NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LUNCHEON : PRIME MINISTER'S OPENING ADDRESS
MAY 1974
Mr. President, your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please forgive me if I'm not too formal. I have no text to
declaim to you. I will make some preliminary observations
and then whether I like it or not I'll have to answer your
questions. I gather that on previous speeches in this particular round
there have been a great number of references to economic
affairs. I shall quote from a part of your newspapers
tomorrow morning which you won't be writing yourselves.
It's a letter from economists a majority of the professors
and staff in economic faculties right round Australia. It
states, since the present government won office, Australia
has witnessed several significant changes in economic policy.
The government has, for instance, revalued the currency, cut
tariffs across the hoard, increased interest rates and
substantially reduced the alarming growth in the money supply.
Inflation has, of course, been the major concern of economic
management for the government. The rapid increase in prices
has been an international phenomenon as well as a national
one and we doubt that any Australian government could have
managed to isolate our economy from these international
price movements. We believe that the general thrust of the
government's policy responses has been in the best interests
of the nation as a whole. More importantly, we seriously
doubt that the previous government would have had the wisdom
or the courage to undertake it. It had certainly given no
indication of moving in that direction while it was in power,
even though the need for such policies had become obvious.
There can be no doubt that inflation would have been even
more severe had the government not taken the steps outlined
above. .2/
We urge the public to carefully weigh these matters before
making their decision on the 18th May. The letter which is
being delivered to all the metropolitan morning papers today
is signed by 130 professors and staff members, the first
signature being Professor Trevor Swan, the Doyen of
Economics at the Australian National University in this
c ity where we are meeting and the it goes right through
and the last signaturies are from Drs. Ironmonger and Sheehan
of the Institute of Applied Economic Research, Melbourne, the
Editor and the Assistant Editor of the Australian Economic
Review. I noticed that in his address to you yesterday, Mr. Snedden
had doubted that on the 2nd of December the people of
Australia had voted for a change and~ doubted that they knew
what they were doing when they voted the way they did. I
would merely point out that the program which I put on behalf
of the Australian Labor Party in the elections before the 2nd
December 1972 had been developed openly over many years. It
hadn't emerged from a war council the previous weekend. It
hadn't been evolved behind closed doors three weeks befQre.
It in fact had been in print in party documents for months
and years before. It had been debated in public. It had been
put up in the form of motions and amendments in both Houses
of the national Parliament. It was well known, and there
could have been no greater, longer opportunity for the
Australian people to know what any political party would do
if it received their support than was the case before we were
elec -ted by the people with a comfortable majority in the
House of Representatives on the 2nd December 1972. Now how
have we tried to carry out our programs, the ones which we
enunciated then? We have put through the Parliament a record
number of bills. There has never been so active a Parliament
as that which was dissolved three weeks ago. None of the
legislation we introduced diverged from programs which we had
published and debated before the people elected us to a majority
in the House of Representatives. I'm told that in another
speech last night on David Frost, Mr. Snedden said that he .3/
would now accept all the legislation that went through
except those bills which had been rejected in the Senate.
Perhaps then, I can refer to some of those bills which
had been rejected in the Senate so that one can see the
difference in approach between the Government and the
conservative coalition opposing it.
One of the bills rejected by the Senate was the Trade
Practices Bill. It followed up on suggestions which had
been made by Liberal attorneys-general including Mr. Snedden
himself. In particular, it wanted to ensure that companies
could not by collusion fix prices between them. It also
had an extensive code for customer protection. We have said
we would introduce such legislation. We introduced it 9
months ago. It came up for debate oh three occasions in
the subsequent months in the Senate where it had been
introduced first. On each of those three occasions, the
Senate voted not even to debate the bill. Then there was
the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill. It
was an expansion of a bill which Sir John McEwen had been
able to get through our predecessors over the oppositioh
of many Liberal Ministers, including Mr. McMahon was was at
that time the Treasurer. It was designed to give Australians
the opportunity to stake out a claim for a share in basic
industries. It was to prevent the takeover of those industries.
It was to give the national government the resources to
prevent a further erosion of Australian ownership and control
in basic industries. That was rejected by the Senate. Then
there was the Health Insurance legislation. There surely
could have been no program which had been so widely discussed.
It was discussed not only in the 1972 House of Representatives
elections, but in the 1969 House of Representatives elections.
It was discussed in the Senate elections in 1967 and 1970.
Our legislation completely accords with the program which we
outlined on so many occasions for the people. Then there is .4/
the Petroleum and Minerals Authority legislation. That has
been twice rejected by the Senate. It is designed to
enable the taxpayers through a government instrumentality
to take a share in the discovery of Australian natural
resources and the development of them. It would give the
opportunity for Australians through their own instrumentality
to learn the scientific and economic basis of these basic
industries, based on our natural resources. It follows
legislation which was the means by which France and Italy
and now Canada are taking a share in the discovery and the
development of-their resources. It would avoid the situation
which arose under our predecessors whereby 68.3% of our
energy resources our oil, our natural gas, our uranium and
our coal -are controlled from overseas. Add the metallic
resources -the iron ore, the bauxite, copper, lead, the
zinc, titanium, magnesium and so on and you still have
controlled from overseas. It was a means of avoiding
that overseas control becoming still more dominant. Twice
rejected by the Senate.
