PRIME MINISTER
FOR MEDIA TUESDAY, APRIL 28 1981
STATEMENT TO THE PARLIAMENT
-MR PEACOCK'S RESIGNATION
The Member for Kooyong, in his letter of resi gnation and his
public statements at the time, made a number of charges about
the conduct of Government business, about the stability and
direction of the Government, and about myself.
Mr Speaker, there were one or two issues that he raised at
the outset. Let me make a comment about them.
The purpose of the Monetary Policy Committee of Cabinet is
to consider matters relating to interest rates, banking policy
and currency exchange rates. That is its only purpose. I agree
with the Honourable Gentleman. After that report in the newspaper,
he did raise the matter with me. I can remember making a comment
toat-least. one_ of-my. col leagues about. it. I think it was before.
I had pneumonia, but I think the Honourable Gentleman is in error
in saying that he revived my memory of it early in the new year.
It is also a matter that could have been raised in Cabinet
itself. In the formation of this new Government, it was determined that
the Wages Policy Committee would not be re-established because
it. had--not met all that -often,,.. and that the proper..-forum for
those-matters should be'Cabinet itself rather than a committee
of Cabinet. That was why my Department put recommendations
to me, which, as I believed on good grounds, ought to be
accepted.
Mr Speaker, the only other point at this moment that I would
want to touch on two points, and very briefly.
He mentioned the Public Service Arbitrator, and the incorporation
of that within the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
The recommendations because they are recommendations and not
decisions of the committee chaired by Sir Phillip Lynch,
had not come to Cabinet, and indeed, it was only two or three
cays ago that Cabinet determined the matter, and on the advice
of the Minister for Industrial Relations, it is being left for
further review. But no final decision had been made on that
matter. It was a matter that would come to Cabinet. It was a
matter which in the course of its wide ranging review, as
Honourable Gentlemen will understand, Honourable Members will
understand, will be brought before the.: Parliament later this
week. / 2
-2
Mr Speaker, the Honourable Member for Kooyong knows full well,
I spoke to him about the ICI matter there was very great
concern because of the report in the Melbourne Herald that
the 35 hour week issue was up, that the flood gates were up,
and that something had to be done to stop a rash of decisions
as a result of that newspaper report coming on top of the
Altona decision. What was said then, what was said in the
press statement issued by my colleague, the Minister for
Industry and Commerce, who surely has a significant responsibility
in relation to these matters, reflected a press statement
issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and by
Mr Garland several months ago in the earlier Government.
There was nothing new in relation to it.
Mr Speaker, it is the Honourable Member for Kooyong's concern
in speaking to the House today to substantiate the charges he
has made against the Government and against myself. It would
have been much better, Mr Speaker, if he had spoken to me
or to his Cabinet colleagues along the way.
Only seven weeks ago, the Honourable Member said that,
" for all that people write that there is enormous division
between us, the reality is we work very effectively and very
closely together". That.. wasin a newspaper report of March 8, 1981.
I was pleased with that view of our relationsh-ip. It was expressed
only last month, and I am puzzled, Mr Speaker, and saddened
at what he has now done.
Mr Speaker, on April 10, the former Minister's Senior
~. Private _-Secretary, -spokeat a meeting -that . had..-been
advertised as open to'. the Press. He made a wide ranging
attack on the Government. He specifically attacked aspects
of the Government's actions on industrial relations, and
he accused certain people of a dishonest approach.
I had no doubt that the principles of Cabinet Government
required that~ Mr Simon should resign. Under our system of
Cabinet... Government -no-Minister. could publicly.. attack Cabinet.--~
and not resign. By . the same token, neither can a Minister's
Senior Private Secretary attack Cabinet and Government policy,
and remain in his position.
As is my practice, I consulted my senior colleagues to
test their view, and they agreed. I spoke to the former Minister.
* I wanted him to understand clearly that it was not only my view,___-
but-that of his colleagues, that Mr Simon should go.
Mr Speaker, if a Minister holds a view which is contrary
to that of all his colleagues, it is surely fair enough to
expect him to check his own view to see whether it is appropriate,
especially in a matter such as this. Mr Speaker, it says
something about a Minister's attitude to Cal~ inet, and to Cabinet
solidarity, if he requires that his own view should stand
without the agreement of Cabinet as one against all the rest.
In Mr Simon's case, where the implications of collective
responsibility were so clear, and the former Minister was
aware of. the strong view--of his senior colleagues, I cannot
understand how he believed that. Mr Simon could stay.
