E&OE.............
LAWS:
Prime Minister good morning and welcome.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John. Good to be on your program.
LAWS:
Thank you. That's nice of you. Has this whole debate helped shape the succession
of the Liberal Party leadership?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's not really had any impact on that. We're having a free vote. I decided
that 19 months ago at the Constitutional Convention. I announced there that
if there were a referendum then I would allow members of the parliamentary
Liberal Party a free vote. And we've stuck to that. And given that there's
a range of views in our party on this subject as there is in the community,
the differences have been handled with a great deal of stability. And all
that's happening is that the free vote ends at 6:00pm eastern daylight time
on Saturday when the polling booths close, and we go back to having a government
position on all of these things. That doesn't mean to say that inside the
forums of the government, around the Cabinet table, in the party room, people
won't continue to put their respective points of view. But you won't after
the weekend have one person saying well I think this is how we should handle
the constitution, and another person saying this is a different way that
I'd handle the constitution. All that's going to happen is that the government
will again be speaking on constitutional matters with one voice because
the free vote will have been over. And I think we will have been enhanced
and strengthened and dignified as a party as a consequence. It's a sign
of strength and self-assurance that a party can allow a free vote on something
like this. It's a sign of weakness and concern that you have to try and
railroad everybody into singing from the same hymn sheet.
LAWS:
Yeah. Well I think most people would agree with that. And you require unity
to have a government that can run the place properly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well exactly. I mean we allow a free vote on a few things. We allow a free
vote on what are traditionally called moral or conscious issues like euthanasia,
abortion and those sorts of things. And we did have quite a vigorous debate
on free lines in relation to the overturning of the Northern Territory euthanasia
law. Remember that, it was a couple of years ago. Now we allowed a free
vote on that. We emerged from that unscathed. Likewise I decided on this
issue that it was best to let people because it's an unusual issue, it doesn't
come along all that often, I thought the best thing to do was to allow people
a free vote. And that's been taken up.
LAWS:
Will it ever come along again?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know. All I can say is that I think if whatever the outcome,
I mean let's deal with the two scenarios, and I think it's, can I say, I
think it's going to be closer.
LAWS:
I think it's going to be closer than most people think.
PRIME MINISTER:
I do. I think, I mean I've learnt to expect the unexpected in politics,
and so has Jeff Kennett and a lot of us in the Liberal Party. I mean you've
just got to be realistic. And I think over the next few days the television
and radio advertising campaign by the yes side will be of avalanche proportions.
They have a lot more money I understand from private sources than does the
no campaign. I think on Saturday what people are forgetting is that the
Labor Party is campaigning nationally as a party for the yes vote and therefore
the Labor Party organisation will mobilise its members and the trade unionists
to work on the polling booths on Saturday. By contrast on the Coalition
side, although the National Party is by and large campaigning as a party
that is restricted to the rural areas of Australia, the Liberal Party of
course does not have an official position. And whereas I know that a lot
of individual members of the Liberal Party will be working for the no case
on polling booths and some for the yes case, which may I say is their right
if that is their view. And I make it very clear to members of the Liberal
Party that they are free on Saturday irrespective of the attitude of the
members in their own constituencies..
LAWS:
Until six o'clock.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well, I'm talking about the ordinary members of the party. Well.
LAWS:
But I think it's a very good idea.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I'm just saying to people that I think this thing is going to be a lot
closer. I do not believe that, you know, the inevitability which people
are starting to say out of the polls. The polls have been badly wrong in
the past. So, I think when you add all of those things up I think it is
going to be close. But I think if the yes vote wins then that will be it.
You won't, in my opinion, have another referendum for direct election of
the President. Interesting what Bob Carr said.
LAWS:
Yes, very.
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought Carr's intervention was fascinating and what Carr has done is
to undercut the Beazley play. The Beazley play is 'yes and more'. What Beazley's
saying is, vote yes on Saturday even if you are a direct electionist and
then I'll give you another vote.