Then there are the electoral bills. In particular the
bills which would have given votes for the Senate for the
people enrolled in the two territories. We put the
proposition at the last two House of Representatives
elections I believe it's a proposition overwhelmingly
supported in the two territories but the Liberals,
Country Party take the attitude the Senate is a States
House. And then there was the legislation unanimously
recommended over 15 years ago that thca variation from the
average en rolment from electorates in any State should not
be more than 10%. You shouldn't have the present
The 10% maximum variation was endorsed by Country Party as
well as Liberal and Australian-Labor Party members of the
Constitutional Review Committee set up by Sir Robert Menzies
in 1956 reporting to the Parliament unanimously in 1958.
The legislation was twice rejected by the Senate. Now there
were other bills too, but I give those basic ones because
many of them are bills upon which the Governor-General said
the Parliament had become unworkable and therefore we were
entitled to have an election for the whole of both Houses
at the same time.
Now, that's what we've done by way of legislation, in
carrying out oiir programs. Then, the rest of our programs-
I pointed out to you when I last spoke to you would be
based on expert advice. It was well known before we came
in that there was not in the state public services or in
the federal public service enough men and women who had been
given the responsibility of investigating and recommending
courses of action dealing with what were seen to be problems
for the Australian people, but problems which could not be
solved unless governments took some action about them. And
I'm reminded that I said at the gathering like this before
the elections in December 1972 the key channel for communication
between the Parliament and the people will be a
number of expert commissions making regular reports and
recommendations on new spending. These bodies will not
merely be exercises in more efficient, more expert
administration of public affairs they will be an expression
of our determination to keep the public informed and to keep
the public involved in the public debate on the great
national affairs and the great national decisions. We have
been as good as our word. We have where we've been able
to get the legislation through set up standing commissions.
The chairman, sometimes also the deputy chairman, have been
full time. But the rest of the men and women appointed to
those commissions have been experts in state public services,
universities and various professions and organisations. They
have been happy to serve on these bodies knowing that whether
the government accepted their recommendations or not the
Parliament and thus the people would be told what the
recommendations were. We've sought to end the situation
where the government was regarded as the only body which was
entitled to know what the experts recommended. And there
was before we came in a very great disillusion among
academics and heads of commerce and other organisations about
the use that they could be to the public, particularly in
advice given to governments. We have ended that suspicion,
we have involved them, there have been scores as you know
of professors and captains of industry and managing directors
and directors who have and state public servants as well 6/
as federal public servants who've been willing to be named
and identified among those who were advising the national
government. And in every case the report has been made
promptly available. It's been made available usually
before even the government has made up its mind upon them.
And the consequence has been that if the government has
differed or delayed on these reports, then the public was
able to make a judgement and assessment itself. It's
remarkable the extent to which there has been support for
and acceptance of these reports. And the big initiatives
we've taken in development of programs have been along
these lines, that is the increases in government
expenditure which we've undertaken have been on the basis
of public reports by experts which the public have themselves
received, and the cuts in public expenditure we've made,
amounting to well over 400 million dollars a year, have been
on the basis of such expert reports available to the public.
Now people don't demur at what's in these reports they
accept the facts. They acknowledge the validity of the
recommendation. It doesn't stop them criticising us when
we act upon them but in all these matters that we've clone
-the public's known why we did it on whose advice we acted
it's not been secret. It's not been delayed. It's been
available promptly and fully and we believe by this process
there's been a rational enquiry, rational development and
rational allocation of our natural resources and our human
resources such as no previous government has been willing
to bring about. And even while this campaign's been going
on there have been many such reports received. They're being
printed and a summary of them has been published. Now let
me mention some of them.
There is Sir James Vernon's report on the post office, the
biggest business in Australia but one which certainly needed
a review and investigation. And now that it has been made
available, Dr. Coombs will conduct the Royal Commission into
the rest of the Public Service. There has been no enquiry
into the Public Service in Australia for over 50 years.
There has been in the United States, Canada, Britain, so
many other countries but not here. We are the people who .7/
haethought about it. Then there's been Sir Walter Scott's
enquiry into government procurement. He pointed out the
inefficiencies, the waste, which have been caused by the
inherited system of purchase by the Australian Government.
Then there's Professor Crisp's report on the collection of
statistics and data. So often, departments and instrumentalities
have collected information and kept it to themselves,
not even given it to each other, still less the public. The
report here has been received and published. And I recall
the very significant ones that we've received previously.
