THE PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA,
TUESDAY, 12 JUNE, 1973
PRIME MINISTER: Thanks for waiting ladies and gentlemen.
As you know, we have had a particularly long day of Cabinet
committees and Cabinet meetings today and we weren't able to
get through as early as usual. But, after all, there usen't
to be press conferences after Cabinet meetings were there?
I can't give you all the decisions because some of them require
meetings, of the Executive Council or consultations with all the
Premiers or at least messages to some of the Premiers. But I
will give you the other matters. Now because I have come
straight from the meeting you will have to bear with me while
I look them up, and I mightn't be able to give you the full
background to all of the matters because I have just brought
the essential headings. We decided to develop the district
of Sanderson near Darwin by constructing the neighbourhood units
of Malak and Karama and associated works and to refer to the
Public Works Committee designs for the whole project. We
decided to amend the Lands Acquisition Act in certain respects.
Perhaps you would rather me give you the details there if you
want them. We made a decision about not proceeding with the
phase-one development of the proposed Australian Government
offices at Melbourne as proposed in the report of the Public
Works Committee and we made some other plans about the use of
the balance of the property there. We decided to enter into
negotiations with the Sydney Cove Re-development Authority
for the acquisition of a site on which to erect a new Customs
House and there were some associated matters concerning an
environmental impact statement. We decided to stabilise land
prices in the Northern Territory along the lines agreed between
the Premiers of New South Wales and me on 25 January last in
respect to Albury/ Wodonga. We are proposing to the Premiers
of Queensland and Western Australia that there should be a
Northern Development Council under the Chairmanship of the
Minister for Northern Development. The Council would be attended
by Australian Ministers whose particular responsibilities occurred
at any particular meeting. We have decided that three-quarters
of the amount of D. F. R. B. pensions should be adjusted by the
Superannuation Bill formula and that adjustments take effect
from the first pension payday in the new financial year. We
are referring to the Public Works Committee a proposal to
erect a Workshop, Stores and Plant Pool Complex for the
Department of Works at Kewdale, Western Australia. We will amend
the Wireless Telegraphy Act to exclude references to Papua New
Guinea. There are several other matters concerning Papua New
Guinea which I will be giving you in a moment. Revaluation
assistance for secondary industry will be made available to
applicants which will be defined as a company and all its
subsidiaries. There was a view that an applicant might be one
subsidiary company although the whole complex of companies of which
it was a part were not adversely affected at all by revaluation.
-2-
We adopted the Report of the Tariff Board on Synthetic Rubber
Latex. We decided to extend the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty
Act until the end of June 1976. We decided to approve the
proposals for an international code to regulate Liner Shipping
Conferences at the International Conference which Mr Jones is
attending in that regard. our decisions on the Karmel Committee's
Report on Schools will be discussed with the Premiers at the
conference with them at the end of the month. But there are a
couple of decisions which I can give you arising out of the
Karmel Report at the moment. We have decided to establish as
a statutory body a Curriculum Development Centre. I can give
you or Mr Beazley can give you further details of that legislation
as we have decided so far. We have also decided to establish
an Education Research Institute to undertake an expanded program
of co-ordinated research such as hitherto has been carried out
by the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development
in Education. We have decided to amend the Papua New Guinea
Act to enable the appointment of a judge to their Supreme Court
whose qualifications and experience have been obtained outside
Australia and to permit the appointment of a judge under a
contract for a limited term. We approved, in principle, the
arrangements made by Mr Jones and Mr Morrison with Mr Somare
and Mr Jephcott about the Papua New Guinea national airline.
