Fax from PRIME MINISTER
21 April 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON. JOHN HOWARD MP
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW
OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
E& OE
PRIME MINISTER:~
Well, good morning.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible) it's not looking very good for the Senate,... ( inaudible).., the handling of
the affairs, the government seems to be comning up with legal advice to stop it from
looking into Colston matter?
PRIM MINISTER:
No. JOURNALIST:
Why not?
PRIM MINISTER:
This Government has allowed this matter, in fact this Government has sent this matter
off to the police. We behaved differently from Gareth Evans~ and Kim Beazley 13
years ago who deliberately ignored the advice available to them from the bead of the
Attorney General's Department to send this matter off to the police. The only thing
that we are arguing with the Opposition about is whether a Senate Privileges
investigation should be allowed to occur while the police investigation is going on.
Now we have been told by Henry Burmester who is the Chief General Counsel that
such a course of action could prejudice the police investigation and I agree with what
Ffarxo ~ m2 1/ 04/ 971177: 22 6 PPgg1:
Fa oM21/ 04/ 97 17: 26 Pg: 2
Robert Hill said on radio this morning, let's get the police investigation out of the way
and if after that the Senate believes that there are matters which should be looked at by
the Senate, then let that occur. So it seems to me to be an open-shut case. What the
Labor Party is advocating is a course of action that might provide a technical let out at
the end of the day and I think that's stupid.
JOURNALIST: But the police investigation could take nine months or so, which leaves Senator
Colston still there..., still able to vote on federal legislation.
PRIE MINISTER:-
Well, I've made it clear that we won't accept his vote.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PRIM[ E MINISTER:
I'm not disputing the rights of the Senate. I am supporting the proper procedures and
we've been given legal advice by somebody who is the Governent's Chief General
Counsel and surely people who want this thing dealt with properly don't want a
situation to arise where somebody who might be charged, and I stress might be
charged, with an offence can argue that his case has been prejudiced by a Senate
investigation. That would be a very perverse result. It seems to me that you have the
right course of action, the best of all worlds if you let the police investigation proceed
and when that's been disposed of, then if the Senate believes some other matter should
be looked at, then the Senate can look at it. Now that's the advice of the Chief
General Counsel. It's the advice of the director of Public Prosecutions. We are the
people who sent this to the police. Evans and Beazley refuised to send it to the police.
Evans and Beazley covered up. Evans and Beazley ignored the advice of the head of
the Attorney Generals' Department. Evans and JBeazley decided that a little private
counselling to a young mistake maker, as they described it, was preferable to sending it
to the police. They are the last men on earth who can lecture us about proper handling
of this issue, the last men on Earth.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on Wik, you are meeting aboriginal leaders later today, do you believe
you ( inaudible).., negotiated outcome?
PRDM MINISTER:
Well I hope so but I don't know yet. I have, as you know, invested an enormous
amount of time and effort into this issue. I want an outcome that respects Native Title
but delivers certainty to farmers.
Fax from
Faoxm 21/ 04/ 97 17: 26 Pg: 3
JOURNALIST: So are you any closer to that then?
PRIM MINISTER:
Well I2w ill be able to answer that probably more fuldsomely later on today after I've met
the leaders of the Aboriginal community again. There's a working group discussing
the issue at the moment. I meet them at 12 o'clock today and I am prepared to make
availale plenty of hours of my time this afternoon to try and reach a settlement and
the important thing is really to try and reach a settlement that delivers on those two
things. That is, we respect Native Title. I've said that all along but we must deliver
certainty to farmers. We must accept that they were told in 1993 that they had
certainty. They now find they don't have certainty and we have to have an outcome
that delivers on those two things.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible).., does the National Party decision announced ( inaudible)...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not conscious that the National Party has taken any separate decision. The
National Party doesn't take separate decisions on these things any more than the
Liberal Party does. I am putting forward a Government position and the Government
position I outlined to the Cabinet last week and the Cabinet gave general endorsement
to that position including the members of the National Party. There's no such thing as
a separate National Party position any more than there is a separate Liberal Party
position. But I know my National Party colleagues well. They are representing their
constituents with vigour and energy and I congratulate them for that and so are a lot of
rural liberals and they have good will, they want to respect Native Title, but they also
want security for their farmers and so do I, and I just repeat again, I'm not going to
allow that insecurity to continue and what I am trying to do very hard is to have a
compromise which delivers on those two key elements and what I've put forward does
that. What I've put forward does not involve blanket extinguishment, it doesn't. I
wouldn't be putting it forward if it did, because I know that that would be
unacceptable, but it does deliver security to farmers. So I believe the niodel that I am
seeking agreement to fulfils the proper goals of the two parties and I think it is a fair
proposal, it is a reasonable proposal and it is an honourable proposal which all
Australians I believe can support because it respects Native Title, it respects the Mabo
decision, it doesn't involve a blanket extinguishment of Native Title and I hope that the
Aboriginal leadership canl accept it because it is a very fair proposal.