It was Mr. Rattigan's committee'which gave us the basis for
the tariff cut across the board of 25%. It wag Sir John
Crawford's report which led to the transformation, the
strengthening, the widening of the tariff board into the
Industries Assistance Commission. It's now Tom Fitzgerald's
report which has made the public aware of the implications
of mining policies which we inherited. There's Professor
Karmel's various reports on the schools and on the open
university and there could have been no greater increase
in government expenditure on any subject than there has been
flowing from Professor Karmel's report on the schools. We
sdught it early, we published it immediately, we adopted it
in full and the Liberals in fact voted against the application
of the report twice, when it first came in both Houses and
in both Houses again when the Country Party and DLP at last
let it through. There's Professor Cochrane's report on adult
training and retraining. There's Mr. Cangen' s report on
technical education and further education and I conclude with
Mr. Justice Woodward's concluding report on the Aborigines.
Now, you will notice that these reports have been quite basic.
There have been no such wide-ranging basic reports into our
natural and human resources in the memory of anyone in this
room and they are all promptly available to you and to the
public. The only difficulty's been that after a dearth of
information before we camne in you've now had a flood of
information and we are accused of not letting the public
know fully the implications of our programs. I acknowledge
and I guess you, as practising journalists, would all
acknowledge the difficulty of getting through the full text .8/
8.
and facts and reconiunendations disclosed and made by these
expert bodies. But never let it be said that the public
wasn't fully informed. They were told what our objectives
were and when we have sought further advice they've been
told what the advice was. And I suppose this applies
particularly to the biggest new commitment that I've been
able to make on behalf of the government during this
campaign, and that is the commitment on the care and
education of boys and girls under five years of age. When
we came in, as I frankly admitted to you, and in my policy
speech before the December 72 elections, there was not the
information available in government circles state or
federal. There was no coordination of the information
between community groups and voluntary organisations. The
people who knew about these things had never been asked
for their views for the information, for the facts that
they had, their views as to what should be done about it.
We promptly asked a committee under Miss Joan Fry to make
a report on it. We asked the Social Welfare Commission,
under Mrs. Marie Coleman the first woman ever to be the
head of an Australian government instrumentality or
d~ partment we've asked the Priorities Review Staff in
the Department of the Special Minister of State to review
all these things, make recommendations and accordingly we
4 now have a fuller program than has even been proposed
before, for that 1,300,000 boys and girls under five
as many people under five as there are over 65. We would
never have ventured, surely, to neglect those 1.3 million
people over 65 as we have the 1.3 million under five. And
hundreds of thousands of them without anybody to look after
them no parent throughout the working day. Well, of
course it'll cost $ 130 million this coming financial year.
It's a very clear contrast to our opponents who would be
prepared to spend on this overall matter of day care and
pre-schools, $ 20 million a year. We've spent $ 18 million
in the last six months a big contrast. But you know why
we're doing it. Everybody's told. Nobody knew before we
collected the information and sought the advice.
Now I suppose you'd expect me to say something about the
alternative package. I'm indebted to you for examining so
many aspects of it. It ought to be enough for me to refer
to some aspects myself. I gather there is to be in this
alternative package, if the public bought it, an incomes
and prices freeze. I must confess and I've devoted a great
deal of attention to the proposals, I find no company, no
organisation or employers or employees who is prepared to
support it and every country which has tried it over the
last year or so has now abandoned it. It was first started
on President Nixon' s support idea, two and a half years ago
in the United States, the Congress has at last abandoned it
as counter-productive, but one would have thought that any
effective freeze of prices would cover meat and fresh food.
Now, as one of my opponents has said, it's impossible it
may be possible to freeze meat and vegetables, but it's not
possible to freeze the pric~ es of it, and I'm not reassured
by my other opponent saying it can be done, it will be done.
