether
the Government is likely to make a decision on it soon?
PRIME MINISTER: I think the Government will decide this next
week, at last, I think.
Q: Sir, the Treasury said in its paper on the economy last
July that demand pressures of any sort must be removed before
anti-inflationary measures can be successful. The Treasury
now says there's a state of clearly excessive demand in the
housing sector. Do you expect that the Commonwealth/ State
talks can achieve much in reducing housing costs while the
Federal Government allows a state of excessive demand to exist?
PRIME MINISTER: The Australian Government has no legislation
no statutory authority at this stage to quell the excessive
flow of funds into the housing sector. I think in the last year
the amount of money made available to purchase or build houses
has been 80 per cent greater than the amount available in the
previous year. I don't doubt that the Australian Parliament
can pass laws concerning financial corporations other than banks.
It hasn't done so up till now. The great increase in funds
has not come from banks over which the Australian Government
already has statutory authority. The State Governments could
introduce in their Parliaments legislation to regulate the
flow of funds from financial institutions other than banks.
The Australian Parliament has already covered the banking
field. Until it covers other fields, the States could certainly
cover them. The answer is I think that any of the Parliaments
in Australia could pass laws regulating the flow of funds
into housing which has been responsible for the excessive
pressure in housing in the last three or so quarters.
Q: Prime Minister, you mentioned that the Yugoslav Government
hadn't given you all the information that you'd asked for in
your note. I wonder if you could tell us what information they
failed to supply?
PRIME MINISTER: I listed before Easter twelve names about
whom we were seeking information. On the same day it transpired that
one of them had been found and a couple of days later that
another one had been found. We have no further information
about the other ten, and that's the information which is being
sought. There is a question on notice in the House of
Representatives in fact about one of the three who were executed
and about whom information was given by the Yugoslavian Government
newsagency in the middle of last month, but we have no further
information about that man yet.
Q: Prime Minister, Dr Cairns had talks today in Peking with
the so-called Prime Minister Prince Sihanouk's Government in
exile. Can you say if those were official talks and if they
had your blessing, and what was the nature of them and can you
say what is the official status of Prince Sihanouk with the
Australian Government?
PRIME MINISTER: Prince Sihanouk has no official status with
the Australian Government. He does usually reside in Peking
and it is quite often that visitors to Peking encounter His
Royal Highness.
Q: Prime Minister, Mr Hawke has announced today that the
A. C. T. U. Executive has decided to go ahead with its total ban
on French shipping, communications and manufactured goods from
midnight tomorrow. He has announced the ban will stay in force
until the French testing program is abandoned. He has also
announced that the A. C. T. U. Executive will call on the Federal
Government for maximum diplomatic and economic sanctions.
Can you tell us firstly do you think this ban will achieve
anything or will it hamper our Court case and secondly what is
your attitude from a call from the A. C. T. U. for maximum
diplomatic and economic sanctions?
PRIME MINISTER: The maximum diplomatic action has been in
train for some months. If a ban on communications extends to
mail and postal and telegraphic services it will harm Australia's
case before the International Court of Justice. You've just
mentioned the word ' communications' I trust that postal and
telegraphic communications are not covered by any such ban.
Perhaps I should read you the telegram that I sent to all
members of the A. C. T. U. Executive yesterday. It explains the
overall position:
" Australia has claimed in the proceedings which have
been brought against France in the International Court of
Justice that the conducting by France of atmospheric nuclear
tests in the Pacific is contrary to international law.
Especially as a country that has invoked international law
against France, Australia must at all times in her relations
with France act in accordance with international law.
" This does not mean that there is no scope at all
for union action against French nuclear tests. But when both
Australia and France are parties to particular international agreements
we must avoid placing France in a position to bring
proceedings before an international tribunal against Australia
alleging breach of an obligation that Australia has accepted
in relation to France. We must also avoid the possibility
that France, in the current proceedings in the could
allege that we are acting in contravention of international
law in other respects and are therefore not appearing before
the Court with clean hands.
" I am especially concerned about the following
conventions: 1. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
2. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
3. Universal Postal Convention 1964.
" Both Australia and France are parties to and are
bound by these conventions.
" We must under the Vienna Conventions avoid doing
anything which would prevent or hinder the proper normal
functioning of the French Embassy or the French Consulates in
the States. This would include the protection of personnel and
property as well as the facilitation of official communications.
