E&OE....................................................................................................
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to canvass a number of issues
this morning. The first is, of course, the quite outrageous behaviour
of the Senate in potentially destroying 50,000 Australian jobs by
knocking back the Government's regulation on unfair dismissals.
This is a completely irresponsible piece of behaviour by the Labor
Party, the Democrats and others in the Senate. This has been part
of our policy for a long time. It was voted on at the last election.
We'll introduce the legislation again to the Senate, which is
now in the House and it will go to the Senate in a few weeks time.
And we'll give them another opportunity to vote for jobs and
not against jobs.
And I give fair notice to the Australian Labor Party and the Australian
Democrats that every month that employment figures come out in this
country the Australian public will be reminded that but for their
behaviour the employment figures would potentially be 40,000 to 50,000
better. And the Labor Party will have another opportunity to show
what it thinks about preserving jobs, particularly for young Australians,
when it's asked to vote on the legislation to entrench the youth
wage within Australian awards. According, not to the Government but
to people in the retail industry, that involves 230,000 jobs for young
Australians.
Jobs is of overwhelming concern to the Australian community. It's
an ongoing mainstream issue and here you have the alternative government
of this country and the Australian Democrats voting to destroy Australian
jobs. And they won't be allowed by the Government to forget their
behaviour and they won't be allowed to forget the contribution
that they have made to the destruction of job opportunities for people
in small business. The evidence is overwhelming. It is independent
of government assessment. And we will not tire in our efforts to further
relieve small business of the burden and the deterrent impact of the
threat of unfair dismissal actions.
The other issue that I would like to briefly comment upon relates
to the referendum in November of this year. The Joint Party Room,
last night, approved in principle the Government's proposals
in relation to the holding of a referendum on whether or not Australia
should become a republic. The Party Room approved the model that came
out of the Constitutional Convention last year. The Party Room also
approved, overwhelmingly, the proposal I put to it on behalf of the
Government that there should be another question put to the Australian
people. And that related to the adoption into the Constitution, or
the incorporation into the Constitution, of a preamble which would
canvass a number of matters including an acknowledgement of the prior
occupancy of the land mass of Australia by the Aboriginal people and
some of the other matters that I have mentioned in the course of the
past few days.
There was a very strong sense of support within the Party Room and
a sense of occasion, a feeling that this was a good time for something
to be incorporated into the Australian Constitution about the history
of this country and some of the undeniable truths.
What I intend to do over the next few weeks is to settle the precise
form of that preamble. I will, of course, reserve the right to consult
others on the preparation of that not that I doubt my capacity
to pen the odd word but I will certainly not to be so presumptuous
as to pass up the opportunity of seeking the advice of other gifted
wordsmiths within the Australian community. And we'll then be
presenting the final polished form of it to the Party Room, along
with the bill that was outlined by Daryl Williams yesterday dealing
with the republican issue for a final tick from the Party Room. We
then, of course, will engage, in relation to the republican legislation,
a process of consultation with the Opposition and others in the community.
And I'll also seek the views of the Opposition on the preamble.
We do intend to go ahead with the preamble and there is a very strong
view in the Party Room that we should go ahead with it. I will be
campaigning actively for a yes' vote. There wouldn't,
I expect, be any Ministers who would be campaigning against the preamble
and, technically, it is a conscience vote because I gave an undertaking
at the Constitutional Convention that things relating to the republic
would be the subject of that. But I think it's fair of me to
say, and I think it's been pretty accurately reported in the
papers this morning, that you're really looking at a de facto
government position because there was really very little opposition
to the idea in the Party Room. And it is possible I'm
not making this prediction but it's possible there may
not be anybody who wants to vote against it when it comes before the
Parliament.
I should point out a couple of other things, that the republican legislation
is government policy, the republic is not government policy but the
holding of the referendum is government policy and, therefore, of
course, the legislation to put it before the people is government
legislation. But in order to allow for the official yes'
and no' cases it will be accepted and arranged and understood
that a number of government Members and Senators will vote against
the legislation in the Parliament, not because they're breaking
ranks with government policy to have the referendum but because that
is needed so that they can officially write the no' case.
And the identity of those people will be worked out in consultation
with the Deputy Prime Minister and myself. There are plenty of volunteers,
I can assure you, who want to vote no' because they're
not in favour of the republic. But I should point out, so as to forestall
any stories about people trying to stop the referendum being held,
that they won't be trying to stop the referendum being held,
it's just necessary, according to the law, if you're to
have an officially circulated no' case somebody must have
voted against it in the Parliament.