Well, I wish they would agree on how it'd be done and then
of course there's the price of petrol the cat being let
out of the bag, the tiger being let out of the tank, the'
ESSO tank and the simple fact is that there is not a shred
of evidence to say that oil exploration in Australia is more
expensive or less profitable than in any other country in
the world. The only thing that's happened is that other
countries have usually put up their taxes and royalties very
highly. But we haven't. There's no need whatever to increase
the price of crude oil by 40% or any other percentage to
continue to get what has already been discovered in Australia
or to encourage people to go out and search further. If you
can't have a limitation on prices of such things as meat and
vegetables and fresh fruit, which everybody consumes, or the
price of petrol, which everybody directly or indirectly is
affected by, then it's very difficult to see how one can
have any limitation on prices by that method at all. And
then of course there's the freeze on incomes. I'm not impressed
by the constant assertion that somehow the Arbitration
Commission's awards would be made inoperative. Now that
word does not come from Tony Eggleton, I'm sure it comes
from Ronald Ziegler, and the... but however impressive the
word may be, however impressed you may be by such statements
used in other circumstances, there is the fact that finally
the High Court would decide. And the Chief Justice, Sir
Garfield Barwick, said this in 1967 in the total wage case:
" The Parliament is unable itself to legislate the level of
wages to be paid, nor has it power to direct the Arbitrator
as to the level of wages he shall prescribe in the settlement
of a dispute as to wages." The constitutional power
requires that settlement of the dispute be left to the
arbitrator. I thought everybody knew that. I'm surprised
at anybody aspiring to be Prime Minister of the country
being ignorant of it or trying to conceal it. The fact is
that the only way to exclude the Arbitration Commission,
to make its awards inoperative, is to abolish it. As long
as it exists then, under the Constitution, it has the
authority to conciliate and arbitrate in the settlement
of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any
one State. If you abolish the machinery, then of course,
like the inter-state commission, it can't exercise its
constitutional responsibility. I don't believe the
Australian public will support the idea of abolishing the
Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Now,
in all these matters I was not reassured by a statement
Mr. Douglas Anthony issued today. " Mr. Snedden and I have
had discussions to try to tie in all the loose ends and to
look for weaknesses that probably exist." Now I would have
thought that Mr. Anthony, who for twelve months has been
urging the absolutely unprecedented and unprincipled course
that a House of Representatives, recently elected, should
be refused the money to carry on its program by a Senate
half elected 3 years ago and half 6 years ago I'm
surprised that he should have been urging this course so long
without having been able to evolve an alternative program.
Perhaps it's not so much to be wondered at that Mr. Snedden
hadn't been able to do it. 11/
But let me show in practice what has been done in some of
these respects because the two Right Honourable Gentlemen
have, in the past, had responsibility in fiscal and monetary
matters let me deal with some of the monetary matters.
There was, as you know, a very big dispute between them and
their colleagues about the value of the dollar before
Christmas 1971 and in that Holy Season there was an unholy
row for three days and for three nights. And the wrong
decision was made. Again there was a dispute as to the
inflow of overseas funds on loan. And in consequence for
the six months before we came in, the amount of money
circulating in Australia rose by 17%, There was no
equivalent increase in production. In fact there were a
very great number of men and women out of work. Productivity
increased by the money supply by 17% and the Treasury and
the Reserve Bank had been urging them throughout the year to
do something about the value of the dollar and the inflow of
overseas funds. No legislation is required for those purposes.
All that is required is an administrative decision. When we
came in, promptly we examined the position, we accepted ' the
advice and everybody, including all the leading economists in
Australia, right up to today's letter, have endorsed what
we've done. And none of the things we've done have earned
many plaudits at the time. We have trodden on many toes,
special interest groups, they resent it I feel, I hear, but
undoubtedly the public has benefited from it. Now these
were tough decisions. They were decisions which had been
shirked by our predecessors, they were decisions which we
had promptly made.
I conclude with a reference which I gather Mr. Snedden made
to you yesterday and which he-had also made in the Parliament,
and I would have thought that he would have understood the
situation better by now. Because, not only was he formerly
a Treasurer and should have known some of these other matters 12/
I quoted, but he was also an Attorney General and he stated
as regards these referendums, that there was no need to
carry the referendum to syncronise the elections for the
two Houses, * but the fact that the elections for two
Houses were being held at the one time, next Saturday,
would automatically syncronise them. of course, the
Constitution says that when there's been a double dissolution
the term of the Senators will date from the 1st July
preceding. The Constitution also says that Members of the
House of Representatives can have three years term from
the first meeting of their House. That means that as the
Constitution stands, the Senators would have to come up for
election before July 1976, somewhere in May 1976. The
House of Representatives wouldn't have to face the people
again until July 1977. Now not only does the Constitution
say this, history bears it out, because after the last
double dissolution in 1951, there was another Senate
election in April 1953 and a House of Representatives
election in April 1954. So that is a very clear example
why that referendum should be carried. Because the next
election should be, again, for both Houses at the same.
time and that is what the first referendum is designed to
achieve, and it was recommended back in 1958 by the-
Constitution Review Committee appointed by Sir Robert
in 1956. Now, I won't go through the other referendums
there are equally valid reasons for all of them. Three
of them date from recommendations dating from 1958, the
fourth one, the local government one, dates from what I was
saying to you before the last elections, what had been in
the Party Platform before that. They're well known. Local
government should be involved in the Australian national
financial set up. Ratepayers alone cannot be expected to
finance the things which federal and state governments and
public services can't most appropriately supply, but which
these days can be best supplied on a local basis, by the
councils, community groups and voluntary organisations. .13/
13.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I've said enough, I think, to illustrate the differences
there are before the people next Saturday, and I believe
that the government deserves their support because it
has a complete program. It has stuck to that program.
It's tried to keep faith with the people and we have
made available to the people all the advice and the
facts on the further developments of programs which we
were committed to introduce.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION: Average weekly earnings for the March quarter
will be coming out in about two weeks time. They're expected
to show an increase in the past year of something like 17%.
