63/ 138
TELEVISION INTERVIEW ON ATN-7 BETWEEN THE
PRIME MINISTER, THE RT. HON. SIR ROBERT
MENZIES AND MR. RICHAIRD CROLL, ON SUNDAY,
27TH OCTOBER, 1963
MR. CROLL Sir Robert, coming right down to tin tacks, you are
having an election now, are you not, because you feel you
will win?
SIR ROBERT Well, I hope I'll win. That's not the only reason
for having an election, but it is a very good one,
MR. CROLL You said last week that you thought you might lose
eighteen months ago. Do you feel possibly you might have lost
in a year's time?
SIR ROBERT Well, nobody can look ahead for a year. All sorts
of things can happen in a year with a Government that has a
majority of one,
MR. CROLL Would one of the things that might happen, Sir, in
the year be a credit squeeze?
SIR ROBERT I don't think so. In fact, I'm quite sure it won't.
* MR. CROLL A number of economists and Mr, Calwell as well have
said they feel it will happen, Do you feel that there are
boom conditions at present?
SIR ROBERT No, but I think the conditions are good, that they
are improving. I don't expect them to reach boom conditions
at all. After all, we have all learned a good deal from past
experience.
MR. CROLL This is suppositional, Sir~: If they did, would you
hesitate in putting a credit squeeze on again?
WSIR ROBERT I don't answer hypothetical questions of that kind
because of course, you see, the moment I said " Yes" and I
don't say " Yes It would be said: " There you are". I don't
contemplate that there is any real possibility of anything
that could be called a credit squeeze. It sorry to hear
that Mr. Calwell keeps on repeating this because the right
way to create uncertainty in the country is to make that kind
of statement.
MR. CROLL Now, Sir, idoubtedly the employment position is
much better and the economy is more buoyant. You said last
week this was due to your wise considerations, but do you
feel since it took three years this is likely to have occurred
automa tically?
PRIME MINISTER I dont think so. I think that all policies
take a long time to work out. In fact, you have put your
finger right on the spot. If a Government wants to have
long-term policies and see their working-out for the good
of the country, it must have a proper majority. That's why
I have said so far as I am concerned in this election, I want
a good working majority myself or I want to see the Labour
Party have one. I don't want to see any Government in
Australia moving along carefully on a precipice because that
is inconsistent with long-term planning and long-term policy. / 2
2-
MR. CROLL Sir, you said that your Government's activities
brought the country back to a state of prosperity that it
now enjoys.
SIR R0OBERT I didn't say that was the only thing.
MR. CROTLL-Would you say that some of these policies, Sir, were
Labour policies that you put into effect?
SIR ROBERT W~ ell, don't ask me to define what is a Labour
policy, because I must tell you, as you know, that the Labour
policy over the last five years has included everything in
heaven or on earth. They've had a go at all things. They've
been on every band wagon and so who am I to say that some
policy of mine isntt some policy that at some time they have
advocated. I wouldntt dream of it. I'm too busy attending
to my owm.
MR. CROLL Becoming more specific, Sir, some of the Labour
policies put forward in the 1961 election.
SIR ROBERT No, I think there has been a great misapprehension
about that, I don't think there is any real comparison, to
say the policies they put forward in 1961 were the policies
we were adopting in 1962. They had a superficial resemblance.
They are quite different in fact,
0 MR. CROLL In February, 1962, you decided on special State
unemployment grants9 housing grants, increased Government
spending, extra endowment tax rebates, motor vehicle sales
tax reductions. Now wouldn't you say, Sir, that they do
follow the 1961 election policies put frward by the Labour
Party?
SIR ROBERT I don't think so. As I tell you, who am I to pick
out from Labour policies what is the policy and what isn't.
Why the other day I think Mr, Calwell was saying very heartily
that the Labour Party would increase the Defence expenditure.
This is marvellous. This has all the charm of novelty. But
I have only to go back to Dr. Evatt to find that he wanted to
reduce the then Defence vote by œ C1+ OM. So what?
MR. CROLL But, Sir didn't you say yourself to Mr, Calwell
W the other day " Let's not go back to 1956." 1
SIR ROBERT Did I?
MR. CROLL I believe so. You were reported as saying that,
SIR ROBERT Thatts a different thing. I think he asked me
whether I remembered some particular statement in 1956. 1
dont undertake to remember everything I said.
MR. CROLL Sir, coming to what Mr. Calwell said about Malaysia
in last week's interview on this station. Last Sunday, Mr,
Calwell said he would defend Malaysia under an emergency
situation but in long terms they wanted an agreement, a
treaty. Do you feel that this is unfair?
SIR ROBERT I feel that this is, of course, a complete change
of front on his part.
MR. CROLL But do you feel it is unfair, Sir?
