PRIME MINISTER'S INTERVIEW ON ' A CURRENT AFFAIR', 20 OCTOBER 1975
( Recorded 19 October 1975)
SCHILDBERGER: Prime Minister do you think that people of Australia
want a change of Government?
PRIME MINISTER: At the moment they do. When our Budget is passed
and commences to work, they will want to keep the present one.
SCHILDBERGER: Why don't you think they should have the right of
having a change now?
PRIME MINISTER: Because a Government is entitled to last out its
full term. For the second time the Opposition is trying to cut
our term off half way.
SCHILDBERGER: You've made promises before, like the one that you've
just made now, that when the Budget works things will get better.'
You made those promises in May 1974; they didn't come true.
Are you concerned?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I think things have improved in many respects.
But we have had an immense amount of obstruction, as you know.
SCHILDBERGER: You think that now the promises that you make can
be kept?
PRIXE MINISTER: Yes. That's what the Opposition is frightened of.
They realise that this is the best Budget for years.
SCHILDBERGER: Why can these promises be kept now and they
weren't before?
PRIME MINISTER: Well why do they want to prevent the Budget taking
effect. Their judgement and mine is the same in each case, that
this is a good Budget.
SCHILDBERGER: Don't they believe also that there have been other
problems with the Government, changing of acting Prime Ministers and
Deputy Prime Ministers, Loans Affairs?
PRIRE MINISTER: So what? I demand the top standards in my Ministers;
they didn't. Their Ministers misled Parliament; they covered up.
Where mine have misled Parliament, they've gone.
SCHILDBERGER: Do you feel yourself in anyway negligent about
what your Ministers have done behind your back?
PRIM1E MINISTER: I'm disappointed. But nobody knew it; nobody could
have known it.
SCHILDBERGER: Do you think that it is partially your fault that
you didn't know?
PRI'E MINISTER: No I don't. Everybody was misled.
SCHILDBERGER: What do you mean by that?
PRIME MINISTER: Well nobody knew; nobody knew that Dr Cairns and
Mr Connor weren't telling the truth. / 2 ' I
r. I 1
SCHILDBERGER: Shouldn't you have known, though, what was going on?
PRIME MINISTER: They -should have told me.
SCHILDBERGER: Does this mean. that there's not enough involvement
between you and your Ministers?
PRIME MINISTER: No, no. They concealed it from me, as from the
Parliament. They've paid -the penalty. But as I say, I demand
top standards from my Ministers. -But look at'Mr Fraser, look at
Mr Lynch: they were Ministers for-the Army during the Vietnam
involvement. Did they tell the truth? Their Prime Ministers
covered up for them. Look at the VIP planes affair. A Prime
Minister -then covered up for the Ministers concern--d; he might
have been part of it. My standards are severe.
SCHILDBERGER: Why would your Ministers be disloyal to you?
. PRIME MINISTER: It's not just disloyal to me; they're disloyal,
they've let the Government down.
SCHILDBERGER: There must be a reason?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I won't speculate what faults of nature there
may" be. They were experienced parliamentarians; they'-ve paid
. tte . penal'ty..
SCHILDBERGER: Could it be that. you misled them?
PRTIE ' MINISTER: Certainly not. Are you making any suggestion
that I misled them?
SCHILDBERGER: I'm suggesting that possibly they believed that
they were doing the right thing?
PRIME MINISTER: Well they weren't. There is no excuse for telling
other-than the truth, and the whole truth, to Parliament.
. Liberal Prime Ministers have covered up for Ministers, but failed,
' by ' that test. I will not cover up.
S2HILDB3RGER: Prime. Minister, of the four politicians who-signed
that Executive Minute 1-ast December about the Loans Affair, three
are , gone, one is left, and that's you?
P. RIME MINISTER: Yes.
SCHILDBERGER: Does that feel a bit eerie?
PRIME MINISTER: No, no. It's astonishing that no charges have been
made in Parliament, where they could be made. See, you would
hesitate to say anything now, because I could. sue you. But in
PRrliament people can say things under -privilege. And nobody in
Parliament over months has ever made a charge of impropriety or
illegality by any of those Ministers or by me. Why those Ministers
went, was not because of illegality or impropriety, it was because
they misled -the -arliament.
