PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen, we've called this news conference to announce that the Party Room has approved recommendations to firstly amend the Marriage Act, to insert into the Act the commonly accepted definition of a marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation and should not over time potentially be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country and that is what we have decided to do.
We're also going to amend the legislation to ensure that same sex couples being, will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party.
Separately we will be legislating in the area of superannuation to introduce the concept of financial interdependency. Currently the payment of superannuation death benefits is limited to a spouse, including a de facto, a child and someone who is financially dependent on the deceased person. The tax implications of that are that where a superannuation death benefit is paid to a dependent as defined currently it is taxed concessionally, where it is paid to a non-dependent it is taxed at 30 per cent. The Government has decided to expand the definition of dependent for the purposes of paying superannuation death benefits to include a person in an interdependent relationship. And it'll be amended to define financial interdependency as follows: an interdependency relationship means a relationship between two persons that is publicly acknowledged by both and involves residing together, being closely interdependent and having a mutual commitment to financial and emotional support. The same provision will, by a separate expression in the legislation extended to embrace disabled children who are not residing with parents, there are cases where there is a close interdependency although they are not living under the same roof.
Under the proposal for example, two elderly sisters who reside together and are interdependent will be able to receive each others superannuation benefits tax free, the change we're announcing today will provide greater certainty for the payment of superannuation death benefits for those involved in interdependency relationships, including of course members of same sex relationships. The amendments to the definition of dependents will not alter the definition of a spouse, it will not specifically recognise same sex relationships. The purpose of these superannuation amendments is to recognise that irrespective of the social and legal character of a relationship, there does need to be a broadening of the category of people who can receive superannuation benefits without the tax penalties that currently apply to that broader category of people. I think it recognises a need to make a change. So far as the other measures are concerned the Government takes the view that not only is it a statement of its attitude towards marriage but it's also a necessary assertion by the Parliament of the country above all others to define what is regarded in our community as a marriage.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, (inaudible) be able to adopt within Australia, does that exclude...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well adoptions in this country are governed by state law, we don't approve of gay adoption, we don't agree with gay adoptions, we can't override the states but we have no constitutional power to deal with adoptions.
JOURNALIST:
Do all these measures have total support from your Party Room?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it was approved by the Party Room, there are some people who have different views on it but the overwhelmingly majority of people in the Party Room supported it.
JOURNALIST:
How soon do you expect the legislation...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the legislation's going to be introduced today I believe.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, why (inaudible) superannuation (inaudible) same time as (inaudible) heterosexual union.
PRIME MINISTER:
What was that last thing you said?
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
No it's to recognise that that is an issue that ought to be dealt with and it's an issue that's come up in discussions in the Senate in relation to the superannuation choice legislation. I mean this is an issue that frankly has been around for longer than the issue relating to inserting the common law understanding of a marriage into the Marriage Act.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, is this designed to wedge Labor or do you expect the Opposition to support...
PRIME MINISTER:
You are so cynical, you see everything in political terms don't you Steve?
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am just, I just think that's very distressing. A columnist of your standards.
JOURNALIST:
Does that mean there are no politics in this Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Dennis, I believe in this, I believe in both of these measures, they wouldn't be coming forward if I didn't personally believe very strongly in both of them. I think they are separate issues, the question of what you do with a superannuation is something that goes to questions of property rights and I think you can quite consistently and logically take the view that this legislation will on the social and legal character of marriage in our society but also recognise that if people do have a close interdependency, whether they're in a same sex relationship or they may be a independently supported child who's living at home with one of his elderly parents, that they ought to have the same superannuation rights as married people and dependent children and I think they, if you go through each of these measures, they're very logical.
JOURNALIST:
It must be a fairly recent belief though Prime Minister...
PRIME MINISTER:
What's that?
JOURNALIST:
About the interdependent relationships and superannuation because this issue was argued in the Senate in October between the Government, Labor...
PRIME MINISTER:
And that was purely on the basis of extending it to same sex relationships. But people can over time examine these things and in that broader context come to the view that I have, I mean I simply repeat that I wouldn't be supporting these if I didn't believe in it.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think it'll improve the chances of securing Senate passage for super choice and for the Budget super measures?
PRIME MINISTER:
For which?
JOURNALIST:
The Budget super measures.
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't have thought it would has any impact on that. It's certainly not, you're the first person that's put that idea into my head. These news conferences have greater value than I somewhat seem to think. Any other questions?
JOURNALIST:
The family tribunal, Prime Minister, the proposal for a family's tribunal, how's that coming along?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we are still discussing that issue. There is a range of views in the Government. The broad thrust of that report, I agree with and I am very much in favour in having a mechanism within the whole family law approach which removes as far as possible the combative legal environment, which is a feature of the current Family Law Act and its administration. If there are ways in which we can do that broadly along the lines recommended in the report through a tribunal or perhaps through another approach that picks up the best elements of the tribunal recommendation without some of the concerns that may arise, then we'd be keen to do that. But I can certainly say with confidence that a large number of the recommendations in that committee are strongly supported by the Government and the Attorney-General and I have been talking with our colleagues and I think we're making a lot of progress. It's quite a complex area this...