3
Mr Speaker, the Member for Kooyong has given as grounds for
his resignation, that Cabinet is not consulted, but bypassed,
that Ministers are not given sufficient co-operation and support,
Let me start with consultation, and let me indicate how Cabinet
does operate.
Cabinet today operates precisely, according to the principles
of Cabinet Government.
4
If there is any difference between this-4nd previous Coalition
Governments it would be that Ministers are consulted more and
that they are more involved in the decision-making process.
Non-Cabinet Ministers are normally encouraged to be present
at Cabinet meetings if there is a matter of interest to them.
There are regular full Cabinet meetings.
Under former Coalition Governments non-Cabinet Ministers were
usually present only when their own items were being dealt with.
Let me also refer to the way in which revenue decisions are taken
in the Budget context. These decisions must obviously be
taken by a small group. In many Governments they have been
taken by two or three Ministers only. But under this Government
they are now taken in the Co-ordination Committee, meeting with
the-Treasurerand. with-the Minister for Finance.
In addition, there is consultation with Cabinet and the Ministry
about broad options, but before the Committee makes its final
S decisions. Cabinet Government requires wide consultation and wide participation
of Ministers in the Government's affairs. In the circumstances
of modern Government this is achieved by the extensive use of
Cabinet Committees. The Committee system is a well-established
and an essential ingredient of Cabinet Government. It spreads
the workload amongst Ministers and allows the system to cope
efficiently with a massive volume of business.
Leaving aside the Co-ordination Committee to which I will
return.-the. general rule-is that Standing Committees-of the
Cabinet take final decisions. Specialcommittees are also
established from time to time. The Committeeof Review of Cmmnwealth
Functions is a recent example and it has taken many, many
decisions indeed but decisions of thatCommittee are
recommendations to Cabinet. The committees do not normally take
final decisions. They make recommendations which go to the full
Cabinet. Now let me turn to the Co-ordination Committee, which normally
takes--final decisions on policy issues-only in relation to the.
revenue side of the Budget. Its fundamental role, as set out
publicly in its terms of reference, is to provide a forum for
senior Ministers to consider overall Government strategy. It is
comparatively unusual for the Co-Ordination Committee to look
beforehand at matters going to Cabinet. I have had a check made
and this shows that well over 90 per cent of matters going to
Cabinet have had no prior substantive discussion in the
Co-ordination Committee. Sometimes the nature of the discussion
is not worth these matters being discussed at all. But we ask
the Minister to bring them forward the kind of discussion
that a Prime Minister should have with senior colleagues.
The kinds of issues which do go first to the Co-ordination
Committee are those in which a Minister would seek some discussion
with senior colleagues before deciding what to propose to
Cabinet, or in which there is a particular political or strategic
significance on which some broad discussion might be held in
the Co-ordination Committee before the matter is looked at
in Cabinet.
Since 1979, the membership of this Committee has comprised the
five most senior Ministers; the leaders and deputy leaders of""
the Coalition Parties and the Government Leader in the Senate.
Other Ministers are co-opted to its meetings wherever possible.
if there is substantive discussion on matters bearing on their..
portfolios.* That is clearly why the Treasurer and the Finance
Minister are often co-opted in the Budget context.
The Co-ordination Commiittee also-assists me with advice on matt~ ers
which are for my decision as Prime Minister. These are matters
such as a letter to a Premier on a sensitive issue, or the handling
of some representation, made to me on some policy or administrative
matter which in the past may well have been determined unilaterally
by the Prime Minister of the day. I find invaluable the
Committee's advice in such cases.
Let me refer to two other aspects of the Cabinet system.
No Ministers belong to all the committees and further, Ministers
are sometimes unable to attend meetings.
Inyboth circumstances~ -however,' all ministers -are -bound by the=-
decisions and this includes the Prime Minister. When I am overseas
. or.. on leave, the business of. Cabinet Government must go on and.--
many decisions are taken in my absence.
Let me add that in the last two years, more than 400 final decisions
have been taken by committees of which I am not a member. Yet
I am quite properly bound by those decisions. I see the
relevant papers of course, when they are circulated, and I may
ask . that-a matter may be re-committed if I have some problem
with it. Each and every other Minister has the same right, and
on occasion that right is exercised.
Against that background, I return to the charge that I have a
determination to try to get my own way in Cabinet and that the
system is manipulated to that end.
