E&OE...............................................
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to start by saying
one or two things about the decision of the House of Representatives
to reject the Native Title Amendment Bill as amended by the Senate.
The amendments made by the Senate were completely unacceptable to
the Government. In the end, the Senate did not compromise one iota
on the position it had taken in December of last year. It insisted
on the inclusion of the unacceptable right to negotiate on the unworkable,
even in the eyes of the former Labor Government, and of Father Frank
Brennan, a clause dealing with racial discrimination. It also insisted
on the inclusion of a clause relating to, or rather the exclusion
of a clause, relating to sunset and, of course, it also insisted upon
a registration test that was quite unacceptable to my Government.
The Bill we presented to the Australian community was a fair Bill.
It was a compromise on the legitimate expectations of many people
in the Australian community based on the promises made, and the statements
made by Mr Keating in 1993, that the grant of a valid pastoral lease
extinguished native title. And in those circumstances, the Government
did not believe that it would be fair on those sections of the Australian
community if it were to compromise further. The Government's
fundamental objection to the position taken by the Senate, is that
that position would give to one section of the Australian community
an advantage that is not enjoyed by other sections of the Australian
community. We want to treat all Australians equally. We do not believe
that one group of Australians should have privileges under the law
denied to other sections of the Australian community.
Can I say in relation to the often repeated claim that if the rejection
by the Senate of the Native Title Amendment Bill were to be one of
the pieces of legislation on which I might obtain a double-dissolution
in the future, that that would be a race election. I deny that, and
so far as my own party is concerned, it will not be a race election.
I will not seek to exploit issues of race. I will not seek to use
racist language. I will not seek to drag issues based on race into
an election campaign. It is the proper function of a democracy in
Australia that if the two houses of Parliament cannot agree then it
is open to the Government of the day to resolve that deadlock by first
having a double-dissolution and then presenting the legislation which
was the subject of the disagreement to a joint sitting of the Parliament
after that election. It was put there specifically to allow the people
of Australia to decide in the event that those provisions were invoked
if the two houses were in conflict. And I've always found it
quite extraordinary that in some way the Australian people cannot
be trusted to make a rational decision. It strikes me as a piece of
elite arrogance for people to say that the Australian people cannot
be trusted to make a calm, non-racial judgement on a difficult issue.
I believe that our Bill is fair. I believe it embodies the compromise
that Australian people regard is fair, that is our belief. It is not
based on race. It is based on a bona fide belief in fairness and treating
all Australians equally. And I do reject as elite arrogance, the view
that in some way the Australian people can't be trusted to make
a calm, rational, dispassionate judgement. I believe they can because
I believe the Australian people are overwhelmingly decent, they are
overwhelmingly non-racist and they have overwhelming goodwill to the
indigenous people of Australia. I want to make it very clear that
whatever may be the circumstances of the next election, issues of
race from the Liberal Party will not be allowed to intrude.
May I say just one or two things before I take your questions on the
very important issue of waterfront reform. Reform of the waterfront
is vital for jobs. It is vital for investment. It is vital for the
export industries of Australia. The purpose of waterfront reform is
not some kind of ideological anti-union push, vendetta or crusade.
It has never been the objective of my Government to destroy a particular
union or to destroy unions in general. Unions are a legitimate part
of the fabric of the Australian community but it has always been the
objective of my Government to have a more efficient and a more competitive
waterfront. It has always been our belief that if we could have a
more competitive and a more efficient waterfront, we would create
more jobs, we would boost our exports and we would encourage further
investment. And we believe that the practices of the MUA, year in
and year out over a very long period of time, have hindered that goal
and prevented the obtaining of a more efficient and a more productive
Australian waterfront.
We have always said that we would reform industrial relations generally
and that specifically, we would endeavour to change the law to allow
reforms to be obtained on the Australian waterfront. And I want the
events of the past few days to be seen against the background of that
long commitment. It is not some kind of latter day knee jerk reaction
to a particular set of circumstances. It represents an element of
our longstanding commitment to a more efficient waterfront because
we believe Australia will benefit, and the national economic interest
of Australia via more jobs, more exports and more investment will
benefit from the more efficient waterfront.
It must be remembered that the Maritime Union of Australia set out
to destroy Patricks. The Maritime Union of Australia behaved in an
irresponsible, uncooperative, belligerent way to Patricks, and indeed,
over the years that has been a fair description of its behaviour.
The leadership of the Maritime Union of Australia has been out of
step with the interests of the members of that union. The unionists
have not been well served by the behaviour of their leaders.
