PM Transcripts

Transcripts from the Prime Ministers of Australia

Menzies, Robert

Period of Service: 19/12/1949 - 26/01/1966
Release Date:
23/10/1964
Release Type:
Speech
Transcript ID:
1009
Document:
00001009.pdf 14 Page(s)
Released by:
  • Menzies, Sir Robert Gordon
LIBERAL PARTY OF NSW STATE COUNCIL, AMP AUDITORIUM, SYDNEY, NSW - 23RD OCTOBER 1964 -SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RT. HON. SIR ROBERT MENZIES

LIBERAL PARTY OF N. S. 4. STATE COUNCIL, 23RD OCTOJ-R 1964
Speech by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Iienzies
Sir and Ladies and Gentlemen
Tonight I just want to talk to you because you are,
if you will allow me to say so, my ow,½ n people and you, like
myself and my colleagues, have a profound interest in what
happens in the next month or two, what happens in the next ten
years, but in particular, what happens in a Senate election,
what happens in a State election, what happens in the wthole
course of political controversy. And I thought I would like
to offer a few words to you about one or two aspects of this
matter. We are going to have a Senate election on December
and our opponents, remembering the last general election
which was only a little over ten mcnths ago, have been casting
around to see how far they c: 3n divide us or embarrass us.
TherVefore I want to say something to you about some of the
things that they think they have disCovered that divide us oi'
embarrass us, because apart from that, a Senate election coming
pretty soon after the general elections is not an election in
which you write out a new policy speech policy speeches cre
not so easily prepared as all that and, after all, we were
re-elected last elections on a policy w~ hich was a policy for
three years and a great deal of it has already gone into
operation in less than eleven months.
What we really have to do in a Senate election is
to report what we've done pursuant to our engagements at the
election and to indicate what we see is the future shape of
events during the rest of the life of the Parliament, and the
people will decide, in the Senate vote, whether they want to
repudiate their mandate given to us last December or whether
they want to help us to put it into full effect. That, in
reality, is the simple issue at a Senate election.
But our opponents are, themselves, of course,
heavily divided and they seek to divide us, and I must say if
I were in their place, I would regard that as a rather suitable
tactical exercise. Last night we were debating in Parliament this
great Peace Congress whatever it is called which began
today didn't it? ( Voice " Sunday") Sunday, oh well, rather
good for a Communist-inspired Congress to meet on the Sabbath.
I think that's not a bad idea. That I suppose) is tactically
a good exercise. But we had a debate about it, and if there
is anything that became completely clear in the course of the
discussion, it wras first of all that this Congress is bogus,
that it is here to preach peace to the most peace-loving people
in the world, that it isn't preaching the same sermon in Peking
and Moscow and the other thing is that the Lobour Party itself
has got into a state of complete ambiguity about it,
In 1951, which is after all not so long ago when
we were in office, the Labour Party at its conference denounced
these so-called peace conferences, said that they were ./ 2

-2-
" Communist-front" organisations and threatened with expulsion
any member who attended them. That was just in 1951. Time
has gone on and the Labour Party has moved steadily to the
left. I don't need to remind you that in Victoria, the left
wing had a great victory, its joint standard-bearers being
Mr. Colwell and Dr. Cairns; Mr. Calwell being by disposition
not very much to the left and Dr. Cairns being by disposition
very far to the left. But they were two who led the forces
and who had a great victory in the election for the Victorian
executive. And all this time, in your State, the Labour Party
has asstmed the attitude of an extremely moderate Labour Party,
right wing or at the worst, centre of the road, but perhaps
a little right of centre, and they have had some success in
conveying this image, as I believe it is called, to the people.
But now what has happened?
Well, first of all of course, in the Senate election
they have selected a very prominent left-winger to be one of
their team, and when it came to this conference, this conference
which leaves all orthodox Labour men cold or apprehensive,
what have they decided? As I pointed out last night, the New
South Wales Labour Party carried a resolution which said,
" Well, officially we won't have anything to do with it, but
unofficially, members may attend." Now, that's worth thinking
about, isn't it? Officially, we don't associate ourselves with
it; speaking as the A. L. P. in New South Wales, we don't want
to be associated with what we well know to be a Communist
front, but in order to have a little bit each way, we then say
to our members, " Well, if you want to attend, unofficially
( I don't know what that means) do so by all means." I say I
don't know what it means. I suppose that when one of them
attends, he says, " I want to make it quite clear that I am
unofficial. Don't refer to me as So-and-so I dont
know how this is done. But this is a proof of the ambiguity
of their attitude. It is indeed from my point of view a proof
of the steady move that is going on in the Labour Party ' owards
the left. This will mean more and more accommodation with the
Communists and with the Communist fronts. Now I want to say
no more on that, about the Peace Congress because if you want
to study what has been said on these matters, Hansard is very
readily available. But I would like to say something about a matter
which is now completely current and that is the great argument
that is going on about internal airlines in New South Wales,
and this I think requires a little bit of explanatory matter.
I hope you won't mind if I occupy you for a few minutes in
giving you that explanatory matter.
I am not going to discuss the legalisms of this.
I can't, These are before the Court. It will be for the High
Court to determine whether the regulations promulgated by the
Commonwealth and which occupy the field, are valid or not,
and I say nothing about it. As far as we are concerned we will
facilitate the decision of that matter by the High Court of
Australia, and of course, obviously, what it says will determine
the matter. But I just want to take you back a little. Back
before the war, whon I was Attorney-General and a great deal
more optimistic about constitutional changes than I am now,
we had two proposals to amend the Constitution. One had
relation to orderly marketing and it was rejected heartily,
particularly in those areas in Australia which it was designed