JOURNALIST-. What was your reaction to the threats of trade sanctions?
Fax from
Fax from 210/ 7172 g
PRIME Look I'll let them go through to the wicket keeper at this stage?
JOURNALIST: Do you believe that was just public posturing
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't intend to comment. I mean, the important thing is to get a sensible
outcome, not sort of conduct a running exchange of rhetoric on the past to that
outcome. Nothing is achieved by some of the running loose rhetoric that has in a sense
come from both sides on this issue. I'm working hard to get a fair outcome for
Australia. I'm working hard to do the right thing by the Aborigines, but I'm also
working hard to give to the farmers of Australia the security they believe they had in
1993, the security they were told by some of their leadership they had, the security
they were told by Paul Keating they had, and the security they were told by the
preamble of the Native Title Act they had. One moire, two more questions.
JOURNALIST: The indigenous leader are saying you've got a 10 point plan.. inaudible
PRIME MINISTER:
We are meeting at twelve o'clock.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister just on the Colston matter, what would you say to Senator Colston
now, it7 s been at least two weeks since you asked the Senator to stand down
. inaudible. and he won't even speak to the Senate President?
PRIM MINISTER:
Well, my position is that he should stand down as Deputy President and if he hasn't
done so by the time the Senate meets, I have no doubt he'll be voted out of that
position. That's what I said the night I had my 9.00pm news conference announcing
that this matter was going off to the police, and my position hasn't changed. And this
is the last question.
JOURNALIST: When the Government won't accept Senator Colston's vote in .( inaudible)
21/ 04/ 97 17: 26 Pg: 4
Faoxm 21/ 04/ 97 17: 26 Pg: S
PRVM MINISTER:
Well that's a matter you'll have to pursue with him. Look we don't have any power to
expel him from the Senate. I can't make him go. That's a matter for the law and for
the people of Queensland. I mean do you really want a situation where the
government of the day can use its numbers to throw anybody they like out parliament.
JOURNALIST:
No but I'm asking....
PRIME AMSTER:
Well,. I've answered your question. The question of whether he comes or goes is a
matter for him, a matter for the law and a matter for the operation of the Constitution
and the attitude of the people. Now, it is people who elect members of parliament and
if in due time he is found to be ineligible well he will go then. I don't think it is for me
to say, to put myself in his shoes. You ought to go and ask him, you ought to get him
to have a news conference and ask him.
JOURNALIST: We have...
PRIM MINISTER:
Well, I know, do that. But I can't answer for him. That's a matter for him. I mean, I
have done all I can do. I've said we won't accept his vote, I unlike Beazley and Evans,
I sent this thing to the police, unlike Beazley and Evans who sat on it and ignored the
advice of Pat Brazil, the head of the Attorney-Generals department to send it to the
police. I haven't done that. At all times I have behaved properly and quickly and
speedily. The thing was going to be considered for dispatch to the police before Mrs
Smith made her statement. This crazy idea that until she made her second statement
we in some way were obstructing the thing going to the police is wrong. All we said
was that on legal advice again we should wait until the administrative services
department had got the whole thing together and then had a look at it as a whole to
decide whether it ought to go to the police. Now obviously the second statement by
Mrs Smith changed that but I have sent it to the police, I've behaved properly.
Heazley and Evans buried it. They buried it for thirteen years, they allowed their party
to re-endorse him, they got together with the Democrats to break a convention and
elect him as Deputy President in 1991 over the nominee of the Coalition parties and
now they've got the gall to lecture us about what we ought to be doing. I mean we
have done everything that could have been done, everything. We don't have power to
expel him. The only people who can expel him are the people, because the people
elected him. The Labor Party took the power of expulsion away in 1987, there's only
been one person to my recollection expelled from the Parliament by a vote of the
Parliament since federation and that was the Labor member for Kalgoorlie in 1920 and
he was expelled in circumstances that involved a very vicious sectarian fight at the
height of the anglo-Irish dispute over Irish home rule and so it was a very interesting
Fax from
saga, and it's only happened once. Now I think the Labor Party's track record on this
is grubby, it is hypocritical, they could have done something 13 years ago. When
Kevin Newman as a Fraser Government Minister got allegations, he wanted to send it
to the police and he was advised not to. Evans and Beazley were advised to send it to
the police and they decided not to. That's the difference.
Thank you.
Fax from 21/ 84/ 97 17: 26 Pg: 6