We have approved in principle, but without commitment to funds
at this stage, the establishment of an atmospheric baseline
monitoring station and the provision of a number of regional
atmospheric stations in Australia. We will make this decision
known to the first meeting of the U. N. Governing Council for
Environmental Programs which is meeting at the moment. We have
endorsed the continued production of the Nomad aircraft and
technical support for the project. Further details I can give
you or Senator Bishop, the acting Minister for Supply, can
give you. Finally, we have approved other amendments of the
Papua New Guinea Act to facilitate self-government by 1 December
or as soon thereafter as possible. This, as you know, has
already been the idea, the principle accepted by the
Papua New Guinea Government and House of Assembly as well as
by the Australian Government. Once Papua New Guinea has selfgovernment,
the Administrator. will be known as the High Commissioner.
When Papua New Guinea achieves independence he will be known as
or there will be an Australian High Commissioner there. There
has been some difficulty with title there, of course, because
the British precedence would have dictated that the official
should be known as Governor. That title would not be accepted
in Papua New Guinea now.
Are there any questions?
-3-
Q. The West Australian Premier in London yesterday accused
the Federal Government of a breach of faith on States' rights
charging you with misinterpreting Labor Party policy. He
referred to a previous Labor Attorney-General, Dr Evatt,
assuring the States that the steps now taken would never be taken.
Could we have your reaction to that please?
PRIME MINISTER: I wouldn't comment on a report at this distance.
There has been no breach of any undertaking given by any of my
predecessors. Q. What's your reaction to the 29 per cent fee rise announced
by the doctors, and also your reaction to their statement that
fee rises will not be negotiable?
PRIME MINISTER: I was away last week. I am not familiar with
the details here. Mr Hayden ought to comment on that.
Q. In recent weeks you have been highly critical of the States
on the question of off-shore rights and the action of the six
State Premiers in their petition to The Queen. The six State
Premiers have now declared their unanimous opposition to the
Commonwealth's off-shore legislation and to the aboliton of
appeals to the Privy Council. If in the attitude you have
adopted on this question you are expressing federal A. L. P. policy,
do you propose as a delegate to the Federal Executive or the
Federal Conference to move to discipline the three State Labor
Premiers concerned Messrs Dunstan, Reece and Tonkin. If not,
could you be accused of grandstanding?
PRIME MINISTER: That's a very sharp question coming from you
Sir. I will be taking no steps to discipline any of the
Labor Premiers. There is no question that the Australian Government
has followed to abolish appeals to the Privy Council and to assert
the Australian Government's jurisdiction over the territorial
sea and the seabed beyond low-water mark are the policy of the
Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party's policy
is binding on its members of parliament in the State Parliament
no less than in the Australian Parliament. The principle of
abolishing appeals to the Privy Council has stood since the
Federal Conference of the party in 1908, when it was adopted
unanimously. Nobody since has ever quibbled at this policy.
And I wouldn't imagine that there are many people in public
life who would not think it proper that the legal disputes between
Australians should be settled within Australia by Australian
judges appointed by Australian governments. The policy as
regards off-shore resources was laid down at the party conference
in Launceston in June 1971.
Q. While you were away Sir you were bleeped by Sir Frank Packer
on Channel 9. I was wondering if you had any comment on that?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I did read something like that. But, I
mean, I am well content if Sir Frank Packer just bleeps me
instead of distorts me.
Q. Sir, can you tell us the words that were bleeped and who
was the Bishop you were referring to?
PRIME MINISTER: Now the interviewer didn't mention any Bishop's
name, nor therefore did I. But if the mitre fits.
Q. Your on record in past as saying several times that you
approve the New South Wales method of pre-selection of candidates,
at least up till 1970, which was by branches rather than by
Federal Executive by State Executive, and you used this, I
think, against the Victorian method of pre-selection by State
Executive. Can you tell us now whether you approve of the new
method for Senate Upper House State Upper House candidates which
the New South Wales Conference has put through, or do you go along
with your Minister for Urban and Regional Development, Mr Uren,
who seems to think it is retrogressive move?
