PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA,
TUESDAY 20TH NOVEMBER 1973
PRIME MINISTER: Ladies and Gentlemen there were a couple of things
that I announced about 23 hours ago after the Cabinet meeting
yesterday. I can give you a couple of others. First the appointment
to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation of Mr Cliff Dolan. His
appointment will take effect from the 24th. He is being appointed
to succeed Mr R. D. Williams Barney Williams who, whom you
remember, nas been appointed to the Australian Conciliation and
Arbitration Commission. Mr Dolan is Federal Secretary of the
Electrical Trade Union of Australia and is senior Vice-President
of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Then the matter of four
weeks recreation leave, for employees in the private sector in
the Territories. We are introducing an ordinance which will be
gazetted of course, by the appropriate minister, to apply four
weeks recreation leave for employees in the pzivate sector in the
Capital Territory; official members of the Northern Territory
Legislative Council will introduce an ordinance to make similar
provisions for private sector employees in that territory and
appropriate measures are being taken to introduce minimum periods
of recreation leave in the other nonself-governing territories;
that is Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos Island. There
is another matter I can announce to you. We have decided to
participate in the International Exposition on the Environment to
be held in Spokane, Washington, between May and October next year.
Discussions are proceeding between officials to determine the nature
and scale of Australian participation and a report is expected to
be submitted to Cabinet within the ne-xt fortnight. The exposition
has been sanctioned by the Bureau of International Expositions oF.
which Australia is now again a member and it is part of the 200thl
anniversary celebrations of American independence. The Soviet Union,
Japan, Canada, France and Mexico are participating as well as othler
countries in Europe, the Pacific area and Latin America. Are there
any questions.
QUESTION: Will you explain why and on what information or advice
the Government decided to vary the recommendation of the Tariff Board
on protection of the Australian electronics industry?
PRIME MINISTER: It was made as a result of discussion around the
Cabinet and officials were called in to advise as to the difference
this would make in money terms for the various sets.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the matters exposed by the Parliament
early today were resolved to your personal satisfaction and in the
highest traditions of the Parliament established Westminster, and
do you believe that by today's vote by the Parliament, your reaction
both within the Parliament and outside have been vindicated.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. You were able to see what happened last week.
-2-
QUESTION: May I follow that up with one clarification in the
House this morning Sir, you said you had apologised last week
for your remarks. My understanding of it, sitting in the gallery,
that you offered to apologise
PRIME MINISTER: No. I withdrew the aside I made across the table
in response to Mr Snedden. It was an aside in each case as I
pointed out, because it was not heard by the Speaker, or the Clerk,
or any members, or in the press gallery or by pressmen who were
listening on the radio. Mr Snedden dobbed me in. I withdrew what
I said. You remember he wouldn't withdraw what he-* said.
QUESTION: Quite clear. This morning, I though however, you were
referring to the other remarks about Dr Forbes which you said
positively at one stage last week, you wouldn't withdraw, and later
you said you offered to withdraw. You haven't withdrawn your remarks.
PRIME MINISTER: I won't say yes or no. I forget what happened.
I do remember quite clearly the matter of the aside across the table,
the offensive language he used and which I capped.
QUESTION: You allowed Francis James a theological question. Now
do you permit a gastronomical question?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, which paper do you represent? He represented
a theological paper. Do you represent a church paper or do you
represent a gastronomical paper?
QUESTION: A gastonomic interest. Your....
PRIME MINISTER: I wish my gastronomical interest had the same
elegance as yours.
QUESTION: You are very critical of some people's drinking habits.
How much truth is there in the rumour that you have your own
special interest in chocolate eclairs and that these are reasonably
provided in -the Cabinet Room?
PRIME MINISTER: There are no chocolate eclairs provided in the
Cabinet room. I have my problems. And I don't want to admit any
more weaknesses than I have to. However, you have mentioned the
Cabinet and while its proceedings are secret, I can assurc you that
chocolate eclairs are not provided under this government. I do admit
that I eat during sitting hours.
QUESTION: Chocolate eclairs?
PRIME MINISTER: No. But you could tempt me.
QUESTION: From the answer you gave to Mr Haupt's question about
officials being called in to give the results bf what various rates
would be on the price of television sets, can we take it from that,
that that was the main consideration in Cabinet the price and price
( unclear) price of television sets?
-3-
PRIME MINISTER: It was a very large consideration in fixing the
tariff duty. As you realise, the variation between the tariff duties
fixed by Cabinet and that recommended by the Tariff Board had very
little consequence in terms of price.
QUESTION: Sir, but what about employment effects?