SCHILDBERGER: Have you considered resigning?
PRIME MINISTER: Never.
SCHILDBERGER: : Nc-t at all...
-3-
PRIME MINISTER: Well, only last 1hursday, the House of Representatives
by a very considerable majority, expressed its confidence in my
Government. SCHILDBERGER: That's a matter of numbers; you had them?
PRIME MINISTER: Of course I did. And I shall until the middle
of 1977, when the next House of Representatives election is due.
And when it will be held.
SCHILDBERGER: You've threatened to Caucus on a couple of occasions
that you might resign?
PRIME MINISTER: No I haven't.
SCHILDBERGER: We've been led to believe that you...
PRIME MINISTER: Well you were misled, because I have no intention
of resigning.
SCHILDBERGER: Has it come into your mind at all in the last
twelve months?
PRIME MINISTER: Never.
SCHILDBERGER: No dissatisfaction on your part with what the Labor
Government of today is doing?
PRIME MINISTER: I've been disappointed at the difficulties but
on balance it's well worth while. I have a duty to give good
government to this country and only a Labor Government can do it.
SCHILDBERGER: When a managing director of a company, gets his
company into disarray, a situation that Australia is at the moment...
PRIME MINISTER: The share holders are very well satisfied 1ifn the
present managing director.
SCHILDBERGER: Are you sure?
IRIM-E MINISTER: Certainly.. You saw the way they cheered him last
, v eek.
SCHILDBERGER: That's a limited number...
PRIME MINISTER: No. It's the largest combination of members of
Parliament in the Federal Parliament or anywhere in Australia. And
they are very satisfied with the managing director.
SCHILDBERGER: What about the people of Australia who are also the
shareholders?
PRIME MINISTER: When the Budget is passed and takes effect, they
for a third time, will endorse the Whitlam Government. Because
you'll notice that the Liberals don't put up any better proposals.
They don't say what Budget they would pass. They know that this
Budget is as good as the country can produce at this time and
in the present circumstances. / 4
SCHILDBERGER: Prime Minister, you are at present accusing the
Opposition of taking unprecedented steps.
PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
SCHILDBERGER: Could it be said that you are taking an unprecedented
step in not facing the people?
PRIME MINISTER: No. There never has been an occasion when an
Opposition has threatened to reject a Budget or, in fact, a Money
Bill. Mine is not the first Government which has not had a
, majority in the Senate. But never, before my Government was in
office, had an Opposition threatened to reject Supply or a Budget.
SCHILDBERGER: But it did happen in May 1974?
PRIME MINISTER: No it didn't.
SCHILDBERGER: ' There . was a threat of the rejection of a FIoney Bill?
PRIME MINISTER: , Ncta Budget
SCHILDBERGER: Not a Budget?
PRIME MINISTER: . No, -ot a Budget.
SCHILDBERGER: So basically the principle...
PRIMS MINISTER: There was some argument about this, but you
notice that in the Senate it was not rejected.
SCHILDBERGER: But it didn'. t need to. be, because you went to the
people. PRIME MINISTER: No, no we-didn't. The election was at the end
of 1972.
SCHILDBERTER: In 1974 there was an election?
PRIME -MINISTER: I -thought you said
SCHILDBERGER: 1974.
PRIME MINISTER: On that occasion there was a threat. And on that
occasion I asked the Governor-General to grant a double dissolution.
Now if I do that again now, it will become a habit. I'm not going
to fall for that again. That is, my first Government was cut
:-off halfway through its term. My second Government will run its
full term.
SCHILDBERGER: So therefore you admit that . it -was unprecedented
perhaps in ' 74?
PRIME MINISTER: It was a threat; it was a threat as there is only
a threat at this . stage. You will notice that the Opposition hasn't
yet. rejected-the Ludget, they're fooling around with it. They
moved an anmndment and because a Labor Senator had died they were
able to carry that amendment. The amendment was to defer the
debate. Now if this Labor Senator hadn't died, there would have
been : as-many . peopla . voting against the amendment . as voting for it.