PRIME MINISTER: It's true that I preferred the method which has
been adopted to choose candidates for individual seats in New
South Wales over the method which used to be adopted for choosing
candidates for individual seats in Victoria. In my own view, and
I'm not a delegate to any State Conference and I haven't been
a delegate to any State conference since I have been a member of
parliament but to give my own view, I believe the method of
choosing candidates now adopted in Victoria is the best in
Australia. Q. Sir, do you support Mr Uren's stand against the way the
new system was adopted in New South Wales?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't comment on what my colleagues are
reported to have said. I didn't hear Mr Uren. I don't think
he was speaking from a text. I know, because he has shown me,
that he has written a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald
complaining of the misrepresentation and misquotations in the
editorial in their paper today. And, I trust, that the Sydney
Morning Herald will have the simple honesty and honour to
publish Mr Uren's letter.
Q. Could you tell us the circumstances in which Mr Uren showed
you this letter. Did you intervene in this dispute between
him and Mr Ducker, the New South Wales President?
PRIME MINISTER: Now, whatever way I answer that question, you
will expect me to endorse your assertion that there is a
dispute between Mr Uren and Mr Ducker. I have not spoken to
either concerning the newspaper reports. Mr Uren gave me,
this afternoon, a copy of the letter which he has sent to the
editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Q. On the Karmel committee report. Can you tell us if Cabinet
approved the financial recommendation for 1974 and 1975?
PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have already
said.
Q. While you were away last week, the Queensland Government
decided not to accede to the request from your Government to
take control of Aboriginal affairs. What if anything, is
your next move.
PRIME MINISTER: We haven't had time to consider this. We won't
take as long to consider it as the Queensland Government did.
We will carry out the obligation which the Australian people
overwhelmingly imposed on the Australian Parliament and
Government at the referendum in 1966.
Q. Well how exactly will you go about this?
PRIME MINISTER: Well let's discuss it.
Q. The discussion on the code of conduct for Liner conferences
at the UNCTAD ME-eting came-up today. Was that decision consistent
with the announcement that Mr Jones made sometime ago that
per cent of Australian mineral exports would be carried in
Australian flag vessels.
PRIME MINISTER: Minerals are not carried in liners, even on the
Australian runs.
Q. At the National Press Club last week, Dr Cairns told us
that he had a conversation with the Prime Minister of
Prince Sinhanouk's in exile. The Prime Minister asked him
for Australia's moral influence to procure a halt to the bombing
of Cambodia by the Americans and to bring about discussions between
Prince Sinhanouk's government and the Lon Nol regime, and
Dr Cairns said he had brought this to the attention of the
Australian Government. Has anything been done about this yet?
PRIME MINISTER: Based on reports of what Dr Cairns had said
to the National Press Clb my Department of Foreign Affairs
did consult with him. There seemed to be some indication in the
report that Australia might be able, or expected, to take some
steps to bring together the disputants in Cambodia. An then
enquiries were made overseas from several quarters. There seems
to be some misunderstanding of reports of what was said, by
whom or to whom. We have studied the texts of statements made
by various parties including those of Prince Sinhanouk and
conclude that at this stage there is no role for Australia as
a mediator. If, however, we were to be asked by all parties to
the present conflict to mediate or play some role in bringing the
opposing sides together for talks, we would be prepared to
consider it. On present indications, however, such a request
seems unlikely.
Q. At the end of your discussions with Mr Marshall Green, the
new United States Ambassador, on Friday, you suggested that
you might have something to say about those discussions at your
press conference today.
PRIME MINISTER: Did I?
A. Yes.
PRIME MINISTER: Well I never, and I don't think any of my
predecessors ever have, made any comment after discussions of
that character.
Q. Well you did suggest to us on the steps, Sir, that you might
have something to say at your press confereACe today about the
discussions,
-6-
PRIME MINISTER: Well we must have misunderstood each other
because.... Let's be quite plain about it. No parties to any
such discussion every give accounts afterwards. I never have.
Q. Can you say anything at all about your proposed trip to
Washington as a result of these discussions?
PRIME MINISTER: No. No. I said I would keep you fully informed.
I have no further information for you.