I also indicated yesterday that we would have some public funding
of television, radio, newspaper and other material during the intensive
stage of the campaign. Fifteen million dollars is being made available
- $7.5 million to the yes' case, $7.5 million to the no'
case. The respective cases for the expenditure of that, or the material
for the expenditure of that money, will be prepared by committees
nine people on each side, including what I might loosely call
the usual suspects. There will be a majority of non-parliamentarians
on each committee. There will be no Ministers on either committee
and there'll be no frontbenchers from the Labor Party on either
committee. We're in the process of contacting the people that
we have in mind. It's fair to say that Mr Turnbull will be on
one of the committees and Mrs Jones will be on another. There will
be, if he accepts, one direct election republican on the no'
committee because that compromises part of the case against the republic.
And there will, on the yes' committee, be somebody who
advocated the McGarvie model at the Constitutional Convention but
decided in the end, when that dropped out on the exhaustive voting
principle, to support the Australian Republican Movement's model.
We are, as I say, contacting the people and they are government nominees,
they're not people who have been nominated by the ACM or the
Australian Republican Movement. And when that's been completed
I'll be pleased to announce the names. They were all members
of the Constitutional Convention. And there will be, I think, three
politicians on the yes' committee and two politicians on
the no' committee. I think that's the most sensible
way of handling that issue.
There will be liaison between those two groups and the committees
officially writing the yes' and no' booklets
to be circulated to the households. And the material that they prepare
will be submitted to the Government for audit through the normal processes
but the Government won't be expressing the view as to the political
or campaign impact of any of the material. That will be entirely a
matter for the committees to determine.
In addition to that, we'll also be at an official and neutral
level circulating some material of an educative nature some months
before the referendum campaign, perhaps by means of newspaper supplements
and the like to provide a bit more information on the working of the
Australian Constitution so that people have a better idea of the background
against which the referendum is going to take place.
I should emphasise that the preamble question, the separate preamble
question, will be a republic neutral question so that, naturally,
it will be open to any Australian who wishes to vote no'
to the republic, to vote yes' to the preamble. And I should
make that absolutely clear.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how attracted are you to some of the other ideas that
were thrust up in the Party Room yesterday about the preamble specifically
acknowledging the contribution of migration and of cultural diversity
to the nation?
PRIME MINISTER:
I said, Jim, that I'd consider a number of those and I don't
want to respond more than that at the moment because it's very
much in the works. And I'd like the opportunity, having heard
those suggestions, to reflect on how a number of things might be expressed
but I certainly listened to what people had to say and it was an extremely
valuable positive discussion, but I don't want to be anymore
specific than that at this stage.
JOURNALIST:
Must under the law there be a no' case against the preamble,
and if so how do you get that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no. I'm advised that under the law there doesn't have
to be a no' case. There's only a no' case
under the law if people, as I understand it, vote against the measure
in the Parliament.
JOURNALIST:
And if they do does there then have to be [inaudible]? Say if Mr Katter
voted.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question. You
asked me a question about the law and that's the law.
JOURNALIST:
Your previous stance was that you weren't going to take an active
role on a day to day basis.
PRIME MINISTER:
In relation to the republic.
JOURNALIST:
Now that you're going to take an active role in relation to the
preamble, does that suggest that you may take a more active role in
relation to the republic? And if not, isn't that tacit activity
anyway?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry. What was that last bit?
JOURNALIST:
If you take an active role on one part of the referendum....
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but it's a completely separate question. Well, I'm
not going to spend every waking hour but, I mean, I want people to
understand that the preamble, when it is promulgated and put forward,
will have my total support as the head of the Government. And I tried
to explain as openly, as directly as I could earlier what I stance
is. I mean I'll be asking people to support that preamble. How
actively I do that, well I do have other responsibilities and I don't
want to spend the next nine months talking about these two issues
important though they are in the eyes of a lot of people. And I think
the preamble in particular is an important issue and obviously the
head of State issue is important too. I was making the point in the
context of the republican debate that I wasn't going to be talking
about the republic everyday, arguing the merits of the debate everyday.
But Tony, nobody should be in any doubt, I am not a republican and
the Australian people will be left in no doubt as to where I stand
on that issue. But I just don't intend to spend an enormous amount
of time on that, and nor indeed would I expect, particularly over
the next few months, my senior ministers to spend an enormous amount
of time on it. We do have important ongoing other responsibilities
to the Australian people and they would expect us to focus on those
issues not to the total exclusion of other issues but certainly to
the substantial exclusion of other issues.
JOURNALIST:
On the question of your legal advice regarding the preamble, is there
any threshold to the dissent in the Parliament that requires a no
case to be put? I mean does it only.....