And therefore it would not . have been carried. As Senator Steele Hall
said: The amentient to defer the debate on the Budget Bills, was
carried . over a dead man's corpse.
SCHILDEERGER: But if that dead man had been there the Opposition
could still have been able to reject the Budget and presumably
would have?
PRIME MINISTER: They in fact haven't moved to reject the Budget.
That is, they know how unprincipled not only unprecedented but
unprincipled it would be to reject a Budget. There have been
a hundred and thirty-nine Money Bills in the history of the
Federal Parliament passed by the Senate, passed that is, getting
a majority in the Senate although the Government of the day didn't
have a majority in the Senate. No Money Bill has ever been reject: ed
by the Senate before.
SCHILDBERGER: It's fair to say that the Constitution provides for
what the opposition is doing now. The Constitution doesn't.
provide for what you' re doing?
PRIME MINISTER: No, that's not true. The Constitution may
or may not say that the Senate can reject a Money Bill. The fact
is the Senate never has rejected a Money Bill. The Constitution'
also says that an election for the House of Representatives takes
place when the Governor-in-Council decides. That is, when the
Government decides. I have a majority in the House of Representatives.
I will not be advising the Governor-General to issue writs for
the House of Representatives until towards the end of my term.
SCHILDBERGER: What about a half-Senate?
PRIME MINISTER: I riay. But possibly not until it's due, which
of course, must be before the end of next June.
SCHILDBERGER: You are giving thought to having it early?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm giving thought to it. But I don't want you
to get any impression that I'm committed to it.
SCHILDBERGER: You're going to between you and the Opposition
leader, between the two of you hurt a l. ot of people in the next
coming weeks?
PRIME MINISTER: That is possible. If the Opposition persists in
this unprecedented and reprehensible course of rejecting a* Budget,
many people will be hurt.
SCHILDBERGER: Do you want to continue that hurt or do you believe
that in your position as Leader you should prevent the hurt?
PRIME MINISTER: NoI am determined to see that ' there will be
stable Government in Australia. If I sell the pass on this
occasion, there can never be stable government in Australia in
the future. If I accept that the Senate can send the House of
Representatives to the people, whenever it sees fit, then you can
have governments in Australia going for six month periods only.
I will not accept that. It's not just what my Government may think
about it; it's what every future government also would think
about it. When the people go to the polls, they expect to elect
a House of Representatives, a government, for three years. They
don't expect that the Senate-which will not be facing the people
can send the House of Representatives to the people at six month
intervals.
SCHILDBERGER: Could it be said that you're doing this at the moment
because you, believe that you wouldn't win the election? In other
words you're doing it for political reasons?
' PRIME MINISTER: I would lose next Saturday. But when this Budget
ispassed, I would win an election.
SCHILDBERGER: So right now . though, you're doing it for political
reasons?
PRIME MINISTER: No. It's my duty to see that there is stable
government in Australia. This sort of thing to which my government
has been twice. subjected, has. never happened to any-previous
Australian government. If I let it . happen a second time it
" will -then become embedded in our political -practice. And whenever
a. Government, . that is, a Party or Parties. with a majority
in the House of Representatives doesn't have a majority in the
Senate then-there will not be stable government. It is my duty
to see that stable government is preserved in Australia. And shall.
SCHILDBERGER: Does the present situation worry you?
PilME-MI-NI'STER: Of course it does. I have. learnt from the
experience of last year. That is, I'm not... the Opposition
-thought that, by threatening to reject the Budget, this tire, my
reaction would be the -same as it was in April last year, when
they threatened to refuse Supply. They thought that I would then
ask the Governor-General to have a double dissolution. I shan't.
SCHILDBERGER: Are you being stubborn?
P. RI,-E.. MINISTER: No. ' ve learnt from experience last year.
* They. haven't. Mr Fraser has made the same mistake as Mr Snedden.
SCHILDBERGER: You say it's a mistake, but it's causing a lot of
. hardship and can cause hardship?