Q. My question relates to parliamentary privileges. If I may
background this question a little bit, as far as the right to
report proceedings is concerned, I understand that parliament
inherits the privileges of the House of Commons which date back
to the 18th century. This, in fact, does not provide a strict
right to report proceedings in federal parliament. Would you
agree that it is time that parliament legislated to define what
its privileges are, especially in relation to journalists?
PRIME MINISTER: I would like to see Parliament do this but
I know that predecessors of mine have all said the same thing
and we have never got round to doing it. I would hope that
the Privileges committees on the two Houses might do something
about it. I know that Mr Enderby, who is on the House of
Representatives Privileges committee, has this very much in mind.
But I must be quite frank with you, there's so much that has to
be done by way of legislation that I can't hold out any hope that
we will get around to it very quickly. It's something that
really parliamentary committees can deal with. It's not something
that the Government has to do alone. I am not saying Government
hasn't got some responsibility in this respect but really the
privileges committees of the two Houses of this parliament could
do it preferably jointly.
Q. Have you yet received the report from the Task Force headed
by Dr Coombs?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
Q. The New South Wales Branch of the R. S. L. has suggested that you
swear allegiance to the Queen?
PRIME MINISTER: The New South Wales Branch has?
A. Sub-branch.
PRIME MINISTER: No, I am going by A. BC. reports which are
prima facie accurate. I think it was the Inverell sub-branch.
A. I apologise. Well, irrespective.... They require under
their rules that you swear allegiance to the Queen or relinquish
membership
-7-
PRIME MINISTER: Well, if they care to write to me I will give
them the addresses of the half dozen R. S. L. sub-branches of which
I am a member or an associate member. And they can move there
I don't think they will get any support for it.
Q. Did your comments in Adelaide on Sunday mean that the
Federal Government intends to withdraw its support for wheat
stabilization. And if so, when? If not, can you clarify those
remarks? PRIME MINISTER: No. It didn't mean any of those things. What
I was saying I mean I don't know how many of you were in
Adelaide but what I was pointing out to the convention of the
Labor Party in Adelaide on the weekend was that any Government
has to decide on priorities. It has to make choices between
different desirables and there are some things to which the
Labor Party is committed, which it has initiated, there are
others which its predecessors or opponents initiated or support
and we will obviously in the Budget context have to make choices
between such matters and I gave two illustrations. Of course
I made no commitment in these matters. Incidentally, this
becomes very difficult as you know, when I am asked at a
press conference to make comment on some newspaper report,
sometimes in another State. Well, communications should not be
so difficult in that respect, but I notice there was a terrific
to-do while I was in India about something I said it was on
a T. V. interview about Waltzing Matilda. Now I'm not
committing myself. I would hope that we would do something
better than Waltzing Matilda or better than God Save The Queen.
But what I said to this interviewer on Delhi T. V. was that
judging by the correspondence received by the committee on this
matter Waltzing Matilda is the favourite. I'm not committing
myself to it, but as I've said previously Waltzing Matilda
would scarcely be appropriate in my view at say a State Funeral.
I don't overlook the fact that the last couple of lines or so
are often rendered in rather a funeral way. It is very difficult
gentlemen, you know when you are asked at one press conference
something based on a report of an earlier one, sometimes
thousands of miles away.
Q. Have you given any consideration to the obstruction of
legislation by the Senate, and if so what action will you take?
Will you call the House of Representatives back?
PRIME MINISTER: I haven't discussed this with my colleagues.
Perhaps I should say that I don't propose, as at present advised,
to call the Reps back. The reason why I should say this at
this stage is that when I made an earlier statement on this I
was going on the view that amendments which the Senate made and
which are unacceptable to the House of Representatives, should
be do declared unacceptable by the House of Representatives
promptly, so that the three months can commence from that
declaration by the House of Representatives. There has been a
legal view to this effect, but since then I have taken advice and
their seems to be another view and probably a wider view that
the three months dates from the time that the Senate made the
amendments and the fact that the House of Representatives later
refused to accept those amendments isn't a necessary starting
point for the three months. It is enough if, for instance,
-8-
the House of Representatives says we won't accept these
amendments and forthwith sends the bill up again.
