PRIME MINISTER:
Very nostalgic to be back.
JOURNALIST:
What did you think of Costello's speech today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I didn't hear it but I knew what he was going to say.
I've known his views on this for some time.
JOURNALIST:
What did you think of his model?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what did we both think of Mr McGarvie's model? I made
my views clear on this to McGarvie's model yesterday. I said
that it was the least worst of the alternative options to the present
system.
JOURNALIST:
If it became the basis for the referendum question, would you as
Prime Minister support it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't deal in hypotheticals. I think if you read my speech
yesterday, which was a very carefully put together statement of
my strongly held beliefs, you have a full comprehensive statement
of where I stand on this issue. Unlike my opponent, Mr Beazley,
I haven't waved around in the shifting constitutional breezes
like some kind of confused weather vane. I've had a very strong
and consistent and resolute view on this issue. I believe in the
quality of our present system. I believe of the alternatives, none
of which I support against the present system, of course, but of
those, the McGarvie model is preferable to the other two.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, would you bind the Government or the Cabinet to
a yes or no case in a referendum?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I have made it very clear that we have a free or open vote.
I made that clear yesterday. We're not like the Labor Party
on these sorts of issues. It's free or open vote. I made that
clear yesterday.
JOURNALIST:
So in a referendum you might be going one direction and Mr Costello
another.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a free vote. I'm not conceding anything in relation
to individuals. I'm just making the point that it's a
free vote.
JOURNALIST:
Does it make it difficult, though, for you to go to a referendum
[inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
When you have a free vote - we've had free votes before, you
may not have been around as long as other people - we've had
free votes on quite a number of issues and these are the sorts of
issues where one ought to have free votes.
JOURNALIST:
Have other senior Ministers told you they favour a republic?
PRIME MINISTER:
When you have a free vote people can say what they want.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Beazley has called for you to go a few steps further like Mr
Costello...
PRIME MINISTER:
Why won't I do it, I mean, I thought your problem was that
I was poll driven. Now you want me to be poll driven. You characters
have got to make up your mind. I have a very, very simple view on
this and that is that you say what you believe. You don't bend
in the breeze, according to the latest opinion poll, like Mr Beazley
has. Now, Mr Beazley looked at the opinion polls and said: Gee,
there's 78 per cent in favour of a directly elected President.
I'd like to have a slice of that action. I really would'
So what do we do. We change. We go down to Hobart. We say: Well,
I sort of probably am in favour of two-thirds of it. Gee, if that's
not going to get up, I'll go right over to a directly elected
President.'
I mean, I've had a consistent view. I don't care who
knows it. The Australian people respect people who stand by what
they believe in. And the most important thing that I ought to say
is that I guarantee the Australian people a referendum.
I saw a curious article in the papers this morning saying that
it was odd for a person who opposed a change to support a referendum.
What I'm doing is supporting democracy and I'm supporting
democracy very strongly. And everybody wants a vote on this issue.
The monarchists want a vote, the republicans want a vote and I'm
going to give them a vote. And as far as I'm concerned that
is what the Australian people want and from me they are guaranteed
to get it. And what's more, they will always get from me an
honest statement of my position on this issue, unlike the weather
vane in Western Australia who leads the Labor Party at the present
time.
JOURNALIST:
What chance would any republic question have of getting up if the
Prime Minister of the day...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I am not going to start dealing - I'm not going to give
you a political science lecture on the steps of Old Parliament House.
We are dealing with a very interesting convention. I think it's
going very well. It's a very good exercise in shared participation
in the democratic process of this country. And there's a spirit
of cooperation and common purpose working for the good of Australia
abroad and I think that's terrific. I think it's a great
idea this convention.
JOURNALIST:
You said it it's to happen it should be a unifying event for
Australia.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it's been very unifying over the past few weeks.
JOURNALIST:
Could it happen with you are opposing it?
PRIME MINISTER:
You really are remarkable, Michael. You're quite remarkable.
I meant not taking notice of the polls, but when you don't
agree with me not taking any notice of the polls I've then
got to take notice of them.
JOURNALIST:
If you agree there is disquiet in the Monarchy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I made my speech on the substance of the issue. Don't
ask me that in a doorstop.
JOURNALIST:
If there is quite a serious split at the end of the 10 days or
approaching the end of the 10 days, would you intervene to try and
get some consensus?
PRIME MINISTER:
Malcolm, I'm not going to telegraph my punches. I put my position
down yesterday on the substance. It couldn't have been clearer.
JOURNALIST:
But is that a function of your leadership role?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think I've displayed leadership on this issue. I haven't
bobbed around in the ocean like that weather vane of Western Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can you understand Mr Costello's view?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, he explained it to me in English.
Yes, he explained it to me in English.
[Ends]