PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA,
TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 1973
PRIME MINISTER: There were a couple of appointments made in this
last quarter of an hour by the Executive Council. Mr Jack Neary, MBE,
is to be the Vice-Chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board.
Mrs Anne Lowery a member of the Metric Conversion Board. There were
several other decisions made by Cabinet-yesterday which individual
ministers have already announced. There is one which falls to
me, it concerns the GATT Anti-Dumiping Code. You will recall on the
7th November, Australia announced its intention to accede to the
GATT Anti-Dumping Code. New legislation is required to enable
accession, and the Government called for a report from Sir John Crawford
and Mr Rattigan on what proceduires should be established on the
imposition of dumping duties in the light of the time limitations
imposed by the Code. This report has been received and Cabinet
has accepted its recommendation. The legislation will provide that
the Minister for Customs and Excise may impose a dumping duty on any
goods which he is satisfied are being dumped in Australia or are
causing or threatening material injury to established domestic
industry or are materially retarding the establishment of a domestic
industry. If he requires independent advice, he may refer any such
matter to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report.
Provision will also be made for appeals to the Commission against
the Minister's decision on a dumping complaint.
Are there any questions?
QUESTION: Could you give us the details of the deal that you propose
to do on education the dcoal I understand was discussed by Caucus
this morning?
PRIME MINISTER: There was a meeting of Caucus this morning to discuss
the general contingencies on the education legislation. Now I haven't
got the full text, of course, of the resolution but in general it is
in these terms: The Government wants the Schools Commissicn
legislation to go through. It also insists on the general principle
which was recommended by the Karmel Committee that there should be
a reduction in 1974 on the amount which is to be paid per pupil to
non-government schools in the highest categories and a further
reduction in 1975. You mention a deal. I think there have been
discussions between a Country Party former minister and also the
Acting Minister for Eduction, and there may be further discussions.
I also gather there might have been discussions between the Leader
of the Country Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party. I forget
which is now the blue-tailed fly or not. Was that an accurate
report of the conversation?
COMMENT: Yes.
PRIME MINISTER: And you vouch for its accuracy?
COMMENT: I vouch for its accuracy.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, there seems to be no doubt as to the
authenticity of the reaction that it suggests. I mentioned the
recommendations of the Karmel Committee in this respect and perhaps
I should remind you what it said.
-2-
" The Committee believes that there are some non-government schools
for which no case can be made on an overall relative needs basis
for this type of Commonwealth support, i. e. equal per capita grants."
That's on page 7. Now on page 71 of the report there are three passaq( es
which I think I should read to you setting out its recoimnendations.
" The Committee judged that uniform per capita grants would be an
expensive way of bringing about acceptable standards in all schools
and would unduly delay their attainment. The Committee believes
that Government aid cannot be justified in maintaining or raising
standards beyond those which publicly supported schools can hope to
achieve by the end of the decade. Category A schools already use a
volume of resources that well exceeds the 1979 target, and the
committee believes that Government assistance to these schools cannot
be justified." You will remember that the amendments or requests
made by the Senate was that in 1974 and 1975 there should be a
minimum per capita grant to all non-government schools of the amount
which was paid in 1973 under the 1972 legislation $ 62 per primary
pupil, $ 104 per secondary pupil. And against that for Category A
schools, the Karmel Committee recommended $ 40 and $ 65 next year,
and $ 35 the year after; Category B schools, $ 45 and $ 65 in
each year; Category C schools, $ 60 and $ 90 in each of those years.
Now the Government regards it as basic that there should be a reduction
in 1974 and a further reduction in 1975 for those schools whose
educational resources are and by 1979 at the end of the 6 year period,
would still be above the resources available in Government schools
and the rest the bulk of the non-government schools.
QUESTION: The Government's legislation for the Schools Grants
Bill cut out all grants to Category A schools as of the end of this
year. Can I just clarify if tha Opposition agrees to pass the
Schools Commissrion Bill uniended in the Senate, would the Government
consider restoring the phising out of the grants to Category A schools
under the Schoolt Gran~ s 14glflation?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it would consider that.
QUESTION: I thought the Caucus had inade a prop~ osition?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I have given you the general principles. The
Government wants the Schools Commission to be enacted. That has been
nut to the people in 1969 and it has been put again in 1972. There
Is no question that this is a principle to which we are committed,
which the public exptects and the Commission is along the lines of
the Education Commission set up by our predecessors, the Universities
Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. It seems
reasonable to have one on schools again. I also stated the general
at1-titude of the Government that for those schools whose educational
resources are above, and by 1979 it will still be above, the resources
in the Government and the bulk of the non-government schools, there
should be a reduction in 1974 and a further reduction in 1975.