-3
to assist. ( Laughte: r) , And we put up with it, as a second
proposal, a proposal that the Commonwealth should have power
over Civj; I tviriatiLon. Nobody in the Federal Parliament
could be found to argue about it, it was so obvious,
Civil aviation if there is one proof, to use the
old hackneyed phrase, that we have got away from the horse
and buggy age, it is the fact that today aircraft take 6ff
from Sydney and in a few minutes almost literally, they are
in another State. And we thoughi even then when the aircraft
was slow, lumbering and did 130 miles an hour, that it was
pretty obvious that if you were going to have control of
civil aviation, with all the airports you needed w-ith all
the facilities that would be required, with all Zhe air
safety measures, and all the navigational aids, with all of
these things so obviously necessary for an efficient and safe
and modern air service, it was quite clear that you couldnt
have seven different authorities dealing with it. And so
we put it up and it was rejected, not by any pmcess of reason,
if I may say so, with great respect by the electors of~ that
year, but on the safe general principle that when there' is
a proposal to give any power to the Commonwealth, you vote
" No. l Well, Sir, I'm a federalist. I have made this
clear time after time. I don't want to see unified government
in Australia, but we must have judgment as to what powers
ought to be exercised in a unitary way, I would be astonished
to find anybody here tonight who thought really that civil
aviation ought to be controlled by six Slates anA some aspects
of it, perhaps by the Commonwealth of Australia. And the
best proof thal that is an accurate remark is to be found in
the simple facts. I wonder if I might rehearse them to you.
We have six States. We have South Australia. Now
if anybody wants to tell me that my friend, Sir Thomas
Playford, is a great believer in ur~ fication, he is wasting
his time. ( Laughter) Of course ho's not. But it happens
that in South Australia they have no provision for any State
licensing of an aircraft at all. It is all done, for obvious
and sensible rcasons, under the Commonwealth Air Regulations.
I notice that Tom is now saying, " I will never surrender this
power to the Commonwealth". All I want to say to you is, he
has never exercised it, and it seems to me to be rather odd
to refuse to surrender a power that you have never thought fit
to exercise but which you have preferred to have exercised
by the Commonwealth, for very sensible reasons.
In Victoria, they have no State licensing. In West
Australia, the laws and the regulations of the Commonwealth
operate. In Tasmania, they have an interesting system. You
get a Federal licence and a State licence and unless you
have both, you can't operate. ( Laughter) Therefore, in
effect, the whole condition for carrying on an intra-. state
air service in Tasmania if there be such is that you have
a Commonwealth licence, under the Commonwealth regulations.
In Queensland, they have power to exclude Commonwealth
regulations in relation to intra-state traffic but they have
never exercised it, So you have five States in w.-hich. de
facto the Commonwealth air regulations have operated, the
Commonwealth authorities have licensed aircraft, and the
allocation of routes and all these things air safety
air control have all been in the hands of the central
Government. And the one State that is out on all that is New
go