They won't reflect the increases from the National Wage Case
or the GMH settlement or the Metal Trades Industries
Settlement that took place recently. Would you expect to
bump it up to something like 20 in the next two quarters.
The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has pointed out
that part of the reason for the increase is that the wage
system at the moment is allowing large parts of the
workforce to double up on the national increases that it's
awarding. Now I was wondering whether you could tell us
and it's called a conference, between the parties for the
national wage case... I was wondering whether you could tell
us what instructions representatives from a Federal Labor
Government would have if they attended such a conference and
whether you could be a little more explicit about the form
your intervention would take in cases coming up before the
Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from the unions
that you said could be ( unclear)
PRIME MINISTER: The attitude we would take before this
conference this is the conference which the Arbitration
Commission said in its judgment on the 1974 National Wage
Case it would be holding in 6 months' time to consider to
evolve a formula for relating the wages, the award payments
which it set, to any increase in the cost of living. You
know to bring about automatic regular cost of living
adjustments. Is that the one you're referring to, Mr Bracken?
Yes Well the attitude we would take before that conference
would be in accordance with the brief on indexation which
-2-
the Cabinet approved and which was put before the Commission
during its hearing of that case. Half of the industrial
disputes in Australia in the last year have been due to the
fact that people have resorted to direct action to maintain
the value of their award wages. And we believe that by
having a regular adjustment of those wages and salaries
every quarter or half-year whatever the Commission agreeswould
reduce that sort of pressure. Quite apart from
being a matter of elementary justice. The Commission's
predecessor did adopt that from about 1921 to 1953. And the
course neither promoted nor put a brake on inflation. The
effect of it'was neutral. So that is the attitude we
would take. I suppose the brief on indexation which the
Department of Labour prepared and which the Cabinet endorsed
for this recent case, would be reviewed. But nevertheless,
that is the general attitude we would take at this conference,
which you remember my colleague, Mr Clyde Cameron applauded
when the Commission announced it in its judgement.
QUESTION: The election campaign so far has been largely
a contest between yourself and Mr Snedden. Has Mr Snedden
performed better than you thought he would.
PRIME MINISTER: I suppose hie had to.
QUESTION: You referred at some length, during your speech
to the fact that your government has released a number of
reports on a number of matters. But I would like to point
out that on a number of major questions, such as revaluation,
tariff cuts, and the Coombs Report and a number of others;
no reports were seen before the Government made its decisions.
Now in cases like this, do you intend to continue making
decisions without releasing the reports on major matters
and only releasing reports on minor ones.
PRIME MINISTER: T he Coombs Report was released on the
same day as, and in company with, the Budget papers in
August. It was considered in the preparation of the
Budget four weeks before that. There were a very great
number of budgetary implications in the Coombs Report. If
-3-
we had released the Coombs Report before the Budget came
in there would inevitably have been speculation as to what
would be in the Budget. The Coomnbs Report was accepted in
part, rejected in other parts and accepted with modifications
in other parts again. So this was clearly a budgetary
document. It was tabled with the budgetary documents.
And so it doesn't come into the category of matters where
you release a report before you have made a decision.
Tariff Board reports, Industries Assistance Commission
reports, as they now are, are released immediately unless
the Commission itself recommends that the publication of
the report would cause speculation. where it so recommends,
and it hasn't in any of its reports up till now, we would
not publish the reports until the Government's decision had
been announced. But we have published all its reports up
till now as soon as they have been able to be printed, even
if the decision hadn't been made, because the Commission
itself said there would not be speculation if those reports
were published as soon as they could be printed.
QUESTION: You were elected eighteen months ago partly on
a promise of open government. And I can see that there has
been a great deal more information available to the people
in the various commissions you set up. However you were
elected more specifically on a promise of a freedom of
information act. This has not yet been forthcoming, some
public servants might say that an intelligent politician
breaks a stupid promise. However I note that the Queen
renewed the promise in her speech last February. Sir, are
you having difficulties in getting this bill out of the
bureaucracy, are there difficulties in implementing a
freedom of information act, have you as one of your close
advisers said, and he is very close at the moment, been
snowed by the public service.
PRIME MINISTER: I did undertake to introduce a freedom
of information act. The Queen made the same promise when
she opened the last session of the last Parliament, and the
bill has been drafted. And in my policy speech on Monday
fortnight I sta-ted we will proceed with our freedom of
information act. We will also appoint a civil ombudsman and
that is in the same general context,-we have already appointed
-4-
a military ombudsman. I have instructed the Public
Service Board they may have already done it to repeal
the statutory rule 34B which makes it illegal for public
servants to comment on these matters. It has been discussed
between the Public Service organisations and the Public
Service Board. And on the agreement between them, I have
directed that the rule be abolished. The whole question
of relations with the Public Service will be among the
terms of reference of the Coombs' Royal Commission into the
Public Service.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, I hadn't intended to ask you
this, but since you have just mentioned the point to us,
the understanding of those organisations with which some
of us are involved talking to the Public Service on
Section 34B is that far from repealing it, they are
devising a more complex, and in our view, no less
restrictive form of words, than exists at present. Now
if your understanding is that you have directed them to
repeal it, would you remind them that that was the
. intention.