QUESTION: How widespread do you believe the practices in industry
of paying an extra week annual leave?
-3-
PRIME MINISTER: In the metal industries it is now universal, and it
has been applied in several of the State Public Services. If you
want the details I can give them to you afterwards. I can't remember
precisely which State Public Services apply an annual leave loading,
some already do, and I can't remember precisely in which States
Arbitration Tribunals have made such a provision for ev~ ryhno' ltheir
awards. Queensland within the last mcoritAñ, i. kIt: u) accnsland
Industrial Commission, it made provisions for an annual leave loading
for everybody under State awards, and I * believe in the metal
industries under Commonwealth awards there is provision for an annual
leave loading. You are asking me that question because of the
Government's decision relating to Australian Government employees.
QUESTION: You don't feel that the Commonwealth is too early in
setting a pace for this?
PRIME MINISTER: In some respects such as the metal trades matters
and this covers a great number of people say in the Department of
supply facilitieswe are well behind. People in private employment
are already getting it and people doing the same job in Australiani
Government employment are not getting it.
QUESTION: What sort of Budget will Le required for the Petroleum and
Minerals Authority in order that it can do its job effectively?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr Connorin introducing the Bill for the Petroleum
and Minerals Authority, said that at least 50 million dollars a year
would be available to the authority to prospect for petroleum and
minerals in Australia. That is the amount of money which has been
paid by the Australian Government on behalf of the taxpayers for
exploration of oil and minerals up to this stage. The manner in
which the Australian Government subsidy will be paid for oil and
mineral exploration will be changed from subsidising companies
very largely overseas companies Australians who subqcribe often
did so as a form of tax dodge. It will be changed from that method
to expenditure by the Petroleum and Minerals Authority.
QUESTION: After Saturday's referenda defeat, do you still intend -o
go ahead with your four referendum proposals when the next Senat.:
Election is held?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Three of those proposals, of courselwere put
ijt the policy speech and are in the party platform. Another, the
one concerning votes for referendums in the two territories and
also requiring a majority not only over the whole of Australia but
just in three States instead of the present four that flows from,
I think, universal suggestions which have been made for many years
past. Then there will be a fifth bill for a referendum put, I suspect,
when we assemble next year. That is, the one which we are discussing
with the States to make it easier for the Australian Parliament to
refer matters which are in its exclusive jurisdiction to the State
Parliaments as well, of course, as to make greater provision for the
present section of the Constitution which says that the-State
Parliaments can refer matters which are in their exclusive jurisdiction
to the Australian Parliament.
QUESTION: Will you agree to participate in a Conference with the
States on prices and incomes as proposed by the Premiers of New South
Wales and Victoria?
-4-
PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing of this proposal except what I hear
on the A. B. C. and, of course, I am inclined to believe it must be
authentic for that reason, and also in the newspapers but I have
received no communication from any of the Premiers on this subject.
If it is a matter concerning prices and incomes they don't have to
wait on any Australian Government initiative to get together. They
have the power, still. They are able to meet whenever they wish
to discuss it because there is very little that we can contribute to
the exercise of any such power. We cando it for the Northern
Territory and the Capital Territory but that's all.
QUESTION: On that subject, have you heard at all from the South
Australian Government in reference to its offer to give you power
over prices and incomes on a trial basis?
PRIME MINISTER: That offer has been repeated, I gather, but it
has been open for quite some time. You will remember that at the
Constitutional Convention in Sydney in the first week of September,
I raised this * very matter and I said that we would be happy to have a
reference by the States to the Australian Parliament of the power
to pass laws with respect to prices, and I said if they preferred,
then that could be done just, say, for a year or a period of years.
I pointed out that any such reference, in order to be effective,
would have to be made by at least the two larger States, New South
Wal'es and Victoria, because they produce so many of the basic
commodities which effect prices not only in their States but in
the four 5-malier States which import tho~ se basic commodities from
Sydney, Melbourne, Goolong, Rewccistle and Wollongong. There is no
difficulty, of course, as I poitiled out at the time, it could have
been done within a week of getting those references made by the
New South Wales and Victorian Parliaments because the Government in
each case has a majority ini the Legislative Council as well as in
the Legislative Assembly. Now the three smaller States which have
Labor Governments do not have a majority in the Legislative Council
of those States. It may well be that a Bill referring prices pow; crs
to the Australian Parliament would go through those Legislative
Councils if the large States, New South Wales and Victoria, were under
Liberal Governments, to refer those matters to the Australian Parliament.