PRIME ' MI-NISTER: It can cause hardship and he is . responsible for it.
SCHILDBERGER: You won't take any of the responsibility?
PRINE MINISTER: None whatever. I was elected for three years.
' The -House of-Representatives has confidence in my Government.
Governments are made or unmade in the House of Representatives.
Last Thursday the House of Representatives expressed confidence
-again in my Government. And also asserted the right of the House
of Representatives to determine money matters.
SCHILDBERGER: Is -the'Constitution wrong in making it possible
to let the Opposition do what it is now doing?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes. But everybody had assumed that this would
. never happen. There's no other country in the world where what
' the Opposition is.-now; threatening could happen, . whether it is a
' Federal system or unitary system. This wouldn't happen anywhere
else in the world. And I'm determined on this occasion to end
for all time the Senate's power over Money Bills. I am going to
see . that what':; . threatened now fcr-the second time will never be
threatened ag'in.
-7-
SCHILDBERGER: Only be establishing other precedents because you
can't change the Constitution?
PRIME MINISTER: No. But everybody had assumed that no Senate
would reject a Money Bill. I mean the Canadian Senate theoretically
can but it doesn't; it never has. This would be unthinkable
everywhere else in the world.
SCHILDBERGER: Won't you accept that it's in the Constitution for
a reason?
PRIME MINISTER: No, it is not; it's not.
SCHILDBERGER: It doesn't make a specific mention of the fact that
Money Bills can be rejected?
PRIME MINISTER: It doesn't expressly say that, that's true. But
everybody had assumed that that was the situation.
SCHILDBERGER: Why do you say that?
PRIME MINISTER: Well it's never happened. And it couldn't happen
anywhere else in the world.
SCHILDBERGER: If it shouldn't happen, then wouldn't it be
specifically written into the Constitution?
PRIME MINISTER: It never has. People don't guard against unthinkable
propositions. This had never been contemplted before. That is,
nobody realised how obstructive the Senate could be. In the three
years that my Government has been in office, the Senate has
rejected more Bills than it had in the previous 71 years of its
existence. SCHILDBERGER: Is the Labor Government today the sort of Government
that you hoped to lead?
PRIME MINISTER: In many ways, yes; in many other ways it's been
more difficult.
SCHILDBERGER: In what ways?
PRIME MINSITER: There are two principal ways. One is that we are
faced with a world-wide period of economic difficulty; every
western country, every trading country, every industrialised country
is going through this bad bout of inflation and unemployment.
The second thing is that I didn't think the Senate would be as
obstructive as it has been. You'll remember when we were elected
in December 1972, the Senate still had 18 months to run. And nobody
suggested during that campaign that the Senate would reject Bills
which we've brought in to carry out our election promises. And in
May last year, when we were re-elected, nobody suggested that if the
Senate was evenly divided which is what it was after the election
that it would reject Bills which we've brought up in performance of
our election promises. Nobody expected that. Nobody said it in
May last year. Nobody said it in December ' 72.
SCHILDEERGER: You've often-been accused of fin.-ding scapegoats.
Could it be said now that you are now lookin. r t these as
scapegoats, as well as the Connors, Cairns arnd Creans?
PRIME MINISTER: Well the figures show, don't they, that the
' Senate has rejected more Bills in the last three years than in
all the years between 1901 and 1972.
SCHILDBERGER; But have they really done much -to harm your progress?
PRIME. MINISTER: But of course they have. Of course.
SCHILDBERGER: Yes, but to cause problems we now have?
' PRIME MINISTER: Of course they have; of course they have. We
' have a very great number of economic and social pieces of
legislation which we promised to bring in. And they have delayed
-them or rejected them.
SCHILD3ERGER: But they wouldn't have -helped you solve the
unemployment problems or the . inflation... I
PRIME-MINISTER: Of course they would; of course they would.
SCHILDBERGER: ' Well -hy?
: PRIM. E.. MITNISTER: Well look at the delay there was in passing
-there ; still is in passing the Trade Practices and Corporatio. is
Legislation. We promised that. It had been very thoroughly
-examined over years before we came in by Senate comrmittees.