PRIME MINISTER: It would reduce.... . It wasn't the only factor. It
was a very large factor. But it would mitigate any employment
effects; but I am not asserting that there would be any employment
effects. I guess you have seen the Tariff Board report now. You
have read it. And it is quite clear that there will be no fewer
people, in the Tariff Board's view, employed in manufacturing
television sets under the new duties, the reduced duties, than
there were under the old duties. The reason being quite clear:
that the cheaper the set, the more sets are going to be produced
and sold. There will be other employment aspects. For instance,
colour television requires many more people to service it, and the more
sets you sell the more people will be required to service those
sets. Furthermore, there will be more employment in the entertainment
industry, particularly in the aspects engaged in the production of
radio and television programs, if more people are able to buy sets
to pick up those radio and television programs. So there will be
no reduction in employment. The cheaper the sets the greater the
employment is likely to be. So this was considered but it was not
the main consideration, and it was not one on which the officials
were asked to calculate.
QUESTION: In the first three years after the introduction of
colour television, it can be calculated that the cost to consumers
of the Government's modification to the Tariff Board's report
will be $ 36 million. That is, one dollar for every man, woman
and child in Australia. The modifications were justified on
defence grounds. How do you reconcile this with the following
statement in the Tariff Board's report: " It would appear from
advice obtained from the Department of Defence that the Board's
recommendations would not significantly affect Australian defence
requirements." Page 22.
PRI: ME MINISTER: You have been told, I think. Anyway I will read
you what we have said on the defence aspects: " The G3overnment will
introduce appropriate subsidy assistance to maintain at least until
the Tariff Board's report on Professional Electronic Equipment is
considered by the Government." That is, the sort of equipment
that is required by Defence Departments, radio stations and
television stations. " The production in Au7, tralia of selected
electronic components which are or could be important for their
defence, telecommunications or technological significance. For
example...." and there were 10 quoted there. " The precise list of
components which might be covered by such a system, is to be
determined by the Government after further consideration of defence,
telecommunications and technological aspects. * Advice will be sought
from appropriate departments and technical authorities for instance,
universities and/ or consultants. The nature and extent of any
subsidy assistance will be subject to appropriate ratinnalisation and
re-structuring being undertaken by the industry in con siltation with
the Government. The details of this assistance are tc je determined
-4-
and announced before the end of next June. The future of the subsidy
assistance introduced is to be reviewed-at the time of consideration
of the Tariff Board's report on Professional Electronic Equipment."
So the whole question of the defence aspects will be considered
together, you will notice, with the Tariff Board's pending report
on Professional Electronic Equipment.
QUESTION: Sir, it can also be calculated that in the first 3 years
after introduction of colour television, the Government's modification..
PRIME MINISTER: I am not endorsing or rejecting your calculations.
QUESTION: I calculate that they will reduce the sales of television
sets by 100,000
PRIME MINISTER: I am not commenting on your calculations. The
fact is that television sets will be very much cheaper for individuals
and. for the whole community now than they would have been if the
Government hadn't changed. I am not commenting on your calculations-
I am not nimble enough to do it.
QUESTION: In your statement last night on the tariff cuts you
said that the Government would take appropriate action to ensure
that the benefits were passed on to the consumers. Who will take
this action, and what do you regard is the appropriate action?
PRIME MINISTER: The Government can determine the price of imports.
And this can be done by the Prices Justification Tribunal or by
the Government after consideration by the Joint Committee on Prices
in the Parliament.
QUESTION: Sir, you have said in thte past that you are prepared to
answer questions on specific interdepartmental committees. I understand
there was an interdepartmental committee which considered the
tariff report on television. Will you tell us what it said, since
you didn't release it with the report?
PRIME MINISTER: I said that I would give the membership and the
charter and the timetable of such reports. I didn't say I would
release the reports. This matter was raised in Cabinet and Cabinet
decided not to release it. One very good reason why this or some
other inter-departmental committee reports are not release, is
that there are references to legal aspects and a Government naturally
doesn't give the legal aspects of its decision to the public.
This inter-departmental committee, as I announced in the Parliament
in answer to a question last Thursday, as I recall, in answer to
a question without notice last Thursday, because it was announced
last June. I appointed the Standing Inter-departmental Committee
on Assistance to Industries last April. The text of the letter as
an arinexure to Sir John Crawford's report on a. commission for
assistance to industries I forget the precise title that he gave
to his report that was signed by Sir John and given to the Government
and released by the Government to all members, and I think to you
Ladies -id Gentlemen, last June and theexistence of this committee,
of course as I recall, in a question without notice last Thursday,
it was also noted in an answer I gave to a question on notice by
Mr Snedden. The Interdepartmental Committee on Assistance to
Industries. The membership of it was announced where it appears in
the Crawford Report annexure. on this occasion the SIDC comprised
representatives of the Departments of the Treasury, Secondary
Industry, Overseas Trade, Labour, Customs and Excise, Defence, Supply,
Science, the Postmaster-General, the Cities Commission the Prime
Minister and the Department of the Media, was consulted by the
committee. If anybody had asked how the committee was composed
for the consideration of the Tariff Board report on colour television
they would have got this answer.