I don't know quite what the attitude of Queensland would be, because
9ueensland's Premier is sui generis. He is not Labor, he is not
Liberal, and I gather, again reading the papers, although I don't
think the A. B. C. veiltures to say so, that he wouldn't attend any
conference that was sought by Liberal Premiers.
QUESTION: Just on the eduction grants matter again. What degreewhat
rate of phasing out would be acceptable to Caucus in relation
to Category A schools? Would the rate of phasing out that is
recommended in the Karmel Report be acceptable to the Government?
I-ave you received any offer of any form from the Liberal Party?
PRIME MINISTER: I have not spoken to any member of the Opposition
Parties on this at all. Mr Bowen has spoken to one Country Party
former minister, but that's all T know. I want to see'what the
proposals were. There must be a reduction as I say in 1974 and a
further one in 1975 for those schools which, as the Karmel Committee
said, can't justify Government assistance at the present scale or
at all in their view.
QUESTION: I understand you told the Caucus this morning that you
had no intention of being a lame duck Prime Minister. You also spoke
of the necessity of demonstrating that you had the respect of the
people to preserve the international standing of the Government.
PRIME MINISTER: I wish I could say it as well as you can.
QUESTION: Do you think the international standing of the Government is
at risk at the moment, and could you tell us what you mean by you
have no intention of being a lame duck Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER: What I mean is this: I see no point in being in
office if one can't achieve things. Obviously anybody in this job
enjoys it but there is no point in just enjoying the prestige
if one can't deliver the goods, and there can't be any subject on
which the Government relied so much to become a Government as some
of the matters which the Senate is delaying at the moment; such as
schools and health and trade practices and overseas control.
Australian control of our resources, equal opportunity for Australians,
were quite basic to what we proposed for the people in 1969 and again
in 1972, and it is, I believe, essential that we be able to carry out
some of those things which we undertook to do.
QUESTION: Have those referenda results harmed your electoral
prospects at all?
PRIME MNIdSTER: No, I don't think referendum results can be equated
in any way with PlecLion results. There is, of course, one
particular thing which W1ould distingjuish an election campaign,
particularly for the House ofL" Representatives, where the results
determine who is the Government, and that is we are positive
or constructive in what we would put as we have been in what we
have put. Pure negativism~ may be sufficed to beat a referendum. It
won't, I believe, these days suffice to make an Opposition into a
Government. QUESTION: I understand that there is a D Notice Committee mepf-1ng
today. PRIME MINISTER: That is right.
QUESTION: What is your personal opinion on D Notices? Do they
need to be revised or are they alright. I gather you have carried
on the same D Notice system as the previous administration?
PRIME MINISTER: We are reviewing the system as you know, that's why
y,-ur bosses are here in Canberra today talkinq well, when I say
your bosses, I mean your editors. I don't say their bosses are
here, but your editors are here and they are conferring with some
of my colleagues and I am taking them to dinner tonight. We will
have the long spoons. I dare say D Notices will be mentioned.
The D Notice system operates through the media.
QUESTION:. But with Government quidarice?
PRIME MINISTER: Co-operation. There is no law which governs the
D Notice system and as some of you know quite well, you can defy
the D Notice system. The only sanction, if you defy the D Notice
system, would be that you wouldn't get information your newspapers,
-6-
stations, wouldn't get information from the Government if you broke
an arrangement which you made with the Government about the subjects
concerned, but there is no criminal sanctions involved at all.
There is no law broken, it is purely a matter of understanding or
honour, if you like, between the medium and Government departments.
QUESTION: But you lay down what is covered by a D Notice?
PRIME MINISTER: It can only be done by agreement. The Government
can' t say to any newspaper or station " you will not publish this".
It can't, there is no law which enables it to say so. The only
arrangement is a voluntary one between the medium and the department.
QUESTION: You spoke a moment ago of your desire to keep achieving
your policies. In view of the negative history of referendums,
do you think you have really any chance of getting these next
ones through at the Senate elections?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I believe that we have too easily accepted
the fact that the people won't modernise the Australian Constitution.