LAWS:
Yeah, well Bob Carr's rejected that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he has. And Bob Carr, after all, has won a couple of elections and
he's the most powerful and the most successful Labor leader in Australia.
He is the politically successfully face of Labor.
LAWS:
Yeah, Prime Minister you wouldn't be saying these nice things about him
if he'd not said what he said about that.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm being realistic. I mean, he is.
LAWS:
You're being very political too and cleverly political because he did reject
it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he did. I mean, he said, no way. He said that he would rather stick
with the present system of constitutional monarchy than have a directly
elected presidency. Now, I don't believe in a directly elected presidency.
I mean, I am a conservative on this issue. I'm an undisguised conservative.
I've always said that. I've been utterly consistent. I don't feel we need
a change. I don't think Australians feel we need - well, they don't feel
passionately that we need a change and I don't know in the end what they're
going to do. But I thought Carr really undercut the Beazley play. And what
Carr was really - Carr was calling it as it is. If the yes vote wins on
Saturday there will be overwhelming opposition within both the Labor Party
and the Coalition to have another referendum for a directly elected presidency.
LAWS:
Rupert Murdoch's had a bit to say on the republic issue today. He thinks
that we'd suffer a loss of self respect if the no case wins. Would we?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I think this is the weakest argument of the lot, this sort of international
independence argument. I've just gone through, in relation to East Timor,
the most intense and comprehensive series of high level negotiations that
any Australian Prime Minister's been involved in since World War II. And
I didn't at any moment, for a nano-second, feel as though I was other than
the elected, democratically elected leader of a fully independent nation.
To suggest that there would have been a different outcome in relation to
East Timor if we'd been a republic, to suggest that our constitutional status
in any way influenced the receptivity of our point of view, either negatively
or positively, in any part of the world is patently absurd. That, incidentally,
is the view of Lee Kuan Yew, the elder Statesman of Asia, who made the observation
a few years ago, couldn't understand what all this debate was about. Look,
we'll decide our own constitutional forms. We don't seek the leave or permission
of any foreign country or any foreigner to decide our own constitutional
arrangements.
LAWS:
Okay, could I ask you this question that I ask everybody, republicans and
monarchists, how would the place be different if it became a republic, how
would our day-to-day lives be different?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, our day-to-day lives would not be altered. And to be fair to them
I don't think some of the more sensible republicans are saying that our
day-to-day lives are going to be altered. I think our constitution would
be less effective. I believe that a President in a republic would, in a
crisis, be more vulnerable than is the current Governor-General. Day-to-day,
no improvement, no change, however, the effectiveness of a constitution
is measured by how it copes in a crisis. Any old constitutional will do
when everything's going swimmingly, won't it? But it's when you put the
thing under stress and strain that you find out whether it works. Now, my
concern is that a President would be more vulnerable on balance under a
republic, the model we're being asked to support on Saturday, than would
the Governor-General under the present system. And there are flaws in this
model. I don't know whether you saw that excellent article by Mr Justice
Ken Handley, the Judge of the Court of Appeal in New South Wales in the
Financial Review yesterday. A very eloquent exposure of the possibility
of sort of litigation over cross dismissals with the Prime Minister, you
know, with the signed dismissal in his pocket. Now, I'm not suggesting and
nobody suggests that these things are going to happen everyday, of course
they don't, but what I am saying is that you measure a constitution by its
durability through crisis and strain and stress and we've had 100 years
to measure the current constitution and it worked.
The one time it was put under real stress was in 1975. And whatever may
now be retrospectively said by both Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser about
1975 what the late Governor-General then did was to remit the matter to
the Australian people. And within a few weeks the Australian people could
decide whether or not they agreed or disagreed with Mr Whitlam or Mr Fraser.
Now, that is the essence of a democracy and it worked on that occasion.
