Good morning. Well ladies and gentlemen, the ALP Conference has
done nothing to address the huge policy vacuum that is now represented
by the Labor Party. Rather than be a serious political conference
it has become something like an episode from a soap opera. It is
Cheryl Kernot's conference rather than the Labor Party's
conference.
The conference has not developed any new policies. It is the role
of an Opposition to develop policy alternatives. The Labor Party
has nothing to say to the mainstream of Australia about their economic
future. The Labor Party offered no apology to the Australian people
for leaving the new Government with a deficit of $10.5 billion.
The Labor Party offered no alternative to the approach the Government
is taking, other than that of mindless opposition and commitments
to reverse sensible policies.
They have had nothing to say at the Conference about their plans
for taxation. They have had nothing to say about sensible industrial
relations, only to turn the clock back to the 1950s. They have had
nothing to say about globalisation. They have failed to realise
that in the modern world the process of reform must go on. And it
is a naive policy vacuum which suggests that in the world in which
we live we can turn our back on necessary economic reform. What
the Labor Party has sought to do is substitute serious policy making
with a lot of froth and bubble. And in the process there has been
more focus on a person who is not even a Member of Parliament, than
on the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. And that plainly wasn't
in the script and that demonstrates the folly of political parties
who imagine that they can get through without confronting serious
policy issues.
The Australian public now knows that there is no alternative on
offer to that of the present Government, that the Labor Party does
not have an alternative approach for governing Australia, and instead
of producing at this conference a road map for how Labor would like
to take the Australian nation into the 21st Century we have been
left with an empty Conference of froth and bubble.
And we have also seen the Leader of the Opposition be the ultimate
in political weather-vanes with his approach to the question of
an Australian republic. He has put his finger up in the air, he
has read an opinion poll that says that 75 per cent of Australians
want to vote for the President if there is a President, and he said
let us go for that. Now that kind of unprincipled bobbing and weaving
is not leadership. That sort of unprincipled poll pursuit does not
demonstrate that he represents a clear alternative to the present
Government.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, are you worried about a potential earthquake now
that Cheryl Kernot said there is a fault line ...[inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the person who should be concerned is Mr Beazley. I mean,
if you sort of measure the column inches she is a country mile in
front.
JOURNALIST:
What do you think of her ego, I guess you could call it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I will leave it to you to make judgements on that. Far
be it for me to presume to run a ruler over the personal performances
of all of my opponents. But I think as Senator Alston said yesterday,
there is a degree of preciousness in some of the responses. But
I don't want to dwell over much on that.
JOURNALIST:
Do you fear she poses a serious electoral threat
to the Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Less so after the last few days.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister. Mr Beazley has promised to get
all the sides in the Wik debate together and find a solution. What
is your response to his approach to that policy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Paul Keating did that in 1993 and in the process he betrayed the
farmers of Australia and in the process he produced the native title
mess which we are now endeavouring to clean up and he is trying
to frustrate. That is a remedy for further talk, further delay,
further cost, further litigation, endless putting off a difficult
decision.
The Australian people elected my Government to clean up the native
title mess.
We've put forward a fair and decent compromise. We ask the
Senate to pass that compromise. We have already recognised the concerns
of all stake holders in developing that compromise. We won't
be changing our position. It's up to the Parliament to do its
job and to pass the legislation.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, aren't your comments on policy details somewhat
hypocritical when the Coalition didn't really provide any details
at all until just before the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's completely wrong. I mean I spent quite a lot of the
time when I was in Opposition not only developing an alternative
policy framework for the Coalition but also in the process of developing
an alternative policy framework for the then Government.