I reject those charges totally. I reject them also on behalf
of my, colleagues on whom they reflect. What does it say of
my colleagues that I, as Prime Minister, can persuade them all to
caucus for one particular view.-That charge is as offensive to them
as it is offensive to me.
The principles of Cabinet discussion, decision and responsibility
have been re-asserted and strengthened since the Government came to
office in 1975, by contrast with the way in which they had been
downgraded in the previous three years.
-6-
The objectives of extensive Cabinet consultation and the widest
possible involvement-: of Ministers have been paralleled, as
Members on the Government side would know, by the system of
Party Committees and Party participation which I have
encouraged and in many senses initiated. Legislation goes to
Party Committees before going to the Party room. There is
broader consultation on these matters than ever before as is
especially known to Members who were here in earlier times'and. Athis
has led to greater participation of Members of the Party who have
an interest in a particular matter. There is a philosphy
, behind that approach, one of involvement and of recognition of. the--..
contribution that all* Party Members have to make. The
Cabinet has been run on the same philosophy.-
If the former Minister's description of the operations of the
0 Cabinet were accurate, it would be plain that the Party room
has been operating on one philosophy and the Cabinet on another
and that is just not so. In considering what might have led the
Honourable Member for Kooyong to make these particular charges,
I wondered if it could be related to the number of occasions
on which his colleagues in the Cabinet took a view different
from his. I asked for some analysis to be madi and this has shown
that of the total submissions put forward by the former Minister,
in his Foreign Affairs and Industrial Relations portfolios,
his own recommendations were accepted without any significant variation
in almost 90 per cent of cases.
Some of the cases where they were not accepted, or not in full,
. were-simply questions of funding levels in the Budget context,....
where no Minister would expect his bids to be accepted in full.
Even so, the former Minister was able to convince Cabinet to lift
Australia's foreign aid vote from $ 347 million to-
$ 547 million and this has fully maintained the real value of the
foreign aid vote and is an achievement at a time
of general expenditure restraint.
And, a Cabinet Minister must recognise that no Minister, and
no Prime Minister, can expect to get his way on every decision,
not even on every decision within his own portfolio.
I commissioned a review in the latter part of 1978 in the course
of which the views of all Ministers were canvassed. The recommendations
brought--forward as a result were largely adopted by
the Cabinet, including changes arising from suggestions by
the Honourable Member for Kooyong.
I submit again if the Honourable Member had concerns about the
way the system was operating or about the handling of any
of his individual submissions, then these concerns should have been
raised with me or with Cabinet. Cabinet is a group of men
and women and if they have a complaint about the way Cabinet
is being run, that is the forum with which it should, indeed
7
there is a duty, to so raise it in that forum. These concerns
should not have been raised in the way they were, in a letter of
irrevocable resignation. I also mention the fact-that in
October last year the Member for Kooyong accepted a new commission
in the Government and that is a significant factor indeed.
If he had any concern as to his treatment as Minister for
Foreign Affairs, should he not have raised the matter then
and said then" I want matters to be handled differently from
that which they were when I was Foreign Minister?" He did
not at that time raise any such concerns with me at all.
This might be an appropriate time to say something about the
issue of Pol Pot. The Member for Kooyong has spoken about
it at length and let me emphasise one point which is of great
significance and I believe Mr Speaker, that it is a point that
would be shared by all-Honourable Members in this House. The
only issue in relation to Pol Pot was the issue of timing.
Because of the nature of the Pol Pot regime de-recognition at
some point was inevitable. It was a brutal, it was perhaps the
worst regime since the time of Hitler
in the last world war and Cabinet had received a number of
submissions from the Minister or Acting Minister for Foreign
Affairs suggesting that recognition be continued, that the policy
be kept under review and that de-recognition be deferred, and over
the months and the time before the period about which the
Honourable gentleman spoke, that had come forward, that on those
occasions Cabinet had accepted the recommendations. But at all
times it was kept under continuing review.
Although in July the Minister had admitted publicly that his
own view may have changed, he had later indicated that the
matter came to eabinet but because of its concern for
co-operation with ASEAN, Cabinet re-affirmed the view they
had earlier been recommended by the Honourable gentleman. But
it was still a question of timing, not one of principle, it was
-only a. question of timing and nobody in this House has a
monoroly of moral repugnance, but we did believe we should
offer further support to ASEAN countries.