I believe that the national economic interest of this country requires
a more productive waterfront. It requires the sort of reforms that
have been achieved in other countries, and I say to the rank and file
of the trade union movement throughout Australia, our quarrel is not
with you, our quarrel is not with unionisms, our quarrel is not with
unionists, our quarrel is with unproductive, anti-competitive work
practices which have hindered the creation of jobs in Australia, have
deterred investment and have damaged the export performance of our
nation. And it was the elimination of those practices and the alteration
of the industrial climate in which those practices are allowed to
occur, that has been the objective of my Government since it has been
elected more than two years ago, and in relation to myself and my
Party, has been a single-minded industrial relations objective for
more than a decade.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, is the logic of what you were saying earlier to us
about a double-dissolution that you must call such an election before
the end of October?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can't have a double-dissolution unless the Parliament
is dissolved before the 29th of October. But let me say immediately
that I am not going to speculate about when, or if, such advice might
be tendered to the Governor General. I simply make the obvious legal
point that if I were minded to advise a double-dissolution, then I
would have to advise it in sufficient time for the dissolution to
be granted by the 29th of October. The timing of the election after
the granting of the double-dissolution would, of course, be a matter
for the Government but if there is to be a double-dissolution, and
I make no comment about that, other than to acknowledge, of course,
that a number of triggers now exist for such an outcome. If there
is to be a double-dissolution then the Parliament itself must be dissolved
by not later than the 29th of October this year.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, if I may, two of your predecessors, and I'm thinking
of Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke here, had double-dissolutions but
didn't follow them with a joint sitting. Following on what you
said earlier, if you want to have Wik resolved in the way in which
you do, that is really your only option isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it would be a strange circumstance to have a double dissolution
inter alia on the basis of the rejection of the native title legislation,
win that double dissolution and then not have a joint sitting. I can't
imagine myself doing that.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]...placed on giving certainty to the stakeholders, how
can you justify possibly delaying it twelve months before the people
decide?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can't. If there's to be a double dissolution I've
got to tender advice to His Excellency well before the 29th of October.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that is not my fault. I mean, we could have had the certainty
last night, we could have had it this morning, if the Senate had passed
the legislation.
JOURNALIST:
Is a double dissolution election your only option now, Mr Howard,
or is possible you could have a bill that just covered the contentious
issues brought in after a half Senate election.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is the only one, according to my advice, yes.
JOURNALIST:
If you go to the polls [inaudible] if you use Wik as one of the double
dissolution triggers, will you guarantee Australians that hold free-hold
title, that their backyards are safe?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I will guarantee the Australian community the proper legal consequences
of the legislation that we're putting forward.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you said that the Maritime Union had served its members
badly...
PRIME MINISTER:
The leadership of the Maritime Union, yes.
JOURNALIST:
And that the Government wasn't anti-unionist as such. But do
you concede that some of the people who have lost their jobs will
be innocents in this, that not all those people are, in your terms,
guilty of the work practices that are undesirable and so on, some
are victims of the union leadership?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I'm saying, Michelle, is that the ordinary members of the
union have been badly let down by their leadership. That's what
I'm saying and...
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you asked me the question and I'll answer in the way I
think fit. The situation is that the ordinary members have been badly
let down by their leadership. It is an inevitable consequence of a
bargaining monopoly that has been held, enjoyed, exercised and ruthlessly
used by the wharfies, the Maritime Union of Australia, over a long
period of time.
And what has changed is that in March of 1996 a government was elected
with a mandate to break that monopoly. And it has always been my argument
- and you can look back over speeches and comments I've made
over a period of 10 or 15 years - that one of the maladies of Australia's
industrial relations system was the bargaining monopoly held by registered
unions. And our objection is not with unions. It has never been with
unions. Our objection has been to the fact that under the old law
unions had privileged positions, monopoly bargaining positions, which
they often used in a way that ill-served the interests of their members.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, could I just clarify - you mentioned about splitting the
Wik legislation. Does that mean to get the Wik legislation, to get
it through and to get it resolved, you're locked into a double
dissolution plan or you're still holding open the option of a
regular election with a half Senate election?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what I'm saying is this, that I'm not speculating about
when and in what form the next election will be. However, I acknowledge
that there are three double dissolution triggers available and I'm
simply not going to say any more than that. And, quite plainly, when
one thinks about the next election you've got to remember that
we have a couple of significant events which are yet to occur. We
have a Federal budget on the 12th of May and we have the unveiling
of the Government's plans for taxation reform, which I've
indicated will take place before the next election. So there's
quite a lot of policy water to flow under the political bridge before
the next election takes place. But, look, I am simply not going to
be drawn, no matter how you phrase the question or how you put it,
I'm simply not going to be drawn as to speculation on the form
of the election or when it might occur, except to acknowledge that
if it is to be a double I've got to meet the 29th of October
and if I am to get the Wik legislation through, given the obdurate
attitude that the Senate has taken, then I have no alternative other
than to give certain advice.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, are you giving undertakings that we will see your
tax plan before the election is called or during the election campaign?
PRIME MINISTER:
I repeat the undertaking I made in August of last year which, to the
best of my conscientious recollection and belief, without having refreshed
my memory on it before coming to this press conference, was that we
would unveil it in sufficient time to allow the electorate to make
a proper judgement on it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, the general belief is that your position in the Senate
is likely to be much worse under a double dissolution election. Obviously
you've taken this into account. Do you believe that will be the
case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is a possibility that it could be. But whether it will
be will depend on the voters. And I naturally don't concede anything.