Q. It doesn't need to be knocked back a second time.
PRIME MINISTER: No. Well I'm not sure about the details there.
The point is, when I was speaking earlier I thought that the
three months could only date from the time the House of
Representatives rejected those amendments. Now once the three
months, in the prevalent view, dates from the time the Senate
made the amendments which the House of Representatives later
declares that it will not accept. So there will be no need to
call the House of Representatives together to declare them
unacceptable.
Q. Have you had legal advice on this?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Q. Over the past few days, have you gained the impression
that the United States Administration would like the Australian
Government to modify or change the direction of its foreign
policy away from its independent stance?
PRIME MINISTER: No. This is a very well phrased question
but I have not got such an impression.
Q. Do you support the principle that Ministers in your
Government who receive substantial living-away-from-home
allowances when they are in Canberra should have the right to
have subsidised homes' provided for them by the Government?
PRIME MINISTER: The allowance is paid, as I understand it, in
respect of any period that a minister lives away from the place
which he designates as his home. Some ministers designate
Canberra as their home. I think, as Prime Minister, I designated
Canberra as my home although, so far, ( I've held the job for six
months) I have not put in for any travel or away-from-home
allowances. I don't know when I will get around to it. I'm
not quite sure what the situation is. But away-from-home
allowance is based on where you declare your home to be.
Q. What I am getting at Sir, should ministers who receive
substantial salaries be able to rent Government houses at $ 16
or $ 19 a week when the ordinary member of the public can't do so?
PRIME MINISTER: I believe that ministers should be able to rent
houses in Canberra if that enables them to do their job better.
And I believe that they shouldn't get any advantage as regards
rent. There is no case, I am told, where they do. At the same
time I don't believe that they should pay any higher rent than
other people.
Q. Have you, Sir, got the impression over the past three or
four days that President Nixon will be in Washington when you
make your visit there at the end of July.
PRIME MINISTER: That question isn't so well phrased. I have
got nothing to add.
-9-
Q. Have you got any further information on the Australian
Yugoslavs in jail in Yugoslavia?
PRIME MINISTER: No I have had no more information than that
which was given in the Senate last Thursday.
Q. On the question of ministerial housing again, Sir. Do
you believe that ministers should go to the top of the priority
list for housing or flats.
PRIME MINISTER: Close to it. A minister has an important job
to do and in many cases that job can be best done by him living
in Canberra.
Q. Why can't the ministers rent~ from private enterprise?
PRIME MINISTER: Many of them do. Most of them do.
Q. Sir, India belongs to the Commonwealth you would agree
with that?
PRIME MINISTER: My word and likes to remain in it.
Q. Well, this is a little out of your camp, but could you ask
your P. M. G. whey they refuse to give India the Commonwealth
press rate: five pence a word for the press rate against three
cents a word in the Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER: I will find out. One of the very great things
that Britain did for the world was the Penny Post and I believe
that there is within the Empire, wasn't it, I don't think it
was all over the world. And I believe there is very great
advantage in having as cheap communication rates as possible
between all members of the Commonwealth. And I regret to hear
that this is not the case with India. One reason, of course,
whey we get so much news out of Singapore is that the rate applies
there, whereas, of course it conspicuously doesn't apply to
Indonesia which isn't in the Commonwealth. I am surprised to
learn that it doesn't apply to India, and I will follow up
what you say.
Q. Has Cuba made an approach to the Australian Government to
open consular relations with your Government, and if so, what
would be your reply?
PRIME MINISTER: I see there has been something in the papers
while I have been away about this. Months ago, the question was
raised of Cuba having a Consulate or Consulate-General in
Australia. We took the attitude that the amount of business that
Australia had with Cuba didn't yet justify a consulate. These
are the countries in Latin America which do have consulates in
Australia. Some of these, incidentally, are only honorary consuls.