When. we put it up, it's delayed, it's shelved, it's even
rejected. SCHILDBERGER: One of the other reasons why your Government
doesn't have -such a good name at the moment is the loans affair.
Was that a mistake?
, P. RIME MINISTER: . In retrospect, in retrospect, . yes.
* SCHILDBERGER: It was?
PRIME . MINISTER: It didn't succeed; to that extent. yes. But
-I will point out " that the country isn't a cent'worse off. And
Australia's overseas standing, its credit worthiness is the
, highest in the world. -We.. have triple A rating.
' SCHILDBERGER: Are. you-sorry that you don't have the $ 8,000 million?
PRIME-MINISTER: We could have used it very advantageously. 8,000?
SCHILDBERGER: Well, whatever figure it really was.
PRIME IINISTER: ' Yes, well we should be precise. No, itnever was
-never 8,000 was it?
SCHILDBERGER: 8,000 million?
PRIME MIIISTER: No it. never -was, was it?
SCHILDBERGER: I don't know.
-9-
PRIME MINISTER: Well it's all in Hansard. This has been
common knowledge for months. Are you trying to-mislead
your viewers?
SCHILDBERGER: No, I would like you to tell me how much it
really was?
-PRIME MINISTER: It was 4,000 in December and January last.
And then after that, for three months, it was 2,000. It
was never 8,000. Now don't you try to mislead your viewers.
You know what the figures were.
SCHILDBERGER: I find it hard to know.
PRIME MINSITER: There is no difficulty at all. Every question
which has been asked has been answered. Every one. And
nobody has challenged them.
SCHILDBERCER: Why did you keep it a secret in December of
last year?
PRIME MINISTER: Because loan raisings are never bruited abroad.
SCHILDBERGER: But this was slightly different from the normal
loans?
PRIME MINISTER: No, the same method. If there was anything
improper, anything illegal, don't you think that somebody
in Parliament would have made that allegation? Nobody has.
SCHILDBERGER: But they didn't know about it?
PRIME MINISTER: They've known every fact. For months they've
brought Public Servants before the bar of the House, they've
brought a migrant millionaire before a bar of the House.
They could have brought Mr Khemlani, but didn't. That is,
they know perfectly well all the facts that there are to be
known. And there is no wrong-doing whatever. Nowisn't it
amazing that if there were any wrong-doing, that Mr Fraser or
Mr Lynch or these unknown Senators would not even.., don't
you think they would have made the allegations? But they
haven't. SCHILDBERGER: You told Parliament that you had never met
Mr Khemlani. Did you ever speak to him on the telephone?
PRIME MINISTER: No. Now, go on, pursue this question? Are
you suggesting that I've ever seen him, spoken to him,
written tb him?
SCHILDBERGER: I'm not suggesting that at all. I want to
ask you....
P-RIME MINISTER: Well you ask me? You ask me?.
-SCHILDBEPRGER: I would like to know why you didn't have
-involvement with Mr Khemlani?
PRI-E MINISTER: Why should I?
SCHILDBERGER: Because he was our supersalesman out to
' raise -a lot of -money on Australia's behalf?
PRIME MINISTER: He wasn't our salesman at all. ' Michael,
I don't-know whether'you-are trying-to mislead your viewersi
he was never our intermediary; he was never our agent;* he
-was never our -salesman. Now this is quite clear -from all
. the doctjaments, from all the debates, from all the. answers.
There-is no excuse for you not t-el ling -the facts. The
-coquntry -isn'. t a cent ou of pocket.)
SCRiILDBERGER: Well, what -involvement did he have then? Wasn't
he given the authority to seek money on our behalf?
PRIME MINISTE.: No,, he was not.
1-SCHILDBERG& P.: -By 1,1r Connor?
* PRIE'~-INISER: Mr-Connor was given authority to enter into
arrangements for loans if Mr Khemlani introduced. p?-ople. PBut
,' MNr Khemlani -was not our agent. He would -have been the agent
' for, any pros~ ectiv~ e lender. He-was -not our agent.