QUESTION: I refer to your appointment of a very senior career
diplomat, Sir David Anderson, to be Ambassador in Paris. Is this
an indication that all is forgiven with. France over their nuclear
tests and supplementary to that, in that the ICJ case comes up
again next year, in what capacity will you be using the retiring
Solicitor-General and what will he be paid, to conduct our case
before the ICJ.
PRIME MINISTER: The dispute with France about her nuclear tests
continue I regret to say it is undiminished. That appears from
what Australia's representatives have said, and how they have voted
in the current United Nations General Assembly and its committee.
In other respects, relations with France are correct. The retired
Solicitor-General Mr Ellicott, will be appearing for Australia in
the International Court of Justice hearing of Australia's case
against France, arising from the breach which we allege of France's
international obligations, and in particular, the Treaty 1928. Treatyto
which we are both parties. I don't know what his fee will be.
But if I did know, I wouldn't tell you. You don't expect me to
state what fees are of individuals.
QUESTION: Back on the Tariff Board report, I am afraid. Can you
explain why the Government did not accept the Tariff Board's
recommendation of 25% duty. If you are saying that this Government
will make colour television sets cheaper than the previous Government,
why instead have you raised the duty in Cabinet to 35%. What is
the reason for this?
PRIME MINISTER: The Tariff Board report recommended that there should
be a 25% duty on electronic components excluding colour cathode
tubes, 30$ on monochrome and colour TV and 30% on radios, radiograms,
and sound recorders reproduced. It was clear that there was no
great significant difference in the cost if it was made 35% for all
of these. In particular you mention about the 25% duty recommended by
the Tariff Board on the electronic components. The advice is
that there is no substantial reason for having 25 on those particular
items and 30 on the others.
QUESTION: So everything is
PRIME MINISTER: Everything is
-6-
QUESTION: Just on the decison making processes of the Labor Party.
Did I understand you correctly to say that Cabinet yesterday had
outside advisers in during the course of the Cabinet meeting
PRIME MINISTER: At one time.
QUESTION: Is this the first time it has ever happened.
PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: So it is not unusual for this to occur.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it is unusual, but it has happened with us and
I am informed that it has happened quite often under preceding
governments. QUESTION: On on another aspect of it, Mr Whitlam, you spoke in
Cabinet last week in respect to tariff policy and the executive, the
Cabinet as opposed to Caucus. However, Caucus made other important
policy decisions which one might say were taken in the course of
very brief debate in Caucus, such as four weeks annual leave for the
private sector in the ACT and the goldmining and other mining bills.
Is there any procedure within the Labor Party's decision making
process for holding up hot issues so that they can be considered
at a more leisurely pace, or with written submissions or does
Caucus retain this right all the time to make on-the-spot decisions
about major policy issues.
PRIME MINISTER: There are Standing Committees of the Caucus, as
you know, which provide for consideration of any matters which the
Committees or the Caucus want to consider and that is what the
Standing Orders provide that there should be consideration of such
matters by the Caucus Committee. These Committees, as you know,
are composed of people who nominate themselves. Every member of
the Caucus can nominate himself for three Committees, but Standing
Orders like any Standing Orders can be suspended and they were
last week.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, could I just clarify a point on that
Caucus procedure, you said in Parliament last week that you would
not accept that Tariff matters should go to the Caucus before being
announced in Parliament or announced generally. However, back in
May on the 9th of May, there was a Caucus decision that all matters
relating to changes in Tariffs, subsidies and bounties be referred
to Caucus for a final decision. Will you take the same attitude
in relation to subsidies and bounties that you have taken in regard
to Tariffs?
PRIME MINISTER: Any matter which comes for a vote, or which can come
for a vote, in Parliament, goes to the Caucus t~ o decide its collective
attitude. I made this quite clear and there is no need for me to
clarify it further, I made it quite clear in the House when I was asked
the question on it last Thursday morning by one of the Liberal members.
-7-
QUESTION: It was the timing, Sir, that was all. You pointed out
last Thursday in answer to that question that you would first
report to the Parliament and the Caucus later. You said that at
this Press Conference last week, that was in relation to Tariffs.
PRIME MINISTER: That was in answer to a question, I think by
Mr Maximilliam Walsh.
QUESTION: Well will the same thing apply with bounties and subsidies.
Will you first make the decision and then take it to the Caucus?
PRIME MINISTER: If they require a vote in the Parliament, I will.'
There are two things. The first is, is there a matter on which
people can speculate and which therefore should be considered by
persons who are under obligation to keep the matters confidential.