That is, certainly the case in Central America. There is
Bolivia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Equador, Guatamala,
Haiti, Honduras, Panama and Venezuala. In embassies we have
representatives from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru
and Uraguay. So Cuba's trade with Australia doesn't justify
consular representation at this stage.
Q. Would we do any more business with Haiti than we do with
Cuba? PRIME MINISTER: I think that is honorary.
Q. What reasons did Cuba advance to the Australian Government
or representatives for wanting a consulate in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: I forget what the Really, it was quite
some months ago.
Q. You gave an interview to a Melboure newspaper, " The Age",
in which you referred
PRIME MINISTER: To the distinguished editor of " The Age", who
was fortunate enough to have it syndicated in many other papers.
Q. You said that since the Labor Government came to power
diplomatic relations have been established with every country
in Europe except Albania.
PRIME MINISTER: That's right.
Q. So, one was left wondering why Albania?
PRIME MINISTER: We feared the charge of cossetting communists
if we opened diplomatic relations with Albania. Let me hasten
to assure you: we recognise Albania. Even our predecessors
recognised Albania, but frankly we haven't got round to establishing
diplomatic representation with Albania. Perhaps to be complete,
we recognise but do not have diplomatic representation in Andorra,
Lichtenstein, San Marino and Monarco, although there is a
distinguished Australian resident in Monarco.
Q. Sir, was that a serious reply when you said you feared
the charge that we were cossetting communists?
PRIME MINISTER: No, of course if wasn't a serious reply. No,
the fact is that there is not, at this stage, a sufficient amount
of business to justify having diplomatic representation even
on a multiple basis with Albania. I dare say that we shall,
but the representation we have established in Europe has been
with countries which have considerably more sometimes quite
substantial relations, with Australia, namely, Poland, I beg your
pardon, East Germany, Cyprus and the Vatican.
Q. On the question of Cuba, Sir, did you seek the opinion of the
Australian Ambassador in Washington as to the likely American
view if we did exchange or have some
PRIME MINISTER: I forget, but I doubt it.
Q. We have not taken any cognisance of the likely American
reaction? PRIME MINISTER: I suppose we did. Of course one takes this into
account. But the point is, there are quite a number of Latin
American countries which would have an equal claim to consular
representation as has Cuba. Where we have concentrated on
diplomatic representations is in Europe and in East Asia, and in
-11-
Southern Asia. And in those cases our representation is almost
complete. But, for instance, there are many Commonwealth
countries in the Caribbean with which we have no diplomatic or
consular representation.
Q. What I'm getting at, sir, is: Were we influenced in not
having diplomatic relations with Cuba because we feared that this
might offend the United States Government?
PRIME MINISTER: It would have been one factor. But not the sole
factornor necessarily the predominent factor. You look at the
Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean with which, at this stage,
we don't have diplomatic representation. The fact is that there
is a limit to the number of people that we can have representing
us overseas even, as is so often the case now, on a multiple
basis. We can't over-stretch our resources.
Q. Isn't it very rare to reject an application to set up a
consular office here? Is is absolutely necessary that you
reciprocate it?
PRIME MINISTER: Etiquette would require it, yet. But don't put
it on the basis of rejection.
Q. My understanding is that they asked.
PRIME MINISTER: Well I suppose our answer was " Not at this stage".
Don't get the impression that there is a rejection in the sense
of never or we won't.
Q. It was the way you phrased your answers, that it was
necessary we reciprocate.
PRIME MINISTER: It would be the usual thing. And there was a
case, as you know, quite recently, within the last two years,
where another country withdrew its ambassador, closed its embassy,
because after many many years we had never established an embassy
in that country. And there was another a few years ago where
the same thing happened. The fact is that if you accept an
ambassador or consul from another country the normal thing is the
proper thing is to reciprocate. And at this stage in our
resources, Cuba can't be justified.