PRIME MINISTER: No they are aware of it. I have told them
that there are to be no guidelines which are more
repressive than the regulation. The guidelines of course
wouldn't have the force of law. They would be a gloss
upon the provisions of the present act. But the regulations
which made certain courses illegal, are to be repealed.
I am told that the course I have directed to be taken, meets
the wishes of the Public Service organisations which have
been thrashed out in discussions with the Public Service
Board. I am rather sorry that it has taken so long, but I
am told that this is what they all wish now and so therefore,
at the earliest moment, I have done it. But the Public
Service Board, the public service organisations, all
interested people, will certainly be welcome to give their
views in writing and by word and through representatives, to
the Royal Commission on the Public Service.
QUESTION: The formal structure fore pre-blection briefings
with the public service for the Opposition, fell through.
Do you intend to do anything about getting formal guidelines
for those properly working well before another election
and whether you are back in government, or whether you
are in opposition, will you work for rather more contact
with the public service for the opposition party during
the time before an election.
PRIME MINISTER: I didn't understand your question at
first, because I didn't realise you were referring to
briefings of spokesmen for the Opposition on these matters
during the run up to an election campaign. I made that
undertaking, I honoured it. Mr Cooley, the Chairman of
the Public Service Board, was immediately in touch with
Mr Snedden. You know the subsequent correspondence. I am
assured that what Mr Cooly offered to Mr Snedden was
fully in accordance with the British practice which I
undertook to apply in Australia. I have honoured my
obligations. I think it is a proper course. I don't
believe that any opposition should find itself in the
situation that we did, where the Public Service Board
had in fact sought permission from Mr McMahon to confer
with me and my designated shadow ministers, on any changes
in the case of a change of government and Mr McMahon wouldn't
allow the discussions to take place. I said that such
discussions should always take place. I might elaborate
that the difficulty for other members of the opposition
was that Mr Snedden would never designate who they would
be with. You couldn't have half a dozen people discussing
things with every permanent head of every department. But
I was perfectly willing for any person that he designated
as having the shadow responsibility for any department
to confer with the head of that department. But he never
designated any of them. He said he would nominate who
would be his ministers, he has never done it. If you can't
nominate who would be your Treasurer how can you nominate
who the lesser ones would be. Mr Snedden could have had
from the Public Service Board or from any permanent head
the full facilities that any Leader of the Opposition has had
in Britain. And I might point out that I have said that
-6-
Mr Peacock for instance can be briefed by anybody in the
Foreign Affairs Department. I have said that Mr Snedden
can. And Mr Snedden has been fully briefed as to all
internal or external security arrangements to which the
Australia Government is a party. That is there is nothing
that I have said should be withheld from an alternative
Prime Minister.
QUESTION: Has there been any contact between the Opposition
and the public service during'the course of the Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER: There have been. For instance,
Bill Hayden has done this with Mr Chipp, to give an instance
I know. I have heard of no instanc3 where an opposition
spokesman wanting to be briefed on a particular matter,
hasn't been given that opportunity. I know of no instance
where it has been refused.
QUESTION: May I join you in quoting from the transcript
of your address to the pre-1972 election Press Club Lunch
in which you were asked, " will you publish Treasury's
detailed economic forecasts" and you replied not in a
referendum context " Yes, yes, yes, I would publish the
Treasury's economic forecasts." You criticised Mr Bury
for not having done so. And you said " I have been quite
firm in not giving any undertakings to do things which I
wasn't quite certain that an incoming government could do
in the lifetime of the Parliament, elected on the 2nd of
next month." Does this mean that you have not been
successful yet in getting the Treasury's economic forecasts
published and that you will do so in the life of the next
Parliament? PRIME MINISTER: I still incline to the view that they
should be published. But the contrary view is pressed upon
me by the authors of these documents and I suppose I can
su mmarise their view without injustice to them by saying
that if what they forecast or advise is to become public
property, they would be more reticient in what they write
and advise. It is a point of view which I have to weigh
carefully. But there are other advisers to me, I suppose
-7-
there is no mystery about it Dr Coombs and Professor Gruen
for instance, who believe that these should be published.
That is my inclination, but the Parliament didn't go its
full life as you know. I would certainly think that within
3 years from the date I gave that undertaking, I will be able
either to fulfil it or to acknowledge that in the light of
further advice I don't believe I should honour it. But
it is a worrying question. I can't be dogmatic about it.