SIR ROBERT No what he's doing there is, in the first place,
lining up for the first time with what I said, that if
Malaysia were attacked so that its independence was threatened,
we would join with Great Britain in defending Malaysia.
-3
SIR ROBERT
( Contd.)
MR. CROLL
treaty arHe didn't say " yes" to that when I made the statement
in the House, I gather from you that he has now said
" Yes" to it. If so, thatts a groat advance in his
thinking. The second thing that he said in the House
that he has now repeated is that he wants a treaty, a
mutual treaty. Now, what does that mean? A treaty
with Malaysia, under which we help Malaysia and
Malaysia helps us, presumably a military alliance,
He knows as well as I do and as well as you do that
Malaysia will not make a military alliance-it
insists upon being an unaligned country, Its attitude
in that respect is just like the attitude of India.
It is no use asking an unaligned country to abandon its
most important national policy just to make a treaty
with us.
On the other hand, Sir, if Malaysia would make a
with you, would you accept it?
SIR ROBERT Yes. I regard that of all the academic questions
I have ever heard, the most acaaemic because Malqsia won't*
MR. CROLL But is there any reason why we should commit troops
to Malaysia if she won't make a treaty with us?
SIR ROBERT Every reason because the existence of Malaysia is,
I think, of very great importance to us. Very great. The
defence of Australia for a start, is not to be conducted on
the Australian coastline, It is very important tltat there
should be a strong, powerful, independent country lying across
that part of the world. Very important.
MR. CROLL So drawing these threads together it means then
that both parties would go to the help of Malaysia in an
emergency-both parties would accept a treaty if it were
offered the only difference being that you feel Malaysia
wouldn't offer a treaty whereas Mr. Oalwell would like to
push for a treaty.
SIR ROBERT Well I am sorry to have to correct a great deal
of that, You tell me now that both parties will go to the
defence of Malaysia that has never been said in the House
either by Mr. Calwell or any of his members. That's point
No. 1.
MR. CROLL Did he not say it in his speech in September, Sir?
SIR ROBERT No he did not. Point No. 2 I say I am not
going to ask Malaysia for a treaty because I am not going to
ask for the impossi~ le. I know a great deal about the Malaysian
policy. I know the views of the Tunkn and I know that it is
just not on, and to say we are prepared to make a treaty when
you can't get one is, I think, misleading. So that our
positions are not identical. Mr. Calwell in the House said,
" The condition of our going to the help of Malaysia is a
treaty." That's a very different matter.
MR. CROLL I thought that Mr. Calwell in the House, Sir, said
that he would go to the help of Malaysia in an emergency
They thought it was a very important thing, However, the~ y had
amended their election platform as it
SIR ROBERT He said this to you last week. He didn't say it
in the House. .11+
MR* CROLL I was merely thinking of my reading through of his
remarks in the House on that date.
SIR ROBERT I read them through with loving cadre to find out
whether he had ever said that. No.
MR. CROLL Sire passing on to the Naval Communications Base.
Mr. Caiwell said that the Labour Government wants joint
control. Now, would you say this is unfair?
SIR ROBERT I would say that this is wrong. First of all, the
United States of America would not have agreed to establish
this base at its own cost and it is a very very expensive
one, running into scores of millions. The United States would
nthave been prepared to do that if it had if it had been at
the price of joint control; that is to say, not consultationbecause
we have always agreed about that, but a joint control
in the sense that both parties would have to consult each
other before messages should be sent out in time of war.
For all I know, both parties should be able to have a censorship
of the kind of message sent out. Now this, of course,
is unworkable,
MR. CROLL And yet Mr, Calwell says that in his talks in
America, the Defence chiefs are quite willing to renegotiate
the treaty,
SIR ROBERT Well, I understood that he said that. I have no
evidence of it.
MR. CROLL You disbelieve his words, do you?
SIR ROB3ERT Well I do, quite frankly. You first of all, of
course, have to define " Defence chiefs". I've known people
who have had an earnest yarn with a serjeant-major dox-m the
street and who then can. give you the military view. We deal
with the American Administration.
MR. CROLL If the American Administration did grant joint
control, would you accept it?
SIR ROBERT Certainly,
MR. CROLL Then, you feel it would be better for us to have
joint control?
SIR ROBERT No, I do not.
MR. CROLL W-lell,
SIR ROBERT I do not. If they want it, wetll have it, but
what you have got to get into your mind is if that had been
the condition, we wouldn't have this state. Neither would
I offer joint control in their place. They are using this
as a signalling station. They are spending a vast mass of
money on it. They are the people who are the sheet anchor
of our defence in the event of a war, Why should they put
themselves at the mercy of a veto by an Australian Government?