" The Universal Postal Convention imposes on Australia
an obligation to forward mails passed to it by the French
postal authorities. " As I have said, these are the international conventions
that concern us most. I urge you most strongly to assist in
ensuring that no action is taken which would involve Australia
being in breach of her obligations under international law.
( Signed) E. G. WHITLAM
Q: Sir, has the Vatican refused to accept the nominated
Australian Ambassador and what reason does the Vatican give
and what will you do now as Prime Minister about this?
PRIME MINISTER: You would not expect me to make any comments
on such matters even if they're true.
Q: Prime Minister, has Cabinet considered the Wheat
Stabilisation Bill and if it has are you in favour ( inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, we've considered it and we have a
recommendation on this matter for the Party tomorrow.
Q: Sir, do you believe that the Labor Premiers of
Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania are in breach
of either Labor policy or the spirit of Labor policy in joining
their Liberal colleagues in appealing to the Privy Council
against your new Territorial and Sea Bill Seas and Submerged
Lands Bill?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Both.
Q: You believe they are in breach of both?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Q: Do you intend to raise this in the Councils of the A. L. P.
such as the Federal Conference?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Q: Have you pointed it out to them, Sir?
PRIME MINISTER: They know it. They were at the Launceston
Conference which resolved that the Commonwealth should legislate
for regulation and exploitation of the Continental Shelf and
offshore resources. An amendment was moved that the Commonwealth
and the States should legislate. . The words and the States the
amendment to that effect was defeated so there's no question what
the Party has said about this matter. As you know the Seas and
Submerged Lands Bill and the Seas and Submerged Lands Royalty
on Minerals Bill which Mr Connor introduced last week incorporate
the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill which Mr Swartz
introduced on behalf of Mr McMahon when he was Foreign Minister
under Mr Gorton in April 1970 and the companion Minerals Bill
which was promised at the same time. You'll also remember
that in the speech the Governor-General made opening the last
Parliament reference was made to both these Bills. The
Governor-General in opening this Parliament repeated the same
words so this is legislation which has been before the Parliament,
which has been supported by the Liberal/ Country Party Government
over three years ago and now by my Government. It is a subject
matter which was considered less than two years ago by the
Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party. There is no
question as to the attitude of the Labor Party on this matter.
Whatever the attitude of the Labor Premiers may be the fact is
that the Country Party Premier of Queensland and the Liberal
Premier of New South Wales would challenge the legislation anyhow.
Q: Sir, following from that, what is your reaction to the
Premiers' decision to try to stop your moves to abolish the
States' appeals to the Privy Council and your reaction to the
Queensland Premier's so-called secession statement, as the time
could be fast approaching when the links between the
Commonwealth and the States would have to be reviewed?
PRIME MINISTER: I always knew there were terrific
similiarities between Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Ian Smith.
I think Mr Smith would represent about one-twentieth of the
population of his State. Mr Bjelke-Petersen at least represents
one-fifth of the population of his. This idea of secession,
I must confess, staggered me. I hadn't heard of the idea since
the early 1930' s. It was suggested in Western Australia in the
1930' s the early 1930' s and Mr Bjelke-Petersen with his
fine sense of history is reviving the idea. I've no doubt what
the people of Queensland would say if they had a referendum on
the question because in a referendum every vote would be of
equal value and I've no doubt that the great majority of the
people of Queensland want to remain part of Australia.
You asked me about the Privy Council: the whole situation
is of course that Australia is one of the very, very few
countries in the world which allows legal disputes between its
citizens to be determined in the courts of another country.
The Privy Council sits in England. It's composed of judges
who are appointed by the British Government. Its judgments take
the form of advice to the Queen of England not the Queen of
Australia. The Australian States are still British colonies in
this respect. Appeals can go from their Supreme Courts either
directly or via the High Court to the Privy Council and this
means that you can have three forms of appeal. You can appeal
from a single judge of the Supreme Court judge and jury
to the Full Court or the Court of Appeal of the State. You can
then appeal to the High Court. You can then appeal to the
Privy Council. This is the most ample, dilatory, extravagant
form of appeal in the world. The Australian Labor Party has
said for decades that appeals to the Privy Council should be
abolished. Now what we are doing is under the Statute of
Westminster passing a Bill in this Parliament requesting and
consenting to a Bill in the British Parliament abolishing
those appeals. It's the British Parliament which provides
this method of appeal and the Australian Parliament is being
asked to request and consent to the British Parliament giving
up this form of appeal. This is something which the Australian
National Government is entitled to bring up in the Australian
National Parliament and to forward to the British Government
so that it can bring in companion legislation in the British
Parliament.