We have now, what, five times six, one times five and two times one,
as far as the representation from the various jurisdictions is concerned.
Now, it depends on what happens. It will depend upon the mood in the
electorate, it will depend upon the attitude of voters and it will
depend upon the behaviour of different parties, particularly the smaller
parties. But, at the end of the day, you are elected to do things
and to govern and to implement commitments you've made. We made
a commitment to make the Native Title Act more workable. It
is plainly unworkable. It was plainly necessary to respond to the
High Court decision in Wik. We've done that. The Senate has rejected
it. So if the issue is to be resolved then it may be necessary to
have a double dissolution. But I have not made any decision on that
and I won't be speculating about, if and when, beyond what I've
already said.
JOURNALIST:
What happens in the Senate, Mr Howard, will also depend on what the
Liberal Party does about One Nation preferences. Are you any closer
to finding out a position on that, given what you've said about
race elections today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what I've said about race elections today is quite unrelated
to the question of distribution of preferences. I mean, the question...
JOURNALIST:
No it's not.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it is - quite unrelated. The issue of whether or not something
is fought on the basis of race depends upon the attitude taken, the
words uttered and the use made of political differences in relation
to race. And, look, the answer to that question is that it will be
determined, as I said a year ago, probably 15 months ago, it will
be determined by the State organisations of the Party closer to the
election, which has long been the practice.
JOURNALIST:
How close did you come to a compromise with Senator Harradine or do
you think, in retrospect, it was never on?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we were always ready to embrace a different way of achieving
the objectives we wanted, particularly in the four critical areas.
I had a number of discussions with Senator Harradine. And it must
be said that, in the final analysis, he wasn't in a very compromising
mood. Because at one stage we actually had what we wanted in relation
to the sunset clause and we also had what we wanted in relation to
the registration test. And, I guess, for a few fleeting hours it may
have appeared that there was a willingness on his part to change and
so forth. But in the final analysis we ended up actually having a
marginally less acceptable bill the second time around than we did
the first time around. Because a number of the less than high profile
amendments, that were inserted by the Senate, have actually made it
a little bit worse than what it was in December of last year.
So, I guess I have to say that, despite the amiability and the cordiality
of the discussions that took place between myself and Senator Harradine,
perhaps it was never on. But I'm not seeking to make any personal
reflection on Senator Harradine in relation to that. If you want to
know what his state of mind was on it, I think you should ask him.
I won't seek to speak for him.
I was always ready to have a look at a proposal that would have achieved
the objectives we wanted in a different way. I was never prepared
to surrender, in relation to those four principles, because they went
to the very essence of what we wanted to do.
I have to say again that what the farmers of Australia wanted was
to implement what Paul Keating said to be the position in 1993. And
that is, the grant of a valid pastoral lease totally extinguished
native title. And it was always a disappointment to the farming community
of Australia that the Government was unwilling to do that. But we
didn't believe that was right, for the reasons that I have outlined
at great length in the past. And that is why, I think, what we put
forward was a compromise and to compromise on a compromise was quite
unreasonable. And I, of course, regret that the Senate has chosen
to deny the certainty that I believe the community wants on this issue
but it's made that judgement. And, either through a double dissolution
or an ordinary election, it will be for the people of Australia, as
it should be the case in a democracy, to resolve this matter. And
I say again that there is a form of specialist arrogance that says
that the people of Australia are incapable of handling a sensitive,
decision-making process.
JOURNALIST:
There's a difference between being disappointed with a law or
a High Court decision and upholding it. There are many people who
say that you're simply abrogating what the High Court did in
the Wik decision.
PRIME MINISTER:
We are doing what governments for time immemorial have done and that
is that if the law, as declared by the courts is, in the view of the
government, in need of change then we seek to change it. Your question,
with respect, proceeds upon a complete misunderstanding of the respective
roles of the courts and the parliament in our system of government.
It is the role of the courts to declare the common law, interpret
the statutes of parliament. It is always within the power of the parliament
- and that's what it exists to do - to alter the law providing
it follows the proper constitutional processes. And that is exactly
what we've endeavoured to do. I mean, the proposition that the
Parliament of Australia has never altered the law, as declared by
the High Court of Australia, is absurd. They've been doing it
for 98 years, from the very early days of Federation.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, given that the Wik issue is about the respective rights
of indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians, how can
you avoid an election, fought partly on Wik, becoming a race-based
election?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it can be avoided if it is conducted in a proper fashion by
the principle participants.
JOURNALIST:
On the waterfront, Mr Howard, was there any alternative to the way
that the company [inaudible] acted this way to achieve your goals?
And, secondly, is there scope for the Government to support the company
in the legal battle it now faces?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, what the company does, ultimately, is a matter for the
company. I mean, the Government is not the agent of the company and
the company is not the agent of the Government. I don't answer
for what the company has done. We changed the law and the company