The matter was certainly discussed with Mr Lee during the
Commonwealth Head: of Government Meeting at Delhi. And on the
flight from Delhi to Singapore, the Singapore Prime Minister,
the Honourable Member for Kooyong and myself discussed the
matter. Mr Lee argued at length that recognition should be
continued and I pointed out to him that his Delhi press
conference left that far from clear and was open to either
interpretations. I also told him that there was increasing
public concern and that it was important not only that the
Australian Government, but also that the Australian people
should understand the general position of ASEAN because
they live closer to the problems and closer to the dangers
than do we in Australia. 4
8
But in Singapore, and the Honourable gentleman did not
come down to Australia with me on that aircraft; he came on
a commercial aircraft, and I stayed longer, in Singapore, the
Singaporean Prime Minister indicated that he would issue a
formal statement. I did arrange with the Prime Minister of
Singapore for a copy to be cabled, and for distribution in
Australia, because as I have indicated, it was important not only
that Government, but also the people of Australia, understand
the nature of that view. I did not know of the existence of
certain correspondence between the Singaporean and the Australian
Foreign Ministers. I still have only seen a draft of one of
the letters because I am advised that no departments hold the
correspondence. If I had known that Mr. Lee was going to
quote from those letters I would obviously have sought to deter
him from doing so. Let me repeat, the division between the
Minister and Cabinet was never one of principle. It was one
of timing, and I was surprised indeed, when the Cabinet
determined on the llth of September for a general election and
when Ministers agreed with that, including the'Member for
Kooyong also agreeing with that date, and after the processes
had irretrievably been set in train, to find that the Minister
found his position in the Government untenable.
I regret that the Minister seems to believe that there were
commitments given in Singapore, in Delhi, because there were
no such commitments and indeed let me assert without
equivocation because of the nature of the Cabinet decision
taken in July no commitment was necessary because / 9
-9-
that decision left it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, to bring the matter
before Cabinet at a time of his choosing. It did not need
the concurrence of the Prime Minister or of any other Minister,
and therefore to be told after the date of the election
had been -determined and the processes set in train' that
his position was untenable, was something that I found hard
to understand. Because in discussing the date of the election,
if there was a problem in relation to it, surely there was a
duty upon him in Cabinet to mention that problem, to mention
that difficulty, and it was never mentioned in Cabinet
discussions at that particular time.
Mr Speaker, something has been said about three options., and
a commitment given in relation to a very brief press statement
I issued on the date of Mr Simon's resignation. It was the
minister for Primary Industry who exchanged that piece of
paper with the Member for Kooyong for the piece of paper with
Mr Simon's resignation on it. There was no commitment going
beyond that, because, as I indicated later in a press conference,
that report was inaccurate, specifically over the question of
whether there was a statement of resignation or whether
there were three options put. As the Minister ' for Primary
Industry wrote down, the options were that he would resign
over the failure to de-recognise Pol Pot, that the Government
would change its policy, or that there was to be no change
of policy, aid that nothing would be done until after the election,
but that he would not take part in a new Government.
Those of us who discussed this matter, including the Member
for Kooyong, Mr Speaker, indicated that that third option was
no option at all, that the path would be too dangerous for
any government, because if that did happen to leak in the
middle of a difficult election, then quite plainly, the
position of a government and government parties, would be
very damaging indeed. Soi-the-matter had to be -properly
determined, and it was determined.
Mr Speaker, it has been said in the, presence of one of my
* colleagues by the person who wrote that story, -that that story--
did not come from my office, or from anyone associated with me,
and if there was any indication, Mr Speaker, in the Honourable
* Member's-remarks-that it had, then the writer of-the story,
and-the Honourable Gentleman who has preceded me, knows that
imputation is incorrect.
Mr Speaker, let me turn to the statement that Ministers are
not given sufficient co-operation and support, that there is
interference, and an undermining of Ministerial authority.
Mr Speaker, there is a defence built into our system of
government, against the emergence of presidential-type
government, and that defence is the strong Cabinet system
which operates. It is inevitable that in these days, that
Prime Ministers become involved in a wide range of issues.
No Prime Minister can refuse to take an interest in major issues
affecting the Government, in main stream issues of concern to the
Australian people, the Prime Minister plainly must be involved.
10
I have had great involvement in economi-c'. matters, but I believe
that neither the former nor the present Treasurer have found
that involvement in any way excessive. And when we look
at the overwhelming degree of-acceptance that Cabinet gave
to the submissions of Kooyong when he was a Minister, that
surely indicates in plain terms the measure of support that
he was getting, both from the Cabinet and from myself.