There are clear cases of that nature in respect to a budget or
most Tariff Board reports. There are some Tariff Board reports
where clearly the question of speculation can't arise or would be
too remote to be significant. Then, clearly, if any matter can
come to a vote in the Parliament, the Caucus determines its collective
attitude on those matters.
QUESTION: After you have made the announcement in public?
PRIME MINISTER: I do not need to say anything more about it.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, last week Australia was reported to
abstaining from a U. N. resolution against South Africa, and I was
wondering if you could reconcile this decision with your earlier
remarks about South Africa in particular lendingi Australia's support
to any international action to bring down the South African Government.
PRIME MINISTER: If you had the text here, I could show you where we
regarded this as being excessive. On balance, we though~ that the
resc; Lution went too far. We do not oppose, this Government does not
oppose resolutions which are substantially acceptable. That is,
wc do not oppose a resolution because there may be one small
component which we certify as unacceptable. But if you saw the full'
text you would understand why we voted in that way.
QUESTION: What is the significant part of it Prime Minister, what
do you regard as
PRIME MINISTER: Let us look at the text.
QUESTION: In the House today, Sir, you seem to have conceded that
Dr Kissinger was right, and you were wrong over the issue of whether
President Nixon had called the U. S. Military alert for domestic
American consumption. Was this a serious diplomatic error. If so,
Sir, was the error your responsibility or the responsibility of
bad advice from your Department?
PRIME MINISTER: I have got nothing to add to what I said in the
Parliament.
-8-
QUESTION: When is Mr Barnard expected to go to Washington to
re-negotiate the relationship of the Australian Government to the
United States Government on U. S. bases in Australia and will that
involve us paying for use of bases such as North-west Cape and
will it also involve us being given a guarantee that they will never
be allowed to send signals there without our permission?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr Barnard will be visiting the United States
in the recess. I think probably in January and there will be many
aspects discussed. I do not propose to endorse the aspects
that you have mentioned or reject them, or add to them.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up to my earlier question, Sir,
as I understand it, the IDC that I referred to earlier endorsed
the Tariff Board's decision and I also understand that the two
Departments which briefed Cabinet yesterday did not endorse the
Tariff Board's deicision although they were members of the IDC;
can you confirm whether that is so and can you also tell us why
the other Departments of the IDC that believed in the Tariff Board's
recommendations were not given the opportunity to brief Cabinet?
PRIME MINISTER: The Departments from which officers were asked to
come to Cabinet to give calculations of the effect of varying
Tariff duties were Prime Minister's, Secadary Industry and Customs
and Excise.
QUESTION: Senator Bishop is now back with us Sir, and I was
wondering whether he would remain * in Repatriation or will he go
to A. C. T. or what is the position, Sir?
PRIME MINISTER: I will let you know if I have anything to say
on this.
QUESTION: My question is in regard to the reported resignation
of Senator Cavanagh of Minister in charge of Government business
in the Senate. I was wondering Sir, whether you have accepted
Senator Cavanagh's resignation; if not, do you intend to accept
his resignation and thirdly Sir, do you think that Senator Murphy
should have consulted Senator Cavanagh before he moved the adjournment
on what has now turned out to be a rather eventful Wednesday night?
PRIME MINISTER: I discussed this matter this morning with the two
Senators you mention and I have not spoken to them since.
QUESTION: Sir, you have said that you have discussed these matters
with Senator Cavanagh and Senator Murphy, what was the outcome of
the discussions?
PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen them since.
QUESTION: Wasn't there an outcome at the time?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: You said Sir, when Mr Johns asked what powers you would
have to impose on the prices and imports of television sets,
that you hi snmething such as your Committee in the House of
Representatives to examine import prices, now the first report of
this particular Committee has been a very mixed bag, it is a set-in
point of fact that your evaluations failed to work quite significantly
in the area of pharmaceuticals, and also in respect of timber,
perhaps they are unsure about timber so quite clearly you
really do have no powers if all you can do is report. And so, what
powers would you have and are these the sort of powers you would
hope to activate after your referendum?
PRIME MINISTER: The Parliamentary Committee, like any other
Parliamentary Committee, it has no executive powers at all. But
like nearly every Parliamentary Committee, I think everyone which
is in existence at the moment, it is composed of members from both
sides of the House or in the case like this Joint Committees of
each side of both Houses and it can make recommendations or findings
and there can be majority and minority reports and there was on the
one that you mentioned. And it is then for the Government to take
executive action in the light of the Committee's findings or
recommendations majority recommendations or the minority ones
if it likes. The difference of opinion on the imports that you
mentioned I think consisted of Mr Gorton presenting a view different
to that of his colleagues. I have not followed it in any great detail,
but he asserted that the findings were Government on one side and
Opposition on the other. It was pointed out and then Mr Gorton
acknowledged that the other Member or Members from the Oppositin
supported the Government members on this matter. Mr Gorton differed
from his opponents and his colleagues.