South Wales. Now ) Z wonder why it is that in New South Wales
there is some special circumstance which renders it undesirable
that the Commonwealth should exercise this vastly important
power in this vastly complex modern operation of transport.
Apparently the answer is that there are two intra-state
airlines operating here, quite quietly, and that thie State
says that the Commonwealth ought to have nothing to do with
the licensing of them or with the allocation of routes. Now,
all that the Commonwealth has said is, " Look, we have been
advised, rightly or wrongly, that we have power in this matter.
We know perfectly well that we assume 95 or 98 per cent. of
the entL* re responsibility for civil aviation in Australia,
financially and otherwise." Just let me give you a few of the
figures on that,
Even in the case of these local intra-state airlines,
the Commonwealth is looked to for a subsidy. Tie pay subsidies
of œ CY+ 0,000 a year to these intra-State airlines. have
spent in point of fact, œ C6 M. on facilities for civil
aviation. We are at present finding œ C12jM. a year for the
maintenance of these facilities, and oddly enough of the œ f1iM6
Ai. or near enough, we find for intra-state facilities.
Now these are very large sums of money, I think,
In the neXt five years, airports development programmes
in Australia coming into our account will amount to Q30M. plus
another œ-600, 000 in this year for development and maintenance
of municipal airports. Now these fabulous millions of monley
are being found, and what have the State Governments found?
A few score Thousand. If you added it all up, you coulintt
reach œ C100,000. In other words, in practical effect, the
whole financial responsibility for this matter falls on the
Commonwealth Government and Pa rliament.
Now what does this mean? This means that you have
large airports. You have Mascot. You have other large airports
in this State and in all the other States. They have to be
provided with safety facilities by the Commonwealth traffic
in and out of them must be regulated in the interests of the
public safety, there must be effective controls over a control
area, there are international aircraft coming in and out of
international airports, and all these things are done and, if
1 may say so, magnificently done by the Department of Civil
Aviation, so that our air services, international and local,
have a reputation all round the world, And the whole
responsibility for attending to these things falls on the
Commonwealth. Dont you think it is rather funny to have
somebody come along and say " No. Forever and a day, we, a
particular State must have the right to determine who shall
fly in and out o1l these facilities that you provide who shall
fly in and out of this controlled area, what their timetables
are to be." This seems to me to be an almost monstrous
assertion of something that in prope~ r consideration is
irrelevant. If it is determined by the Court that we haven't
the power then thi~ s will go on. If it is determined by the
Court that we have the power, then of course, we will exercise
it in the interests of the c'ommon safety.
Now come back to New South Wales. There are two
intra-state airlines. I have no bias about either of them.
I know very little about them, but I do know that each of them
is subsidised by the Commonwealth and I do know that each of
them is serving what is the paramount interest, in my opinion,
in this State the interests of the people in the country
centres who want air services, both feeder to the main lines e 1

and between themselves and Sydney. This is the paramount
interest. We have never sought to interfere with it. W4e
, agree. We have said, time after time, we want to serve this
interest. In the second place, we don't want to crush one
of these airlines, So far from doing that, we wcnt each of
these airlines to have services allocated to it which wrill
enable it to carry on a profitable operation and n useful
operation for the people in the country areas. 4e have never
said that Mr. Ansett is to have so-and-so or he is not to
have so-and-so, I wouldn't know. All I know is that it is
not beyond the wit of people to make an equitable allocation
of routes and services as between two businesses, ea~ ch of
which we are determined to preserve and each of which we,
in fact, subsidise in order to make it profitable.
Well, what does the State Government do here. It
passes an Act, very hastily. It 2 ays down penalties running
into many thousands of pounds the whole idea beingZfrighten
people off acting unaer the Commonwealth regulations.
And I had a letter from Mr. Renshaw about this only the other
day. Before I quote that, I mu.. st just go back to the fact
that on August 6th. which. is a long timue ago, I wrote a letter
explaining all these things to every Premier the letter has
been tabled in the House, it ouhkob, el nw n
indicating first of a-ll that we were advised that we had this
power; secondly we tihought it would be in the interests of
orderly control off civil aviation that we should exercise it,
and thirdly that in the case of any particular State, wo would
act when it came to the point of allocating :-outes in the
closest consultation with the State transport authorities.
All that was stated very very clearly on August 6th.
Well then, much later on, regulations of ours are
tabled, they are due to go into operation unless they are
disallowed, and TI have a despatch from the Premier of New
South Waoles in which he sets out his views on this matter and
indicates quite plainly that he proposes to go ahead, that
he will not delay the operation of his own Air Transport Act
or give any undertakings to that effect. In other words,
that if one of theo airlines operates a route which it has
already had for a number of yoars, it will do so at the risk
of being fined f-10,000 or œ C20,000 and the Government of New
South Wales will not hold this matter up pending the litigation,
pending the decision of the Court as to where the power lies.
Well I must say that that struck me as a most
astonishing attitude because there is a legitimate argument.
I dontt know who is going to win the argument but there is
obviously a legitimate argument as to where the power lies,
and this will be determined. The first shots were fired in
the High Court today, and I say nothing about the legalism
of this thing because I don~ t profess to be qualified to do
so. ( Laughter) You forget, I don't forget, but you forget
that I have been in this job for fifteen years ( Laughter)
and not the law but politics. Not oven the profits, but
politics, not the law. And so yesterday I sent a telegram
to Mr. Renshaw which I later on today told him I would make
public. I wonder if I might read it to you, it is quite short.
It is not without point. eo* / 6
5