Indeed, I am sure the Honourable Member will recall that
earlier this year when the question of responsibility for
the public handing of industrial disputes, the general
responsibility on behalf of the Government, I made it clear
in Cabinet that the Minister for Industrial Relations should
take the lead.
Is that undermining.? Is that working overtly, or covertly
to diminish the former Minister? Again, thinking back to the
time when the Member for Kooyong was Minister for Foreign
Affairs, I sought to make sure that Foreign Affairs concerns
were adequately taken into account as I did in relation to
the discussions about airfares and ASEAN.
I can remember when the former Minister and I met with officials
including Transport officials, to make sure that everything possible
had been done to cover the Foreign Affairs' interests in these
particular matters. My involvement here is the proper role of
a Prime Minister working to make sure that the interests of all
Ministers and all Departments are fully and properly considered.
That, Mr Speaker, is not seeking to undermine, it is seeking
to support and to protect the proper and legitimate interests
of this nation. It makes no sense to suppose that a Prime Minister
would seek to undermine the authority of any of his Ministers,
for such a course of action would only undermine the authority
of his own government.
The Member for Kooyong made a significant charge when he said
-that the-stability -and sense of direction of the Government
had been cast aside. I find it strange, Mr Speaker, that the
Honourable Gentleman makes such a charge now. How can a Ministe~ r
sit in Cabinet, for year after year, holding such views and never
raise those views in Cabinet itself? If any Minister felt that
way, should not he tell me, should he not advise me his colleagues?
I have introduced regular meetings of the full Ministry to enable
Ministers to raise any matters that they wish, concerning the
Government and its policies. opportunities have been deliberately
provided. Why did the former Minister never raise these charges
or complaints in Cabinet with me or with his colleagues?
Let me add that if there were any truth in the claim that the
stability of the Government had been cast aside, which there iLs
not, then it would not have been I, nor any other present member
of the Government, who would have cast that stability aside.
Australia is plainly one of the most stable countries in the world.
People know where they stand by contrast to the chaotic situation
under Labor. There is renewed confidence throughout Australia.
The direction of the Government has been continuously maintained
every since we came to office in 1975. The disaster of Labor
helped us to make our perception of our own direction clearer ta
ever.
11
Throughout the last five years, our first priority has
been to restore the economy after Labor's madness. This was
our pre-eminent responsibility for a strong economy as the
precondition for almost any other objective. / 12 0'
-12-
The most vital element in restoring the economy has been the
attack on inflation. Everyone knows that this Government has
maintained that direction unswervingly.
We camne to office stressing the value of the individual, and the
need for increasing opportunities for all Australians. We have
always been a Government that cares about people for that is
what Liberalism is all about.
The Government's direction has always been that individuals are
the best judges of how to spend their own earnings, that the
disadvantaged and the needy must be provided for, that the tax
burden must be reduced, that employment must be increased, that
freedom of choice must be paramount.
I believe that no Australian Government has been more dedicated to
strengt-hening the -free-enterprise system than this Government,
more determined to avoid waste and over-regulation by Government,
more purposeful in strengthening the independence and responsibilities
of--the States.--This -Government is committed to the widest possible
use of the market.. as-the way-to give consumers the greatest
influence over the allocation of resources.
The Government has consistently stressed the importance of
individual rights, an unyielding resistance to racism, discrimination
and exploitation. There has never been a Government more
determined to stand up for the individual agaitist powerful unions,
against bureacracy, against racism, and discrimination.
Through the Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and
through our support for a Human Rights Commission, we have
demonstrated-this commitment unambiguously. Our freedom of
information legislation if too mild and cautious for some of our
Members, is a.-significant start. It is this Government, not Labor__..
for all its professions, that has been prepared to make that start.
-I am proud of what we have been able to do in defending our
magnificent national heritage against exploitative developments.
and in protecting the environment. Through all our policies WE!
have -acted to'protect -and to advance -the interests of those in-. 77'
need, to make sure that expenditure restraint in other areas haLs
been sufficient to guarantee adequate assistance to those who need
it most.
Massive increases have been possible by this approach in aid of
the handicapped and disabled and the Government's expenditure now
runs in that area to more than a billion dollars.
What policies and actions could be more Liberal than these?
There is still far to go in many areas, but the catalogue of our
achievements is a good checklist of what a Liberal direction is
all about.
Let me turn to the directions which the Government takes in
international affairs. This is an area in which I have always
thought that the former Minister and I have co-operated significantly
for Australia's advantage. I believe that our achievements bear
out that claim.