I'm still inclined to the view that these should be
published but it's not easy to know what's done in other
countries and to what extent. It's something that I want
to discuss further on the spot with them. But I would
think that well before 2 December 1975 I will be able to
give you a clear reply to it.
QUESTION: Yesterday, one of your friends in the press
gallery, suggested that you were in a position to make
political capital out of the Victorian Liberal Attorney-
General's granting a fiat to a group of citizens to
challenge the legality of State aid. Could you tell Us
how you can make political capital out of the fact that
Mr Hartley is one of those people seeking to challenge the
policies granting aid to independent schools and also that
another was your appointee to the Schools Commission.
I think Mrs Turner is associated with the D. O. G. S. in
seeking to overturn what apparently is still the
Government's policies.
PRIME MINISTER: I've never discussed the matter with
Mrs Turner. The fact is of course that she is one of
the members of the Karmel Committee which was unanimous
on these points. It maybe that the lady has changed her
mind. The document was signed some time ago and I think
by Mr Hartley and Mrs Turner and the other 30 odd signatories
to it. But the point is that whatever their views might have
been then or might be now, there could be no challenge in
the High Court to this legislation unless a State Attorney-
General gave his permission, gave his fiat, his let-it-bedone.
For ten years D. O. G. S. and others have been seeking
the permission of a State Attorney-General, Liberal or Labor,
in every State, to allow a challenge to be made to
-8-
Commonwealth legislation providing funds for Church
schools. For ten years they have contacted every Attorney-
General in every State of both sides of politics. And
Mr Wilcox's predecessor or predecessors as Liberal
Attorneys-General in Victoria over the last ten years
always refused their permission, their fiat. Mr Wilcox
has granted his. So whatever may be the view now or
then of Mrs Turner and Mr Hartley and the other estimable
signatories, the fact is that however many signed it,
whatever there were, whatever they said, it would never
have got to the High Court but for an Attorney-General
having at loast been found after ten years, to give his
permission for it to be taken to the High Court. Now
in these circumstances it is regretable that the hundreds
of thousands of dollars will have to spent out of our
taxes in resisting such a claim in the High Court. The
challenge would never have got there but for a State
Attorney-General having given his permission. And it
happens to be the Liberal Attorney-General of the State
of Victoria.
QUESTION: I would like to move from Australia to
Foreign Affairs. Would your government if returned press
nations on the litoral of the Indian Ocean to regard the
re-opened Suez Canal as a non-military area.
PRIME MINISTER: All nations, around the shores of the
Indian Ocean and on all the islands in it, want the Indian
Ocean to be kept free of great power rivalry. I can't
speak for the government of South Africa, I don't think
it has expressed a view on it, I am not aware of it. But
it is certain that every other nation in and around the
Indian Ocean seeks to keep the great power rivalry out of
it. They don't want the Soviet Union and the United States
to escalate their rivalry in the Indian Ocean. And the
re-opening of the Suez Canal would of course facilitate
the passage of the very large fleets of the two super powers,
from the Mediteranean into the Indian Ocean. Certainly as
I understand it, they all want the Suez Canal re-opened,
but they don't want the present naval activity to be
escalated. Every one of them is unaninous in that regard.
-9-
And we have co-operated with them in the relevant
United Nations Committees.
QUESTION: Yesterday you told us that your government
would not increase direct or indirect taxes in the next
budget. Was this a decision made in consultation with
Mr Crean and also, does it mean that if taxation scales
are restructured that the high income earner will also
be excluded from taxation?
PRIME MINISTER: I hadn't had a specific discussion
with Mr Crean before I attended that particular press
conference at least I know who my Treasurer will be
before I hold press conferences but his general view is
the same as mine that there is no need to have an overall
increase in direct taxation or an overall increase in
indirect taxation in order to fulfil the programs which
we've initiated, both those which are under way and those
which we are about to launch. There are of course, very
many more men and women working and productivity increased
by 6 percent last year as against 2 per cent in the
previous year, 1972. And as I said in the Policy Speech
in November 1972, we believe that our programs can be
financed from increases in productivity rather than
increases in taxation. So I make the overall assessment
as to direct and indirect taxation. Now as regards direct
taxation, in particular, I have mentioned the restructuring
of the tax scales it's a term I used in November 1972 and it's
a term I used last month. I've used it on both occasions
and it's the term I repeat now. And I've spoken on both
occasions in the context of the committee of inquiry into
taxation under Mr Justice Asprey, which Mr Snedden appointed
in September 1972. We supported the appointment of it and
Mr Crean and I have discussed these matters with
Mr Justice Asprey I myself of course have known him, oh
I suppose for well over thirty years and with members of
that committee. We haven't of course sought to know what
its recommendations will be, but we have asked that the
recommendations'be in our hands by 1 June that will give
us plenty of time to discuss the matters before we have our
Cabinet meeting on the Budget in August, which will be about
4 weeks before we introduce the Budget in September. The
only suggestion that we've made to the Asprey Committee
which is not in its terms of reference as settled by
Mr Snedden is that it should consider taxation discrimination
against women. There was no such reference in its terms
of reference, we think there should be and we believe
that it will take that into account when it makes
recommendations on the whole range of matters. We have
not pre-empted the findings of this very expert committee.