-6-
" YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 20TH SEEMS TO OVERLOOK
THE FACT THAT IT IS ONLY THE COMMENCEMENT OF YOUR
AIR TRANSPORT ACT dITH ITS PARTICULARLY HARSH
PENALTIES THAT CAN PREVENT A CONTINUATION OF EXISTING
AIR SERVICES TO DUBBO AND ORANGE. ( Tha LB ricght.
If our proposal that the status quo should be preserved
until this matter had been determined had been adopted,
then of course the existing services to Dubbo and
Orange would continue because they are part of the
status quo.) THEREFORE IT IS ONLY THE COMMENCEMENT
OF YOUR AIR TRANSPORT ACT THAT CAN PREVENT A CONTINUATiON
OF EXI3TING AIR SERVICES TO DUBBO AND ORANGE.
THERE IS IN THE COMMONWEALTH'S VIEW NO REASON
WHATEVER WHY TH2i EXISTING AIR SERVICES SHOULD NOT
CONTINUE WHILE THE QUESTION OF CONFLICTING COMMONWEALTH
AND STATE LAWS IS RESOLVED."
Now I wonder if anybody thinks that's unfair. That's a
proposition that is as old as the hills. In my time in
those remote, respectable years in which I practised the law,
this was a commonplace. " Well, if you will undertake to
prgserve the position as it now is, pending the determination
of the litigation, that is all right" and this is what we
offered. " YOUR PROPOSAL", I said to him " IS THAT A
CHANGE BE MADE PENDING LEGAL CHALLENGE. THAT WOULD,
OF COURSE BE CONTRARY TO THE USUAL PRACTICE WHICH IS
TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO PENDING THE DETERMINATION
OF ANY LEGAL ISSUES."
DESPITE WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS
OF THE HIGH COURT AND PRIVY COUNCIL ( I wontt go into
this' he had an argument based on the last decisions),
THE TRUTH IS THAT NEITHER HAS CONSIDERED THE POSITION
AS IT NO4 STANDS."
And that's true because the last time this was in Court, we
had not issued regulations, we had not undertaken to occupy
the field of civil aviation control and, therefore, it hap
all changed. " THE JUDGMENTS TO ;' JHICH YOU REFER SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE
BEARING ON CURRENT MATTERS EXCEPT THAT SOME OMMENTS
MADE IN THE HIGH COURT JUD6MENTS SUPPORT THE VIEW,
UPON WHICH THE COMMONWEALTH HAS ACTED, THAT THE
COMMONWEALTH HL4S WIDE POWERS IN THIS FIELD.
AS I SEE IT ( I want you to note this) YOUR
LETTER ATTEMPTS TO PRESENT THE MATTER IN SUCH A FORM
THAT THE BLAME IN THE PUBLIC MIND FOR ANY DISLOCATION
OF AIR SERVICES WILL FALL ON THE COMMONWEALTH WHEREASI
IN FACT ANY DISLOCATION OF AIR SERVICES CAN ONLY
RESULT ROM A DECISION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT NOT TO DEFER
THE COMMENCEMENT OF YOUR NEW TRANSPORT ACT. ( Hear hear)
IF YOUR GOVEPNMENT IS DETERMINED TO LET YOUR ACT 6OME
INTO FORCE AND NOT TO ALLOW THE STATUS QUO TO CONTINUE
PENDING THE LITIGATION YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT MY
GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE T6 JAE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DISLOCATION OF SERVICES
WHICH RESULTS." ( Hear, hear) ( Applause)
Now, Sir, having said that, could I just go back
to the beginning of this phase when I said that I was a
federalist, and I know that you are federalists and I know that,
/ 7

-7
like me, you don't want to have a complete aggregation of power
in the centre. But your federal principles always have to be
thought of in terms of the practicalities of life. There are
certain matters in which it would be disastrous to have control
from the centre. Until somebody can satisfy himself or herself
that he or she would like to see seven different authorities
controlling civil aviation in Australia, then it seems to me
to be pretty clear that there is an irresistible case for one
doing it. Indeed, Sir, it is always unwise to prophesy and
of course it is even worse to look back over a period ol~ twenty
years ani say what would have happened if somebody had done
something. Well I think I will take that risk.
If in 1937, whenever it was, we hadn't had this
contentious matter about organised marketing, frightfully
unpopular in my electorate, if we handn't had that and had
just had one single referendum proposal, civil aviation, it would
have been carried by on overwhelming majority. Nobody has yet
been heard to put a solitary rational argument against it,
because you see in the nature of things, there are some matters
which are indivisible. I will take an example of one that is
divisible, the great problem of education.
I would never accept the pooposition myself that the
Commonwealth ought to have control of education because 1 think
that education, if it is to achieve its highest results in the
development of citizens, must have an almost infinite variety,
it must have local characteristics, it must nct be just the same
in Tasmania as it is in Queensland. Education is the production
of a citizen under an environment wnich is not necessarily Lhe
same environment as in some other place. And so I am all for
variety in education, I would regard it as a horrible disaster
if all the curricula in all the schools were written up in an
office in Canberra,, That's what I mean when I say there's a
problem which is in its nature divisible,
But how is civil aviation divisible? Can anybody
sensibly believe w1-ien a Boeing 707 flies into Mascot from
overseas and it comes within the whole area of control in the
interests of safety so that it is brought down by a proper
system of control, that you can distinguish between that and
a--other aircraft which is coming in from the west which has to
go through the some controls, which has to be accommodated
within the total pattern of flying?
Look, ladies and gentlomen~ forn~ sins Irust have b~ n hoicked
around the world and around Australia in the air for about a
million and a half miles by now; I know all the noises that
an aircraft makes exce-. pt one and I don't want to hear that.
( laughter, Applause) And one of the glories of it is that
we have developed such a comprehensive, such an indivisible
system of control in this country, and indeed thuy have in Great
Britain and elsewhere, that when you find yourself going around
and around in a dense cloud, you just say to yourself, " Oh,
well, we are in the stack" and you look at your watch and you
hope that you will be down in about ten minutes. And sometimes,
if you have to make a speech at the other end, you hope you
will be very long delayed. ( Laughter) I understand all these
feelings. But this is something indivisible, and to have what
professes to be a great Constitutional issue, an issue of State
rights built up over this thing, seems to me to be just about as
silly and irresponsible as anything possibly could be. 1 And, Sir,
I hope that nobody in this Party in New South Wales wil be
0 0 0& 00/

