f-v C
PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT 30 MARCH 1979
INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD COLVILLE " SUNDAY REPORT"
Question: Prime Minister, on the Postal Workers' dispute, a lot of people
have called your action during this dispute as highly provocative.
Why did you find it necessary to do what you did?
Prime Minister:
Well, I didn't think that the action was provocative for one
moment, and when you say a lot of people, it might be just one
or two union people who have done that. But the government has
taken as a general policy line the view that if people are not
doing their full work, if they are placing bans or limitations on theii
work * with resulting inconvenience for the public, that they
ought to be stood down, or, no work, no pay. And I would have
thought that's eminently reasonable. Indeed, as I'm advised,
people are thoroughly fed u. D with the inconvenience from actions
in the trade union movement.
Now, the government expressed a view, but the actual action in
this matter was taken as a result of a decision
by the Postal Commission and Telecommunications Commission.
Certainly the government had been in touch with them, but, I
don't think many people really believe that a person should be
able to turn up to work, get his full pay but then decide to do
perhaps only half his job. Now, people either do their jobs
or they don't do them, and if they're not going to do them,
they're not going to be paid, and, if necessary, they'll be
stood down.
Question: The union said the action was provocativie because the matter's
still being negotiated it's before arbitration and they
say that action shouldn't have been taken
Prime Minister:
Yes but there used to be a practice once that when things
were before arbitration, the arbitration process was allowed
to work in a reasonable way. Now we have a number of unions
that, as soon as they get to arbitration, also start to
threaten that arbitral decision by imposing bans, or having
a strike one day a week other actions which are designed to
use industrial muscle, again, at great inconvenience to the
public, and designed to influence the arbitrated decision.
That again is not through arbitration, that's negotiation under
threat, and it's time that a stand was made against that kind
of practice.
Question: Does this herald a harder line by your government in disputes ./ 2
-2-
like this when public services are threatened?
Prime Minister:
We're certainly looking to see whether there should be some
basic change in the attitude that we would take, but let me
make something quite clear. None of what we've done, or would
do, stands in the way of the industrial process of arbitration.
We support it even when we don't like the decisions we support
arbitration, and what we want is for other people, for the trade
union movement, to support arbitration, to give it a real
chance to work without inconveniencing the Australian public.
Now, more and more we've seen in recent times, " let's strike
first, impose bans first, limitations on work first, and we'll
negotiate, arbitrate, second". That attitude just isn't good
enough, and the government will not continue to tolerate it.
Question: On another subject, during the past week, there has been a lot
of speculation and discussion about the future of energy resources.
I think probably a lot of people are becoming concerned about
the future, particulary of our oil supplies. Is there any real
need for concern, do you think?
Prime Minister:
I've said, and Kevin Newman has said, not in the immediate
future, but in the second half of this year, there remains
doubt as to the effect the Iranian position will have on
world oil supplies. That I suppose is from June onwards.
But I think that it mightn't hurt to restate the basis of
government policy in this area oil search, exploration
and development had ceased when we came into office, They'd
ceased because of pricing policies which meant that Australian
oil was well below world parity, was more profitable for companies
to explore and develop in other parts of the world than in
Australia, or off-shore around Australia. Now that had to be
altered. At the same time, because petrol was cheap in Australia,
more petrol was used, more oil was used, than would be the case
if it were priced on a rational economic basis. So we decided
over a period,*: and that was hurried up in the last budget, to
go to world parity pricing, virtually in one step -that's what
happened in the end. As a result of those policies, we now
have greatly increased oil search and oil development.
Two countries alone have committed $ 1 000 million to exploration
and development, and by the middle 1980s, about a third of the
oil that Australia will be using, will come from reserves that
have been proved and developed as a result of our oil pricing
policies, that just wouldn't have been available if those pricing
policies hadn't been put in place. The number of exploration
wells this year, will be the highest for maybe 7, 8 or 9 years
on even the lowest estimates of what will happen. Now, world
parity pricing, therefore, achieves two objectives over the longer
term people move to a more rational use of energy resources, a
more rational judgement between oil and coal,' and natural gas.
But at the same time, that same world parity pricing policy,
encourages exploration and development, and therefore increases the
-43
-3-
Prime Minister:
total oil available to Australia from Australia's own sources.
That again makes Australia more independent of what happens
in other countries. Quite plainly, if there are OPEC price
changes which appear quite irrational and unreasonable, the
government ' would have to access their impact under the policy.
Kevin Newman is preparing a paper for cabinet on the oil
position, the forward position, and we'll be examining that
shortly. But the basic thrust of the policies must be maintained
because they're rational, sensible policies.
Question: Does the latest OPEC price change appear to you to be reasonable?
Prime Minister:
Oh, it doesn't appear to be reasonable, no, but I think that
it's impact also might well have been over stated in some
quarters, and I wouldn't want that to herald a change of view
or a change of policy as a result of that particular decision.
There's another element in this. There is a capacity in Australia
to use more liquid gas. This is another policy matter that is
being pursued by the government much greater increase into
alternative uses of coal for different forms of energy.
Quite a significant number of Commonwealth cars have been
converted to natural gas in Melbourne, and I wouldn't be at
all surprised if that didn't continue with a large number
of taxis, for example.
If that move gathers pace, and it's also a move that helps
with pollution problems pollution problems in cities if
that move gathers pace, it obviously helps get a total fuel
usage into a more rational pattern.
Question: Getting back to the OPEC . situation, you said that you would
maintain the parity link if the OPEC changes appeared reasonable.
What about this present case?
Prime Minister:
I can't commit the government to any position in relation to
this until we've considered it.
Question: It's not an automatic flow-on?
Prime Minister:
These matters are considered. Always they're considered, and it's
not an automatic flow-on in the sense that,.' tlaere' s an OPEC
change, then there's a change in the Australian price. You see,
world parity prices are determined at a price a year, and therefore
there's no automatic flow-on in the sense Of OPEC today,
Australia tomorrow. And that does give a time for the government
to make a rational judgement in relation to the matter. But
again, the basic thrust of world parity pricing policies for
oil, must be maintained, because it's a rational policy, and it'$
4
-4
well worth noting, I think, that all other countries, especially
some major countries, had the same policy, then there may well
be no crisis at the moment, because in some countries, the price
of oil is well below world parity pricing, therefore consumption
is much higher than it would otherwise be, and they use, therefore,
much more than their fair share of a finite energy resource.
So, if a particular country has unireal pricing policies, that's
not just a matter of concern to that country, it's a matter
of concern to all oil-consuming countries.
Question: There has been also a lot of speculation about the effect
of this latest oil price rise on various other services,
and on inflation. You said earlier that you thought there had
been an over reaction. Was this what you were referring to?
Prime Minister:
Oh~ in some areas I think there certainly has. I saw one
scare headline which indicated some fantastic increase
in the household bills of every family. It grossly oiver stated
the position. If Australia's policy is irrational, we're
helped very greatly by having a real de-gree of self-sufficiency
through our ownm supplies, and certainly there's some impact
but there'll be much greater impact in some other countries
that are more dependent on imported fuel, and to that extent,
Australia is fortunate. We can also look forward confidently
into the future because we are re-establishing a very positive
exploration and development programme for oil around Australia
as a result of the totality of our policies. And as far as
looking forward to the 1980s, Australia is one of the countries,
I think, that can do so with a real degree of confidence and
optimism. 000---