QUESTION: In your first Budget you had a 20 percent
increase in government spending, you increased indirect
taxation and you had a deficit budget. How would you
have in your 1974/ 75 budget tax cuts, and a 20 percent
increase in government spending and how would be balance
the budget or bing down a surplus budget?
PRIME MINISTER: We might be in balance this year.
There's about seven weeks to go before the final accounts
for the year come in. We did budget for a deficit this
year but in fact we mightn't have a deficit. We might be
in balance this year, but as I believe that every economist
would advise in times when there is inflation, it is
inflationary to budget for a deficit, and we would therefore
expect to balance our budget or even, if other commitments
could still be met, to have a surplus budget this year.
Now your reference about a 20 percent increase. I take it
you are making a selective quotation from what was said
by me on Frost which you'll all be watching tonight.
Now perhaps I could get the quotation from this here just
to put in in full context. Mr Snedden apparently has given
Mr Frost some question to ask me, and one was about this
business with Syntec Newsletter, the people who brief
Mr Malcolm Fraser about whom Mr Snedden has at least said
he won't be Treasurer. Now, Mr Frost asked me: " would
there be an expansion needed by less than 40 percent but
more than zero" and I said yes. " What would you guess it
was" " midway, midway around 20 percent. Off hand I'd say
that, obviously there would be that amount in some fields
and less than that in others." " But the average would average
out at about 20 percent maybe, but'I wouldn't think any more
-11-
than that." I should make it plain that the expenditure
by governments in the last year in Australia has not gone
up by as high a percentage as the expenditure by
individuals and companies. Government expenditure is
not rising by the overall national percentage.
QUESTION: Sir, in answer to the first question that
was asked today by Warrick Bracken, you said that the use
of the cost of living adjustment or indexation of wages
had neither promoted nor put a break on inflation, that
means it's useless as I've said. What then, in view of
your assessment of the uselessness of indexation as a
measure against wage cost inflation, do you propose to
control the problem which Warrick Bracken referred to,
of 20 percent and above increases in the wage costs
that are in prospect?
PRIME MINISTER: You would not be correct in taking
it that I said it would be useless. What I did say is,
it would bring justice to the mean and women working under
the awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration
Commission, I also said it would promote harmony in
industry. It would do both those things.
QUESTION: But you were saying it would be useless as an
economic tool against inflation, I take it.
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not saying one does it in the
context of inflation at all. It is neutral in its effect
on inflation. May I repeat again so you can take it
correctly. It will lead to justice for the mean and women
working under federal awardsand it will bring about harmony
in industry. Both are worthy objectives. It was for those
reasons that we sought indexation from the Commission in
the 1974 National Wage Case, it is for those reasons that
the Commission, for the first time for twenty years, decided
to consider the matter. It will do so within six months
we will promote that conference.
-12-
QUESTION: I was going to ask you about housing but last
night down at Chelsea Town Hall, you said that you would,
the Labor Party could, get Issacs, Henty, Deaking and even
Flinders and Bruce. Mr Hawke said earlier this week that
the Labor Party could win by 20 seats. Mr Snedden said
last week that he could win by 15. Are you prepared to
give us a prediction now and if not could you tell us
what your views are on the wisdom of political leaders
making such forecasts?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm much more in agreement with Mr Hawke
than with Mr Snedden. I don't necessarily volunteer these
matters, but if I'm asked a question, of course I give a
civil reply and I believe a sensible one. I'm going to
treat you bush lawyers with respect. You're all the members
of the same rat pack as far as I'm concerned. I wish I
had the same freedom to pontificate as you have. Now
I want utter silence while I give this answer. You ought
to bring your wives and companions round during the trip
you know, it makes you much more agreeable. This has been
the most unharried, harmonious meal we've been able to
have for over a fortnight.........
PRIME MINISTER: The choice on Saturday is between a
confused and divided Opposition and a strong, united
Government. It's between an Opposition confused and
divided on inflation and a government which has shown it
can take tough courses of action to cure inflation. Its
between an Opposition whose policies brought about
inflation and a Government whose policies have produced
the biggest drop in the rate of inflation during the
March quarter of any of the worlds large industrial and
trading nations. Its between an Opposition pledged to
the sell out of Australian resources and a government
pledged to preserve and promote Australian ownership.
Its between an Opposition committed to cut back schools
expenditure by $ 300 million a year and a government that
has opened wide the door to new educational opportunities
for all Australian children. Its between an Opposition
representing rich sectional interests and a government
-13-
representing all the people. Its between turning back
and moving forward. I believe the Australian people will
move forward. Forward to a brighter and better future.