8-
deceived by it. Indeed, I hope that none of them will believe
for one moment that if our power to do these things is established
in the Courts and we proceed to become the licensing authority
for intra-state lines in New South Wales I hope nobody will
believe that we are going to do this as Zhe humble obedient
servants of somebody. We're not. WJe are going to do this on
a basis of equity and the predominant rights of the people in the
country who need these services. ( Applause)
After all, it is worth remembering that we pay the
subsidieoz. We are not likely to land ourselves with an absurdly
4igh subsidy becouse one of the airlines has had an absurdly bad
deal and can't make money are we? You know, we can be foolish
but we are not fools all Zhe time. That is a boastful statement
but I make it. ( Laughter)
Now, Sir, I don't want to say any more about that.
I just want to go back to mention one or two other matters.
Itve mentioned the Peace Congress, I've mentioned the airlines
controversy. Itd just like to say something about the economic
problem as we now see it and then something about the international
problem and I'll be as brief as I come to them as can be.
This great slogan of the Labour Party that this is
a Stop-Go Government is brilliant. It's brilliant, like
accusing n motor car driver of being a stop-go motor car driver.
A terrible thing to be. Terrible thing. If the traffic lights
are against him, he should drive through them. ( Laughter) In
the interests of consistency, he ought to ignore the rule of
the road, he ought to ignore the weather. Well.. you know, it's
too silly for words that kind of thing. The fa'ct is that we
have a policy which is briefly expressed in these terms% That
we want the greatest possible degree of progress and development
in Australia that can be achieved without destroying the stability
of the currency. I wonder if anybody can fault that. And,
of course, if that's to be your principle, then you must always
De watching the indices of pressure on the economy, of pressure
on the structure either shortages of labour or an over-supply
of labour, shortages of material or an over-supply of material
as it may be from time to time.
And alongside of you, you have the Reserve Bank.
All I ask of people is to understand that it is a very good
thing to have a Reserve Bank. There's not a civilised country
jn the world without one, and if you have a Reserve Bank you
ought to allow it to do its job. A Reserve Bank is not 1here
just to take the bidding, the whims and fancies from day to day
of non-expert political people. The Reserve Bank is there to
study all the aspects of the national economy, the credit, the
-liquidity of the banks, the trade balances, all the matters which
come into account, and, from time to time to take those steps
which only a Reserve Bank can take to modify the effect of so-and-
So* It may call up special reserve deposits some of the
money in the trading banks when their liquidity is so high that
a great inflation becomes threatened. It may, on the other hand,
wrhen there is a decline in that kind of thing, restore, release
some of these. It may move on the question of interest rates.
It may take all these various aspects which are part of its
technique, not only here but in any other country in the world,
for keeping as much stability as possible in the monetary system.
And we are all for that. We much prefer to have it done in that
normal fashion than to be compelled to take stringent measures
in a rather dramatic way. We had to do that a few years ago.
It wasn't very popular. We are human beings, we have no desire
tohve to do it agrain, and I don't think we need to because I
0 0009