PRIME MINISTER:
I'd have to check that. The advice I got yesterday was that if,
from the Attorney General, the advice I had was that if nobody votes
against it there's no case circulated. Beyond that I don't
have advice.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you say that on the preamble that you'd like
to take advice from other people about what it...the wording of
it but I do take it that at the end of the day you'd like the
preamble to have your seal, your stamp on it.
PRIME MINISTER:
At the end of the day it will be a preamble that I feel I can totally
support.
JOURNALIST:
With your words?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Jim, nobody has total ownership of the words of the English
language. But I'm obviously not going to put something forward
that I don't like but I'm not so conceited as to believe
that if it was something like this I couldn't benefit from the
elegance of the pens of other Australians.
JOURNALIST:
That's outside the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes, oh yes. Of course.
JOURNALIST:
What sort of people?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll let you speculate about that.
JOURNALIST:
Bob Ellis?
JOURNALIST:
How about Mr Beazley who has asked to be consulted in advance?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Mr Beazley, after the Government has decided what it would like
I will seek Mr Beazley's views.
JOURNALIST:
Is this before you unveil it publicly as [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Government will decide what it wants first and then we will
seek Mr Beazley's views. Mr Beazley a few weeks ago was against
this. Mr Beazley has flipped and flopped on this issue from start
to finish. But look, I'm perfectly happy once we have worked
out what we would like, to seek Mr Beazley's views on it before
it is presented to the Parliament.
JOURNALIST:
What sort of people are you inclined to go to for advice on this?
Academics, Lawyers, poets, writers.....
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to speculate about that. I'm simply making
it clear, Catherine, that I feel free to seek the advice of any Australian
on this.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can we get your reaction to the Kurdish demonstrations
around the world and in Sydney?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me say a couple of things about those. First of all that
the actual handling of the demonstrations in Sydney is a police matter
and I don't make a habit of commenting on operational police
matters. I think it's best for those to be handled by the police.
There has been discussion between the New South Wales Police and Commonwealth
security authorities overnight and I was given a briefing on those
discussions this morning. Let me say this that it's always part
of the Australian tradition that people have a perfect right to lawfully
express their view about a political issue that occurred anywhere
in the world. And all Australians have that right. But it must be
done in accordance with the law and anything that involves a breach
of the law, anything that involves violence, anything that involves
endangering lives or property, is something that will be condemned
not only by the Government but also by all of the Australian people.
JOURNALIST:
Are you confident that the Commonwealth security agencies such as
ASIO did an adequate job in informing the Greek Consulate that such
a threat was coming?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't comment on those sorts of things and you know that
Paul.
JOURNALIST:
Are you worried about some of Australia's tax positions forcing
Australian companies offshore?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the proposals that we have in mind in relation to taxation
reform and the machinery we've set up, particularly the Ralph
review, will determine whether there are proper grounds for those
concerns.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] capital gains tax?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've already said that capital gains tax is part of the
Ralph review. We need to ensure that it's not working in the
negative way that some people claim in which I mentioned on the program
at the weekend. I think we ought to wait and see what Ralph has to
say about that. I don't know that there's anything useful
that I can add to what I've already said. It's part of the
review, it needs to be looked at, but we don't want a situation
arising where people are running around saying we don't need
a capital gains tax. I mean we do need a properly working, properly
set capital gains tax as part of the taxation system. But it must
work, as I said at the weekend, in a way that doesn't act as
a disincentive.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] new furniture for your office?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the other furniture had been there for 11 years and was frankly,
in the eyes of people, even those who have been reported in the press
as condemning the decision that I took and casting aspersions on the
quality of that decision, even in their eyes the furniture needed
extensive replacement, refurbishment, or whatever. Indeed I'm
advised that the alternative that was being advocated by those who've
condemned my decision would have involved a cost of $24,864, plus
of course......
JOURNALIST:
Where do those figures come from?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
What's the basis of those figures?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm just telling you I'm advised by people who know
that that was the figure. And there's another figure $1500 for
consultancy. So not only was the alternative that I decided upon involving
Australian made material, it was also on those figures significantly
cheaper.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Jocelyn Newman attacked the Anglican Churches today.
Is that anyway to treat a supporter of the GST?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know that she's attacked the church. But can
I just say one thing about food and the GST, let me say something
catholic about what the Anglicans have said, and that is that I thought
at the end of last year, or before the election, his Grace, the Catholic
Archbishop of Melbourne, had something very sensible if I may say
so with respect and I do respect him, about taxation, he s