SCHLDERER M~ Kemani now says hc was,-able
*,, PRIME MINISTE.: No he doesn' 1t., he ' doesn'It.
; SCHILDBERGER: I think..
PRI-1E IMINISTER: Well if you're accurate, yes.
, BSCH. ILDBEOGER: Well quoting-him accurately. * That -he
provided the money, was able to provide the money on the terms
. andconditi~ ons requested by the Australian Government?
PRIME MINISTER: He never put . up a proposition. -He never oDut'-
. up -a proposition.
SCHILDBERGER: Well he claims, of course, -that he has...
PRIMEMINISTER: Well he never did, he never did.
SCHILDEERGER: Why do you -think he bothered coming to
Australia now.'?
PRIME MINISTER: Wel~ l I presurme , that scme of the moedia
" facilitated is -visit.
SCHILDSERGEBR: Why do you think he would -be saying this?
What you are accus ing him, of course, -is -being -a liar?
-11-
PRIME MINISTER: Well I don't reme Mber him saying this.
But all I can say is he never put up a proposition. Never.
Never. SCHILDBERGER: Prime Minister what happens to Gough Whitlam
if the Labor Party happens to be out of office in the next
few months?
PRIME MINISTER: The Labor Government will not be out of
office until the end of its three year term.
SCHILDBERGER: And at the end of that three year term if
Labor is out of office, what happens to Gough Whitlam?
PRIME MINISTER: I think we will win the next election. You
would have thought in April last year we wouldn't have won
that election. We did. And we will win the next. And it'; s my
responsibility to advise the Governor-General when the writs
for the next House of Representatives election will be issued.
And they won't be issued for at least a year.
SCHILDBERGER: What about the long term for Gough Whitlam?
What does the future hold?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh I don't know. I haven't really thought
ten years ahead.
SCHILDBERGER: Do you think you'll be in office that long?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I've said all along I'll get out when
I'm 65. That gives me nearly six years.
SCHILDBERGER: You still holding office then...
PRIME MINISTER: I expect so.
SCHILDBERGER: Who will be the next leader of the Labcr Party?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know. The Party decides that.
There are very many good prospects.
SCHILDBERGER: Who would you like to see as the next leader?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh no, I don't... it's not an immediate
option is it?
SCHILDBERGER: No. Perhaps in six years?
PRIME MINISTER: Of course it ever be in six years.
SCHILDBERGER: Will Bob Hawke even be leader of the Party?
PRIME MINISTER: If he gets into Parliament he has a very
good chance.
a -12-
SCHILDBERGER: Would you like. to see him as Leader of the
Party? PRIME MINISTER: I would like him to be in the Parliament.
SCHILDBERGER: As Leader?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, that's for the members to decide
who are in the Party, in the Parliament, isn't it?
SCHILDBERGER: One last question. When does-the present
crisis, when do you believe that it will be resolved?
-PRIME MINISTER: Within a month.
SCHILD3ERGER: . What will happen at the end of that month?
PRI-ME MINISTER: The Senate willpass the Budget. -And it
will begin to work. And we will soar in public estimation
-again.
ISCHILDBERGER: Have you been too confident over the years and
. perhaps -are now : being too confident?
PRIME MINISTER: I've never been so certain of anything in
' my life as I am, that the Senate's money power will be
' broken as a result of this crisis. No future Australian
Government will ever be threatened by the Senate again, with
a. rejection of its Budget or a refusal of Supply. Never again.
-SCHILDBERGER: And you won't feel guilty if in the meantite
-there is fighting . in the streets...
. PRIME MINISTER: No, no " fighting in the streets",
. don't threw that in! Who said there'll be fighting in the
. streets? There won't be fighting in the streets. People
. are incensed about what the Liberals are . doing, a second
grab, Fraser doing a Snedden.. They are incensed but there will
ot be violence. But I am determined to see that stability
of government in Australia is never again threatened in this
-unprecedented and reprehensible fashion.
SCHILDBERGER: Thank you Prime Minister.