9-
think that these matters have been handled with very great skill.
People may say, " Oh, stability. This is a sort of
fetish." Nobody in this audience thinkis it's a fetish, I hope.
Everybody in this audience tonight has saved up some money, has
invested some money, has some assets. In a sense you knows
we are all little capitalists, to quote that immortal phrase
of Jack Dednaan's, and we want our money to hold its value, and
strangely enough though this is supremely true in the case of
somebody with œ C260 or œ 300 or œ C+ 00 in a savings bank, or with
an investment in a life insurance policy, it is also profoundly
true in . he case of some of the greatest industrialists and
investors in the world.
We have them in Australia from time to time, We have
the advantage in Australia of having hundreds of millions coming
into Australia on private investment account, with some of the
shrewdest people in the world controlling that investment at the
other end, and every time I see one of them, from a Roci*, efeller
down the first thing he says to mc is, " Do you know what the
grea attraction about Australia is? This is the one country
with a future which Las great stability." It is worth
thinking aboUt that, and with a little pride.
There are plenty cf countries in Latin America, 4
there are countries in Africa which may present the prospects
for a quick turnover, some groat prospects of development, but
their political and financial instability is So notorious that
they are not an attractive haven any more. And all I am bound
to say to you is that as long as we keep our heads and behave
like sensible people, I have no doubt that one of the great
factors in the enormous growth that is going to occur in
Australia will be that we command the confidence of people,
particularly in the United States and in Great Britain,
Now the only other matter that I want to say a word
to you about is t~ e matter of foreign affairs. I made a glancing
reference earlier to the Labour Party and the fact that it was
divided and the fact that it seemed to me to be moving fairly
steadily in a left direction. Where does it stand on our
foreign affairs? We had an election about this, and this
p'. ayed a great part in the last election.
We have alliances, we have arrangements, we have
mutual. advantages and obligations with some of the great
countries of the world. We have with the United States,
the South-East Asian Treaty and AHJUS, the ANZUS treaty, the
significance of which to Australia has never yet clearly been
understood, and on top of that we have Great Britain in the
South-East Asian Treaty and Great Britain in Malaysia and our
obligations willingly accepted in relation to Malaysia, our
constant opposition to aggression, wherever it comes primarily
Communist aggression from the north and aggression a present,
unhappily, from Indonesia. And we stand against it and we
have had enough sense to get firm friends who stand with us.
The Labour Party sneers. It is always quoting a
phrase I used once about our great and powerful friends,
You know, they do it rather well. They say, " The Prime Minister,
he talks about great and powerful friends. This is a good way
of dismissing them," They would be howling like mad for their
help if the point arrived.
But our policy consistently has been that we must
build our defence and the defence of the free world, the defence

10
of freedom, into the overall structure of defence with the
other great powers in the world who stand for freedom and
who indeed are prepared to lay out vast stores of treasure
and of lives to defend it. I don't know where the ILabour
Party stands on this.
We had a funny little incident recently in the
House, ( Bill McMa~ hon will remember it very well) where one
of the Labour Members said there ought to be no Australian
soldiers in Malaya, None. That's good Labour policy.
Well, 7 1 sympathised with him because it is a wise man who
knows what Labour policy is on these matters; ( Laughter)
it depends on whether you read the version of 1951 or 1956
or of 1959 or whatever it may be, and he was taken to task
for this rather incautious remark by the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition who, I understand, is a young man with ambitions.
( Laughter) He was taken to task, and then he was restor'ed
by Mr. Calwell.. I don't know where they stand. I really
don't. All I know is tat-atany crucial1 moment over these
years when a wholehearted statement by the opposition I'de
stand with t~~ e Government on this matter; this is a joint
policy for Australia" would have done infinite good, we have
waited for it in vain,
And I hope that everybody, Sir, will have these
things in mind they are only a few out of many that we
have to consider because we are going to have a Senate
election, and although I am not without experience in
conducting a Government with an equally-divided Senate ~ a
hostile Senate, it is an experience that one gets a little
tired of as the years go on. I beg of you, deliver us from
it* I hove no doubt that we will be preserved in our
position in the Senate by the people because I believe
profoundly that at this last election we had a policy and
a campaign which coiunanded the enthusiastic support of the
Australian people and in particular of the younger people of
Australia with their lives and their families in front of
them. ( Applause I would be very unwilling to believe that
the enthusiasm which demonstrated itself at the last poll
was of so evanescent a character that it faded away by
December 5th. It won't. But it will be for you, if I may
say so, to maintain it.
It is important that the Government should continue
to have a charter incapable of frustration in another place,
and if you think of what I have been talking to you about
tonight and a dozen nnd other matters that will manifest
themselves over the next four or five or six weeks, I am
perfectly certain that once more I will be nble to say to
myself when the poll comes along, " Well, we have a great
number of grect people in Now South Wales who are doing their
job and will do it with success."
QUESTION : Is it not a fact that the Federal Executive of
the ALP, meeting quite recently in Cainberra, has
determined to work wholeheartedly for the Federal
control of aviantion and if three or four very
prominent members of the Labour Party are not
already committed, through a Federal Government
Committee to such a policy? a o0a0111