13
The Government established a new sense of purpose and
direction in our relationship with South Pacific countries,
an area which was largely ignored before 1975.
The first-Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting
was established on Australia's initiative. These Meetings
have established a framiework of co-operation between
Commonwealth and States within the region which was previously
lacking.
During his period as Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Government
helped to achieve greater relevance for the Commonwealth in
dealing with human rights and threats to peace. At. Lusaka, we!
supported the proper independence of Zimbabwe and the full,
euality of all members of that state before the law. We were
both conscious that if Australia's approach at that Conference!
was not successful, then he and I together might well have beEn---
somewhat isolated in our spectrum of politics within this
country. But we went ahead together in spite of that, and
enhanced Australia's reputation as a result.
The then Foreign Minister was fully involved in all of these
matters. By our actions, we made clear to the world the direction
of Australia's concerns. Again, Australia was at the forefront
in our realisation of the growing military might of the Soviet:
Union, and in our awareness of its significance.
In 1976 I spoke to this House on that subject. That speech was
prepared in co-operation with Foreign Affairs. Here is an issue
of incalcuable importance on whic h I worked closely with the
former minister to make plain the direction of Australia' s
policy. Since we came to office in 1975, the Government has consistently
enhanced Australia's constructive role in world affairs and
strengthene * d Australia's independent voice in the world. There
was no undermining of his authority as Minister in any of this.
Let me add that when the Member for Kooyong was Minister for
I -thought it-proper that he shou-ld-accompany
me whenever possible to major international conferences or visits
overseas. That is not the practice of all Heads of Government,
-as he well knows. But let me say again that far from undermining
his authority, I-was-s-eeking-through-hispresence on these visits
to provide for the fullest participation of the Foreign Minister
and to enhance his and Australia's reputation. Not surprisingly,
the direction of our policy in Foreign Af fairs benefited as a
result. It seems to me that in the perspective of the issues of great
and enduring importance to Australia on which we have worked
together, personal feelings and difficulties should be treated
as of little consequence. This Government has achieved great
and significant objectives. The Honourable Member has been a.
part of that.-How can it be that he has now turned aside? How
can it be that the concerns he has enumerated today were not.
raised with me or the Cabinet? How can it be that he chooses
this place to damage a great political party, even if that is, not
his intention, and good Government. / 14
4 1. i -14
The hopes and opportunities of millions of Australians depend
to a very significant degree on what we all do in this place.
They expect better from us than we sometimes provide. They h2Lve
every right to expect more than has been provided in the last
fortnight. It is not surprising that people are concerned,
when issues which they rightly regard as minor and irrelevant
or which they cannot understand are given a quite disproportionate
weight. The well-being of this country, as history has
demonstrated, depends upon the strength and cohesion of the
Liberal Party and this Coalition Government.
My concerns are for Australia and all Australians~ andwith
security for all Australians the benefits that the applicatio-nof
our Liberal philosophy can bring. Sometimes I am accused
of being too blunt, but if this country is to be governed well,
it is not always possible to avoid an argument. Firmness and
determination--are often the-only answers to unreasonable
actions. Plain speaking is necessary to defend Australia's
markets against powerful trade groupings such as the European
Community. I make no apology for having an intense pride in Australia and
things Australian and I will always stand for that with whatever
strength I and this Government can command.
I do not apologise because Cabinet brought in the Air Force to
protect people stranded through the actions of selfish militant
unions in the Qantas dispute The Government will continue to
take the firmest possible stand against the job-destroying
hour week campaign. This Government is the protector of the
people, the defender of individual rights and of the interests of
the Australian community. I -am proud to lead a Liberal based
Government which is prepared to act and stand up for the interests
of Australia. One of the most pleasing things about Australia
at the present time is that the philosophy of this Government has
become so widely accepted throughout the community people are
now recognising the benefits of more limited Government in lower
taxes, in more jobs, higher growth, better incomes, lower inflation
and more available resources to help those in need.
This recognition is the true mark of the success of the course
-we marked out in 1975. Our-direction-is clear, and all Australians_-_--
will benefit further as a result.
The Member for Kooyong has stated plainly and repeatedly, and.
from the very first, that his s , tatement today will end the matter.
-We all welcome that. I approach the future without rancour.
My enduring concern is the great importance to Australia of the*
stability of Government, the achievement of our common purposes
and the implementation in policy of our Liberal philosophy.
000---