And, of course, the other irony about 1975 is that the republicans are supporting
a model which they say would still allow the future Australian president
to do what John Kerr did. So, I mean, I am lost as to quite what they are
getting at. I thought for some of the Labor republicans maintaining the
rage was the only thing that mattered in life yet they are now purporting
to carry forward into a new republican constitution the reserve powers of
the Crown, it's like having a monarchy without the monarch which is an interesting
proposition within itself. But that's for them to answer. I thought what
Sir John Kerr did in 1975 at least provided a democratic outcome. I mean,
if you look back on 1975 the last person who, in my view, should be criticised
is the late Governor-General. I think if people felt strongly about 1975
they should direct their criticism either against Mr Fraser or Mr Whitlam.
LAWS:
Just tell me briefly why you believe people should vote no on Saturday?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think they should vote no because we know the present system works, it's
very safe. I don't believe in changing something which has manifestly worked
and contributed to making this one of the most democratic societies in the
world. That's the main reason why I ask people to vote no. The second and
less important, but nonetheless important reason, is that I think the model
being proposed is flawed. I think there's too much power for arbitrary dismissal
in the hands of the Prime Minister. I also think that the nomination process
will result in less qualified people making themselves available to be president
than is now the case with the governor-generalship. See this public nomination
process will scare away a lot of eminent people.
LAWS:
Do you think a lot of people are confused, just generally confused about
the entire issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, people are confused but, you know, I am not.you know, I understand
that although I don't think people are as confused as some others would
allege. I think deep down there is a feeling in the community that well,
yeah but, I mean, why do we want to change something that works.
LAWS:
Yes, I think that's.but I think there is a lot of confusion nonetheless
and..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is confusion but that always happens. That's democracy. People
have a right to put their point of view. I mean, I have tried to put a measured,
conservative case on this. I have never been reluctant to nail my colours
to the mask on this issue but I said the people would have a vote and the
people are having a vote. But my main pitch is to people simply that look,
there are some things in this country that need changing and improving because
they don't work. But we do know that our Constitution works. We do know
that we are one of fewer than 10 nations that have been continuously democratic
through the 20th Century. Now, I am not saying all of that is
due to the arrangements we have for a head of state but they have made a
contribution, those arrangements, to the stability. And I just don't think
you should change something unless it's clearly demonstrated that it needs
changing.
LAWS:
Okay. Now, the Reserve Bank has just announced that expected quarter of
a point increase in interest rates so the official rate is up .25 of a per
cent. Not unexpected, but that's the first rise in five years, does that
mean it's some kind of blow to your economic policies or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I see it very much as a piece of fine-tuning by the Reserve Bank. The
bank, of course, has independent control of interest rates and monetary
policy. Bear in mind that we had a long succession of reductions in interest
rates at a time when the world economy was in significant recession or certainly
growth was very slow. The view is now apparently being taken by the Reserve
Bank similar to the view being taken by the federal reserve system in the
United States, the American Central Bank, that now that the world economy
is recovering there is a case for making monetary policy slightly less expansionary.
And it's a tiny adjustment and whilst as in the past I am not going to speculate
about the future path of interest rates it is a small adjustment. And I
refer you to the remarks made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank last week
when he spoke of the likelihood of less sharp adjustments in the future.
It's very much a pre-emptive adjustment to make a contribution to constraining
any inflationary pressures.
LAWS:
Look, it will add about $16 a month to the average mortgage so what's your
message to home owners?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the message is that we don't like any increase. On the other hand,
we don't like inflation picking up again and if this makes a contribution
to holding it back in the long run you'll be better off. And in any event,
mortgage interest rates are dramatically lower now by still more than $300
a month than what they were three and a half years ago.
LAWS:
Okay. Prime Minister, thank you very much for your time. It's going to be
interesting on Saturday to see what does come about and I am with you, I
think it's going to be a good deal closer than a lot of people think.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you John.
[ends]