11
PRIME~
MINISTER Sir you couldn't be more right. The fact is
thai tie Federal Labour Party is unanimously in
favour of Federal control of civil aviation. It
has said so in Parliament, it said so through its
representatives on the Joint Parliamentary
Committee on the Constitution and it made no
secret of it the other day, Its attack on the
Government was not that we were assuming control
over aviation but they thought we were doing it
for the wrong reason, which is a proposition that
mystifies me a little, but on the end result, Sir
you are dead right. They are one hundred per ceni.
Q. Will the Prime Minister please tell us whether
his Government considers the suggestion made by
Mr, Wilson in Britain recently practicable.
You will remember Mr. WJilson suggested a Commonwealth
consultative council be set up to
integrate the affairs of the Commonwealth more
closely?
P. M. Well, Sir, all I know about that proposal is the
necessarily brief reference made in the newspapers
and I don't profess clearly to understand what it
means yet. No doubt I will hear from Mr, Wilsn
in due course because it is my practice to be in
communication with the British Prime Ministers.
I just point out that we have had in recent years,
in the last ten, twelve years, a Prime Ministers'
Conference each year which has lasted for ten
days, sometimes for a fortnight and this enabled,
of coursel a very great exchange of views to
occur. Every year, some Minister or Ministers
will be in London or some British Ministers will
be here and, of course, discussions on the official
level are almost continuous, and ve--y properly so,
on matters of trade and finance, to take two
examples. We also have the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association which meets regularly and that
provides a means of contact between Commonwealth
countries. There is also something that emerged
in a general shape from the last Prime Ministers'
Conference and that was a proposal for a
Commonwealth Secretariat. Now that w'ill, pretty
soon, I think, be discussed on the official level
to see what the functions of a Commonwealth
Secretariat ought to be. It may be that Mr. Wilson
is proposing some modification of that idea by
establishing some kind of permanent body or
assembly or council, but I wouldn't say " 1yes" l
or 1" no" l to it without knowing exactly what he has
in his mind, but I am certainly, of course, very
willing to hear what he does have in mind and to
give it the most careful thought.
Q. Sir Robert, I will send you a copy of this, but
the question I want to ask you, reads as follows:
I, along with many Liberals, view with concern
the contention of your Government to introduce
restrictive practices legislation and I hope it
is understood that if the proposed legislation
becomes lawg the Government will lose the
support of many true Liberals and a large section
.0/ 12

12
Q. of the business community. I therefore ask:
( Contd.) Will you give consideration to the suggestion
put forward by a former Queensland State
Liberal Party President, Sir Leon Trout, that a
small commission be set up to see if the
legislation was practicable and if there were a
sufficient number of cases of sufficient
importance to warrant the legislation.
P. M. Sir, if you will allow me to say so, you have
made a few assumptions there. One of the
assumptions is that whatever is in the legislation
it will excite the great hostility of a
great number of people. With great respect,
how do you know? You haven't seen the legislation
yet. We are not taking this matter lightheartedly.
We have had proposals, we have had
them examined welve heard representations from
various aspects of industry and so on, both
metropolitan and rural, we've had two or three
long close Cabinet discussions on it of late and
before we finish, we will be hearing more
representations on this matter. I think . when
the legislation finally emerges, the people of
Australia will take it on its merits. I don't
triink that everybody in Australia necessarily
has the same view as my old friend, Sir Leon
Trout, who objects to any legislation of this
kind, as I understand it, on principle. I think
the people of Australia will look at it and
say, " Well, now what does this do? What does
this make unlawL'ul? Is this a good thing to have
made unlawful? What is the machinery that is
set up? Is it fair? Is it businesslike? Is it
not over-technical?" These are the things that
people will look at, because it must be
remembered that on this question of restrictions
and trade practices, there are very many
interests, there are very many fairly big people
who may not like a particular proposal. There
may be very many small people who do. The whole
business that we have to aim at is to provide
for genuine fair competition, because we believe
tuh itsh. t asits ioi. sa . o cno radcacnocrQd awncieth witnepIuiTbp. de cra olicy
interest. Now it is easy enouht o saytha
When you have to come to or I O lnO
form of a particular measure, that becomes a
vastly complex affair. But I pin my own colours
to this mast, that I believe that anything that
we can do, however it turns out, anything that
we can do to increase fair competition in the
interests of the ordinary consumer in Australia
would be a very good thing. ( Applause)
Q. Does Sir Robert consider, even bearing in mind
the differing economic conditions, the recent
Territory ordinance prescribing vastly different
rates of pay for native people of Papua and New
Guinea as conducive to better relations with
these people, when one considers for example,
native doctors being paid a quarter of the rates
of white doctors and native school-teachers being
paid considerably less than half than that paid
to white people in New Guinea?