JOURNALIST:
Will you do something soon?
PRIME MINISTER:
... people feel very strongly about it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, it's now been revealed that the Australian Army knew about what was happening with Iraq prisoners, the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners earlier than has been conceded before by the Australian Government. What investigations have you made into this today and what can you tell us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Michelle, there's a report in the Sydney Morning Herald today and I have sought some advice on that report and until I've got that advice, I don't have anything to say on that report except to repeat that the first I knew of these allegations was in April and all the advice I've had today and I've no reason to believe otherwise as a result of today's report and it's not suggested except in one strange paragraph that implies that even if there was an earlier knowledge then in some way a denial of implication by Australia in the abuse reports might be inaccurate, I can simply say there's been absolutely no involvement by Australians in this behaviour.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given the Foreign Minister said that he knew about this, when was it, January the 16th, about...
PRIME MINISTER:
There was an public statement made by the Americans.
JOURNALIST:
Well, shouldn't you have known about it as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
What the public statement? Everybody knows about a public statement, but what I'm talking about were the allegations that were given obviously force by the photographs. I mean, I was... I have to say that that public statement that was made in January, I don't specifically recall that public statement. I may have been aware of it at the time, but I frankly don't recollect it.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I'm not going to start speculating, Michelle, about what was in that report until I've been advised as to whether the report is accurate or not.
JOURNALIST:
Amnesty and the Red Cross were both....
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon
JOURNALIST:
Amnesty and Red Cross were both talking about this as far back as July last year. Do you think that it should have been brought to your attention and if it wasn't, will you do something about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can only tell you what the situation is. But can I just make the other point - we were not involved. I mean, is somebody suggesting that Australians were involved in the abuse?
PRIME MINISTER:
They weren't. There's no evidence that Australians were involved in any way and there's an attempt being made through claims of general knowledge that there may have been abuses, that in some way Australians have been implicated. Now I just reject that.
JOURNALIST:
... act upon these concerns when you became aware of them? And, because it looks like either the Government or the ADF has simply sat on their knowledge of serious human rights abuses by Coalition in which we were a part. Isn't there some moral responsibility...?
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought we had discharged all of our moral responsibilities.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how will you convince the environmental movement towards the election that the Coalition is their best bet and you'll support the environment and is the reports of the $500 million towards renewable energy correct?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we already have a very strong environmental record and I can point to a whole range of things; I can point to the Natural Heritage Trust; I can point to our action on salinity; on Landcare; on ocean policy; a whole range of policies over the past eight and a half years. I will be making a major statement on energy and environmental issues next month and we'll be saying more about the environment in the months ahead. I've indicated over a long period of time our commitment to sensible environmental policies. We believe as a Government that care for the environment is utterly compatible with strong economic growth and investment and we do not believe that it is in Australia's interest to sign the Kyoto Protocol because we would be disadvantaging our industries if we do that. However, consistent with that sensible rejection of Kyoto in its present form, we can meet the target which was set for Australia and we continue... can continue to push ahead with other measures that are going to improve the, not only the environmental credentials of this country, but also the conditions in which people live.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Would the $500...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I'm not going to, Michelle, I'm not getting into details of that report. There will be a major statement made next month... could I just finish - there will be a major statement made next month on this issue and I'm not going to get into speculation about the detail of it. Now, two more questions, unless you want to remain here a bit longer in the...
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister...
PRIME MINISTER:
The environmental ambience of this is wonderful, you've got autumn leaves, you've got the sun. It's a pristine setting.
JOURNALIST:
The death of the former ATSIC chairman yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm sorry to learn of (first name omitted from transcript) death.... But I'm sorry, forgive me, but I've said it and I'm sorry to hear of Mr Djerrkura's death and I express my sympathy to his family. I liked him enormously and he tried very hard to help his people.
JOURNALIST:
... to abolish ATSIC today given the timing of it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't considered that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, does it concern you that nearly half of Australians believe you won't run... stay for a full term after the next election if you were to win and they don't like the alternative of Peter Costello?
PRIME MINISTER:
Mark, the thing that I would be concerned about would be more than half of the Australian people voted to stop me continuing as prime minister. That is the thing that would concern me. Mark, I'm not going to give a different response than I've previously given. The Australian people will decide my future, nobody else.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can you (inaudible) that all prisoners of war should have the full protection of the Geneva Convention?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, certainly that is the attitude the Australian Government takes in relation to prisoners of war who are in our control and care.
JOURNALIST:
Would we, if...
PRIME MINISTER:
We didn't have any prisoners in Iraq within our control and care. On all occasions when prisoners were in contact with Australian forces, they were actually in the custody and control in the legal sense of Americans and not of Australians. And the reason for that is that we didn't have a sufficiently large force structure in Iraq to maintain a capacity to keep prisoners of war.
JOURNALIST:
But do you have a personal view about how they should be treated?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think people should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, yes, if they are prisoners of war. I think there is a different canon, isn't there, in relation to unlawful combatants - thank you Attorney, it's good to have a lawyer beside you - I think if you... one more question. Thank you.
[ends]