Q: Sir, what action do you propose to take if the unions do
go ahead with the ban on French mail?
PRIME MINISTER: I won't assume that the relevant unions will
harm our country's interest.
Q: Prime Minister, regarding this Commonwealth/ State
Committee all the Liberal Premiers accepted the idea of
the Committee on the basis that one of the facets of the
economy we have would be wages and income, and I notice that
the five sub-committees don't mention either wages or income.
Are we to take that the main Committee will be looking at this?
PRIME MINISTER: The four Sub-committees and the Consumer
Protection Committee that's the five Committees all told
are, you'll notice, dealing with the five matters where I
suggested State action could be taken. These were the
suggestions I made. They were accepted by the Premiers on
Thursday and the following day the Australian Treasury and
State Under-Secretaries all agreed to set up committees on
those subjects, so that's why there's no specific reference
to prices or incomes. As I said at the Conference, we are
anxious to do what is possible and to do it promptly and all
these matters are things which it is possible for the Governments
of Australia with their different political complexions to agree
to undertake and I'm very pleased that they acted as promptly as
they could on it. The biggest increase in prices is in the price
of land and this is something akn~ at which the Australian
Parliament can do nothing except in-the Federal territories.
It is something about which all the States can act without
any limitation whatever. Section 92 doesn't impede State
legislation in this respect because you can't take a block of
land across a State border. Now all the States can do something
about the price of land. The Commonwealth can do nothing.
We are in fact inviting the States to co-operate with us in
acquiring tracts of rural land which are due for conversion
to residential land to acquire them and to develop them.
We've already got the agreement of the New South Wales and
Victorian Governments to do this in the designated area around
Albury-Wodonga. Western Australia agreed to do this last Friday.
Mr Tonkin and Mr Uren announced it then. The other States have
not yet agreed to do it but that is the most that the Australian
Government can do. It can help. It can provide the finance
for the State Governments to acquire land on just terms and to
develop it at cost but there is no way of land price fixation
or freezing which is available to the Australian Government
within the borders of the States. That's the serious thing
that has to be done and it's the thing which now is being
tackled I trust. But prices have gone up for land by a greater
percentage than wages or interest rates or services have gone up.
Q: . Mr Whitlam, will the Premiers get their way and will
wages and prices be considered by the major Committee?
PRIME MINISTER: They may be. But as you know there's very
little chance of getting price control introduced by the
New South Wales Government or getting it through the Victorian
Legislative Council. Income freezes similarly can't be brought
about because as regards wages and salaries as determined by
arbitration or by a Wages Board, if the States try to do that
then they produce a flight to the Federal jurisdiction, and
the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can
make awards in those matters over which the Australian
Parliament can exercise no jurisdiction and of course the
State Parliaments can't either. So it's being quite unrealistic
to suggest that you can get a freeze on wages and salaries
although there is a form of justification through arbitration
There. It would be very difficult also to persuade the State
Parliaments Federal Parliament couldn't do it to freeze
charges for services or incomes from investments and in the
material areas the principal areas of Sydney and Melbourne
the big manufacturing centres there is no chance of getting
prices legislation through the State Parliaments.
Q: Mr Whitlam, are you prepared to hold a referendum to get
the price control power through the Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER: See how we go with these things first.
You wouldn't hold a referendum by itself. You might hold it in
connection with a Senate election or a double dissolution,
but price control in that sense, even if one got the power in
this Parliament, would take a long time to set up the machinery.
Q: Sir, your northern friend, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, this
afternoon at his own press conference declared that you were
about to withdraw all Australian postage stamps with the Queen's
head PRIME MINISTER: I didn't have the advantage of hearing
Mr Bjelke-Petersen's press conference. I don't really see why
you should publicise his press conference at mine. There is
no proposal to take the Queen's photo off any of the Australian
postage stamps. I notice that our republican predecessors
put a great number of past Prime Ministers and artists and
explorers on the postage stamps. Next century mine may be in
some commemorative issue but no Labor Government has taken
Her Majesty's photographs off the stamps.
Q: Sir, you've spoken today about main with France. You've
made a more or less kind reference to Mr Smith. I had a cable
today from Johannesburg saying that there have been a lot of
complaints in Salisbury that mail from Australia has been
tampered and interfered with. As you know there is an
injunction at present before the High Court, but pending that,
can you say that you would frown upon any interference, no
matter which way that decision goes, with private mail between
two countries whether we recognise them or not?