We had a very well developed alternative in relation to issues
such as industrial relations, privatisation, fiscal consolidation,
significant differences in the area of health policy. If I remember
correctly the theme from the Labor Party in the lead up to the last
election was not that we were a policy free zone rather that we
were a dangerous alternative. I mean they can't have it both
ways. They can't say that you shouldn't elect them because
they are a dangerous alternative and then in the next breath say
they're a policy free zone.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you have accused the Labor Party of doing some
of the things you have been accused of, lack of vision, turning
the clock back to the fifties, reacting to opinion polls. Is this
becoming a tit-for-tat in which you're trying to use their
arguments against them?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am just dealing with reality. Everybody knows that the overwhelming
bulk of people in the Labor Party do not support an elected Presidency
and what Kim Beazley has simply done is to pick up the papers, look
at the polls and say ‘well, I will go for an elected President
because that might be more popular'. On that particular issue
he's the person who's being overwhelmingly poll driven.
I just deal with issues.
My position in relation to Australia's Constitution is well
known it is not dictated by polls it is dictated by my belief that
the present system has served this country well. I understand that
many Australians are uncomfortable with the symbolism of the present
system and I believe that if we are to change we should not change
to a system that has an elected President because that will fundamentally
alter the nature of our current system.
Now Mr Beazley knows that, Mr Keating knows that, many people in
the Labor Party know that but in order to get a vote and to court
popularity he's put his finger up, sniffed the breeze and decided
to go for an elected Presidency. And I think that is being a weather-vane,
that is being a poll driven politician, that is displaying weak
leadership and it is not demonstrating the sort of commitment to
the principle that he really believes in.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, would you campaign in a referendum or plebiscite against
an elected President?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Michelle let's have the Convention and then let's
have all those questions.
JOURNALIST:
Just turning to the Asian crisis, when the Treasurer released the
mid-year budget review he said it was the greatest financial melt-down
of our life time. Government has since received assessments from
its experts in the bureaucracy, yet when we ask you about it you
just say everything is all right, we have got the fundamentals right
and we have closed Beazley's black-hole.
PRIME MINISTER:
There is nothing inconsistent.
JOURNALIST:
Will you release some of those assessments so Australian businesses,
Australian exporters can get a better idea of what is actually happening?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this Government has released more material on the state of
the books and the state of the economy than any previous Government.
There is nothing inconsistent with describing what has occurred
in Asia as a major melt-down and at the same time saying that the
domestic fundamentals of the Australian economy are so strong that
we are able to provide strong protection against the impact of that
melt-down.
You have got to remember that the greatest contributor to economic
activity and economic behaviour in Australia is still the strength
of the domestic economy. You have also got to bear in mind that
some of the countries that have experienced the biggest downturns
in Asia are not countries to which we export a great deal - although
in some cases they are - and it is just a question of preserving
a sensible response and to recognise that when you do have an economic
down-turn in other parts of the world that if your domestic economic
fundamentals are strong and you are not vulnerable then the flow
on effects will be a lot less. Equally, if they were weaker and
more vulnerable the flow on effects would be much greater.
JOURNALIST:
You criticised Labor for not releasing a tax policy, when are we
going to see your tax policy and will we see it well before the
next election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
How much before the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
In what? Number of weeks, days, months?
JOURNALIST:
Weeks, days, yes what ever amount you would like.
PRIME MINISTER:
It will be released as promised before the election so that the
Australian people will have an opportunity of knowing what kind
of tax system will take them into the 21st century under a Coalition
Government.
JOURNALIST:
Will you give some details at the Liberal Council?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh Michelle, I am not going to start telling you precisely when
or what is going to be in a speech. I have got a few very important
speeches coming up soon including one tomorrow in Melbourne about
the Constitution. I am not going to talk about tax tomorrow, Michelle.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard can I ask, Jocelyn Newman...
PRIME MINISTER:
Then I must go, I have got the Young Australian of the Year Award.
JOURNALIST:
Jocelyn Newman put out a release last night talking about the increased
number of fraud claims under social welfare. ACOSS have come back
saying there is an undue emphasis on those abusers, what is your
response to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I haven't read the ACOSS response. I am not going
to get into that. All I can say is that I think there is a genuine
public interest in preventing any kind of rorting of the system
no matter what end of the income scale it occ
no matter what end of the income scale it occurs.
[Ends]