It is a grossly inadequate Constitution. But the best efforts
of the Government and the editorial writers for those newspapers
whose editorials are read, all went to no avail last Saturday. Every
editorial on the subject in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald
and the Canberra Times and the Financial Review and the Murdoch
papers were all in favour. They agreed with us for once, yet it
wasn't sufficient. See, there was no referendum between 1951 when
Mr Menzies lost his only ref eiendum and 1967 when Mr Holt won one
and lost one. In the J. 940s there were several referendums put,
Mr Curtin lost one in 1944, MZ Chif icy lost two and won one in 1946
and he lost one in 1948 and then in 1937 Mr Lyons lost two. But I
think the last one to be carried before that was in 1928. I think we
ought to be more diligent and regular in enabling the people to
modernise the Constitution. I think if you face up to the facts
and do it regularly they are more likely to accept the procedure
which the Constitution itself laid down. There is no other way
you can alter the Constituion. Every Parliament in Australia,
State and Australian Parliaments, could agree and you would still need
a Bill to go through the Australian Parliament or at least twice
go through the House of Representatives and the people to approve that
bill at a referendum. That is the only way we can alter the
arrangement.
QUESTION: Can you tell us when the dispute between Mr Uren and the
NCDC will be resolved and....
PRIME MINISTER: May be today.
QUESTION: You will recall that the McMahon Government set up an
independent research group at the A. N. U. to study all aspects of
Federal/ State financial relations. We have heard nothing about it
since. Can I ask you whether your Government is still financing
the project, have you received any progress reports on its work and
will you act on any reccmivendations that come forward?
-7
PRIME MINISTER: I stress that it is not just Commonwealth/ State
financial relations. I was very insistent in questions at the time
and it was accepted that it should also cover local government
finances. In the last week I called for a report on this very matter.
I have got it up on my table at the moment. There have been some
articles written but not yet, I think, published in some learned
journals. It is doing some work. I can't say at this stage one
can see fruits of it, but I am pressing them to do something about it
because the idea is a good one. We do need to have academics
investigating constantly the question of Commonwealth and State and
Civic finances and their interaction. Up until now the only time
anything has ever been done is to get some Task Force to look into
it such as the Coombs report into Commonwealth expenditure. I have,
several times, advocated that the State Governments ought to have a
similar Task Force or Task Forces looking into their expenditure. You
always hear about the Australian Government's expenditure but in fact
State Government expenditure rises almost as much, and in fact our
expenditure has risen this year largely because of additional funds
we have earmarked for expenditure by the States.
QUESTION: policy says that in the public interest the
Commonwealth should act positively in the Arbitration Commission
to gjet an extra week's loading for workers at holiday time. I understand
that yesterday in Cabinet you urged caution in proceeding with
that through the Arbitration Court. When will the Commonwealth now
enact that part of A. L. P. policy now that the Cabinet has decided to
legislate to enact. that part about public servants getting the
loading?
PRIME MIFIS1' ER: We can't enact an~ ythingj. Wle haven't got the power
aO~ Ir incomes except for our own employees or people in the territories,
So we can't enact any such proV'ision. What can happen is that the
Avaatralian Government or dtate Governments too for that. matter can
appear they can intervene in proceedings before the Australian
Can~ ciliation and Arbitration Cou'mii7sion where this matter or any
athcr mratter are the subject a lot of c.-laims by registered
organisations of employee-s. The fact that the Australian Government
is hntroducing a hill for this wcmi-ld have an influence, I expect,
an The Commission. Earlier at thi conference, I pointed out that
the Commission had already accepted and provided for the principle
ofan annual leave loading in the metal trades award. It is for,
th~ is reason that people in that area who are Australian Government
LompJoyees, had approacheO t. he Pulhie Snrvice Arbitrator. This will be
in a bill which we will introdciue in the autumn session. I don't
know at this stage whether the Opposition parties will oppose it or not.
We believe that basic matters of Government policy such as this
con~ cerning Australian Government employees should take the form of
ie. jislation. As things stand at the moment Australian Government
employees can apply to the Public Service Arbitrator for them. They
have. Under our legislation, the people in the highest brackets will,
in fact, get less than they are likely to get, ihan they are seeking,
before the Arbitrator at present.
QUESTION: Will you intervene in other cases and will you extend it
to the other Commonwealth employees..
rEIME MINISTER: I did overloo: ' ra Mr Barron has asked me. This
was never discussed in Cabinet yesterday. There was no discussion
on any matter pending before the Conciliation and Arbitration
Commission. The discussion centered solely on the projected legislation.