13
P. M. Sir, I beg to be excused from talking as if I knew the
details of the regulation or ordinance because I don't.
I have a Minister who attends to those matters. But
I do want to point this out to you as a broad consideration.
Itts worth having in mind. Our whole purpose
in Papua and New Guinea is that some day we will bring
these people to self-government. Now that is the object
of the exercise to bring them to self-government. I
add to that: To bring them to self-government on terms
that they can sustain, on terms on which they can continue
to live without being utterly dependent financially on
other countries. I've seen a lot of modern countries
inl the world newly-emerging countries, which are futll of
political inl. ependence and are economically completely
dependent on the first man who comes along with a bag of
gold, and I don't want to see that happen, and therefore
I don't accept the proposition that it necessarily follows
that a great kindness would be done by us to the Papuans
and New Guineans by introducing Australian standards of
pay, for example, in their country. Wde would make it
impossible for them ever to become politically independent
with economic self-reliance. This is not a problem of
sentiment. Thi~ s is a problem of doing what is for them,
in the long run, the best thing and how this is to be
dealt with in particular cases gy the Administration is
a problem of great delicacy, not to be understood, if I
may say so, except by people who are in the middle of it
and who have given a lot of thought to it, and I certainly
wouldn't endeavour to muddy the water by offering some
extremely ill-informed views on it myself,, ( Applause)
Q. Sir, I noted with much gratification you~ r remarks about
the divisibility of educat-ion. I hove just spent several
weeks in New ( tuinea in the remote parts and before I go
on to the question, I must say on the ground roots level,
the Government are doing a most magnificent job of
education on the lower levels. ( Hear hear). H1owever,
there is much concern about the developments and tnie
adoption of the recommendations of the Commission on
Higher Education, particularly at the tertiary level,
The recommendations, which I have studied in great detail,
are eminently sound and practical. Could you advise us
of the intentions of the Government regarding the adoption
of those re commendations please?
P. M. Well, Sir, I am sorry to say that I cantt because the
matter has yet to reach the Cabinet in a form suitable
for decision. I have read the report myself and I think
it is a very valuable one. I have also heard rumours
and perhaps more than rumours in the last few days about
a report that is coming in on the future of tertiary
education generally, and judging by the size of it I
think I will have to get around to studying it a dttle
later, but I don't anticipate that on either of these
matters there can be any effective decision taken in the
next month or six weeks.
Q. Sir, from time to time we see statements that the Army
cannot introduce compulsory training or expand the CMF
due to a shortage of instructors, Wouldlyou, Sir, ask
your military advisors to consider establishing the
Australian Instructional Corps which before World War II
although small, was one of the finest bodies of permanon?
soldiers in the world and a ctuallly trained the Duitroon
men who load the Army today? * 000000/*

P. M. g1ell, Sir7 all I can tell you is that I know that that
proposal, among others, has been one of those under
consideration, but beyond that, I would ask to be
excused because I anticipate that in the week after next,
( the House meets next week rather longer than usual) the
following week we are going to have a complete examination
of the Defence position on a paper produced by the Minister
for Defence, and when that's been dealt with, no doubt the
answers to all these problems will fall into their place.
Q. Has the Government been able to assess the effect of the
change of Government in the Kremlin, and if so, what is
that assessment?
P. M. Sir, Ifm sorry. No. I'm asked whether we have been able
to assess the effect of the change of Government in the
Kremlin. WAell, the answer is that we haventt. We are like
everybody else around the world, just speculating at present
as to how it happened, but I did receive a courteous visit
the other day from the Amb; assador from the Soviet Union in
Canberra, who called to assure me that although there was
a change of Prime Ministership there would be no change in
policy. That led of course, 10 an interesting conversation
between us as to ho difference between being a Prime
Minister in the Soviet Union and a Prime Minister i~ n
Australia. ( Laughter) ( Applause)
Q. May I ask the Prime Minister a question somewhat related
to an earlier one. Would the Prime Minister hope to be
able to make to the country a comprehensive statement on
the Defence situation, and including one dealing with the
strength of the Army, before the Senate elections?
P. M. I am a little cautious about raking prophecies. IP. in
these conferences, Mr. Rowe, that we are having the week
after next in Cabinet, if we arrive at conclusicns which
are definitive and I see no reason why we shouldn't, then
I would assumne that we would announce them in Parliament
in the following week,
Q9 Mr. Prime Minister, may I ask you whether it is a fact
that the civil aviation industry as a whole is regarded as
a back-stop to our Air Force in time of an emergency, and
the second part of the question is: Does the Feder4
Government also finance the introduction of modern aircraft
to our civil aviation systems or guarantee the finance for
them and therefore assist our airlines systems?
P. M. You know, Mr. Waddy, you might almost have had a look at
my notes because you have just reminded me I forgot that
point, beca-use we have in fact, of course, as you know,
found millions, many millions of pounds for the re-equipment
of airlines, including intra-state airlines. We have been
the financial backers of modern air services in Australia
and modern facilities of all kinds, so that Mr. Waddy is
quite rights As for his first question, of course thatts
quite dloar that if we came to a war, the existence of
aircraft capable of trransporting people and goods would
be of first-class importance and therefore this is, in a
reserve sense, part of the defence structure of the
country.

1009