MR. CRL-Why then, Sir, was not all this put in the agreement?
SIR ROBERT All what put in the agreement?
MR. CROLL That they want sole control, 015
SIR ROBERT But this is in the agreement.
MR. CROLL -~ Sole control?
SIR ROBERT Yes. The whole terms of' the agreement are quite
elaborate.
MR. CROLL The whole terms of' the agreement do they not say
that there is no necessity for sole control. In fact, do they
not say that.....
SIR ROBERT My dear boy, an agreement is not an argument. It
is a document, a legal document, and the agreement excludes
joint control, and there it is. If the Opposition comes in
and wants to renegotiate this contract, very well, it will.
MR. CROLL This is once again a case in which Mr. Calwell was
not telling the truth in a statement in the House?
SIR ROBERT Look I don't use language of' that kind, I am not
here to call anytody a liar, I am just stating what I know
because I deal at the administrative level, not with some
vague person described as a Defence authority or something
O moefn tt haatn d sober t.. n g Tihna tO piposs itthei ond. ifference between being in Govern-
MR. CROLL Your statement is at variance then with Mr, Calwell's?
SIR ROB3ERT Definitely.
MR. CROLL Passing on to defence, Sir and the new bombers
that have just been ordered, why is it that they took so long
when Mr. Osborne, your Air Minister in 1960, said that they
were of immediate importance then?
SIR ROB3ERT Well, could I answer that question by putting
this to you. There is a great argument going on at present
in some quarters that we should hove taken the TSR-2, whereas
we have in fact taken the TFX. If we had dealt with this
matter in 1960, it wouldn't have accelerated the result because
both the TSR-2 and the TFX are still on the drawing board and
0 have been for a considerable period of time, What would we
have got in 1960? You dontt go along and buy aircraft ( I
only wish you could) off the shelf good ones, up-to-date
ones,
MR. CROLL Sir, it has been said that the Canberra has been
obsolete since 194+ 9 Surely we could have got something that
was a little more up to date&
SIR ROBERT I can see you are a great reader of Mr. Calwell
or perhaps of Mr. Whitlam. Let me tell you and tell everybody
else that the Canberra couldn't have been obsolete in 191+ 9
because the Canberra prototype flew for the first time in 1951
and I was in England and they asked me to go out to Biggin Hill
and christen it " Canberra". That was the first Canberra
1951. Now I might think that you are obsolete at the age
of one, but I wouldn't have thought you were obsolete at the
age of minus two or three years.
MR. CROLL Sir, might I make an amendment to that. Firstly,
I have been reading Mr. Colwell because this is a reply to
what Mr. Colwell said last week and secondly that was my
mistake because 194+ 9 should have read 1959 and Mr, Osborne
made his remarks in 1960. e / 6
6-
SIR ROBERT Oh but you share the mistake because Mr. Caiwell
himself said tUat the Canberra was obsolete in 194+ 9, If the
position is that he made a trifling error of ten years, well
thatts a great weight off my mind,
MR. CROLL Sir, it doesn't make any difference to the fact
however, that three years have elapsed since it was decides.
that it should be of immediate importance and it is only weeks
before the election before something was done.
SIR ROBERT Wiell, I dontt agree with you that it is three
years since it was decided that it was of immediate importance.
A great discussion has been going on about this and expert
advice has changed from time to time. For a long period of
time we were told that Priority No. 1 should be the fighter
and we now, of course, find ourselves coming into possession
of the Mirage which is the best fighter, by common consent
in the world. Then we began some time ago to investigate Zhe
possibility of an ultimate replacement for the Canberra.
People talk about the Canberra as if it were obsolete. It
isn't. It is in a great deal of use in many countries of
the world but we said, " W4ell, now, we will consider whether
we can get a reconnaissance bomber which will be an effective
modern replacement, supersonic for the Canberra and we sent
a mission around the world monihs ago I announced it months
ago to make an evaluation, and as a matter of fact, I
brought with me this morning, by a piece of intelligent
anticipation*
MR. CROLL Sir I wonder if I might interrupt there because
the programme its nearly over.
SIR ROBERT ie-l l, I won't quote it.
MR. CROLL One fina), question and that is how much will the
new American bomber cost us?
SIR ROBERT The new American bomber will cost very very
considerably less than the TSR-2, on any modified terms
would have cost. The difference I am not at present allowed
to say the precise figure. I'll have to discuss with
Mr. Townliey when he comes back next week, but I can say
this, that the difference between the cost of the one and
the cost of the other so much favours the TFX with its much
bigger orders of course, that they give in America so
much favours It that no government could have accepted the
responsibility of spending the taidpayersl money except in
the purchase of the TFX.
MR. CROLL Thank you very much indeed, Sir Robert Menzies.