PRIME MINISTER: The position of Rhodesia is covered by
Security Council resolutions. I can't remember what they say
about mail, but communications of other sorts such as airlines
are certainly covered by Security Council resolutions. The
present Australian Government will loyally support those
resolutions. There are no Security Council or General Assembly
or related bodies which have passed resolutions limiting mail or
telegraphic services with France. There can be no question
of the Australian Government's obligations to protect French
missions and to provide postal facilities for France.
The other matter that you mention about the proceedings in the
High Court that concerns the extent to which the Australian
Post Office must provide services for the so-called Rhodesia
Information Office at Crows Nest near Sydney. You'll understand
I can't comment on that because it's before the Court.
Q: Private mail wouldn't be in that category surely between
Rhodesia and France?
PRIME MINISTER: I didn't know that mail was not being
delivered from or to Rhodesia, but I don't know what our
obligations are under this. There can be no question of our
obligations in regard to France. Our obligations in regard
to Rhodesia are set out in the Security Council resolutions.
I forget the details on that point.
Q: Sir, on the question of appeals to the Privy Council
one of the main complaints of the States is that you didn't
consult them first. Can you say why you didn't do so?
PRIME MINISTER: The proper means of communication with
Britain is through the Australian Government. It's a method
which the Statute of Westminster envisages. Now if one were
to ask the States one would get different answers and surely
we aren't to contemplate the absurd situation where there can
be appeals to the Privy Council from the Supreme Courts of some
States and not from the Supreme Courts of other States. It is
a humiliating and archaic process. It is insulting to our Judges
that we still allow the States to be regarded as British colonies
in respect of their Courts. The State Supreme Courts are well
able to cope with all matters at that level of appeal and the
High Court of Australia is as distinguished a Court as there is
in the English-speaking world.
Q: Prime Minister, my question is about a number of points
you made about inflation here today. Fortunately you had the
Conference open last Thursday and I'm left with the impression
especially after speaking to your officials that wages and
incomes would be studied by the Committees. Do you think
Mr Hamer might have left with the same impression or do you
think that your eloquence persuaded him that it is unrealistic
to pursue this?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Q: Secondly, on the question of housing, Sir, you said that
the Australian Government has no legislative authority to
quell excessive flow of funds into the housing sector beyond
the banking powers...?
PRIME MINISTER: I did say legislative and then I saind
statutory. I meant there is no Act of this Parliament dealing
with that at this stage but I think I also said I trust there
was the power to pass such acts but we haven't done them
hitherto. Q: The works and housing program, Sir the housing agreement
is due for negotiation and this is one of the areas where you
intend to lift public spending. Am I right?
PRIME MINISTER: Not necessarily. The inflationary aspects
in housing the pressure on goods and services in housing has
come from the increased funds being made available not under
the Housing Agreement but principally by the Permanent
Building Societies or by some of the Terminating Building
Societies or to a certain extent by the Savings Banks themselves,
but the public funds for building under the Housing Agreement
Housing Commissions and the War Service Homes have not been
responsible for any increased demand on housing. I would guess
that the number of houses being built by Housing Commissions
in the last twelve months is considerably fewer than the number
built in the preceeding twelve months. Now our whole effort
in regard to public housing Housing Commission houses will
be to see that they are made available principally to those who
need them most, and I forget the exact figures there is a
very rapidly increasing waiting list for Housing Commission
houses in Sydney and Melbourne in particular and, unless
money is made available under much more direct conditions
for those who need the housing most then there is no prospect
of these families getting housing for a long time and there
are tests in some of the States they vary in intensity between
the States but there are tests in some of the States on
economic and accommodation grounds. We want to see that those
who need the accommodation most are first served.
Q: I just wanted to clear that point, Sir, because housing
demands... ( inaudible) between public and private.
It's just an aggregate figure. What you're saying is that
this Government has no intention of doing what the previous
Government did when excessive housing occurred. They would
cut back on their own housing program...?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Q: Do you intend to keep that...?
PRIME MINISTER: It is most unlikely that we would reduce
the number of Housing Commission houses or War Service Homes.
Q: and the particular influence you see where pressure
could be brought to bear is the Permanent and Terminating
Building Society people?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. That is where the distortion has occurred
in the last twelve months or a little less than that. I certainly
don't subscribe to the idea that if more money is coming from
private financial institutions for housing that you then cut
back on Housing Commission houses. That just puts the people
that can get housing from no other source further back.
That is not responsibility of Government.