PRIME MINISTER:
The reason I called this news conference this afternoon is to congratulate, on behalf of the entire Australian nation, Professor Barry Marshall and Doctor Robin Warren, on being jointly awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Their groundbreaking research in relation to gastritis and ulcers and the extraordinary relief that that research and the benefits of it has brought to potentially millions of people is a great achievement and the prize is richly deserved. It's a reminder of just how strong Australia is in medical science and medical research again, telling us how much this country punches above its weight when it comes to these matters and I will have an opportunity this evening at the presentation of the Prime Minister's Science Awards in the Great Hall to personally congratulate, I hope, Professor Marshall.
It's important to remind ourselves in the wake of two great football festivals that this country's renown in relation to medical science is as important to who we are and what we are and in the eyes of many even more important than our great sporting achievements. I want this country's medical scientists and scientists generally to be revered figures in our community because of the enormous contribution they make. And I'm very proud, as all Australians are, that we're once again in the lists of Nobel Prize Winners.
The last one was Peter Doherty back in 1996. Now it's just under ten years since we had a Nobel Prize. It's a pretty good performance for this country and Professor Marshall and Doctor Warren will join those very esteemed ranks of Doherty and Macfarlane-Burnett and many others who have contributed so much to the incredible reputation of this country in medical science. Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Is there anything particularly Australian in the manner of this Nobel Prize in the knocking down of sacred cows, as it were, that was involved in the discoveries that they...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll withhold the temptation of describing reactions and so forth but I think there is something about that. It certainly destroys a myth; the research destroys a myth rather. The research has been known for some time. The research destroyed a myth very widely held. It's almost part of the language isn't it to say that worry and stress is going to give you ulcers. So I'm pleased that any stress I may have encountered in my position has certainly not given me ulcers.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard what do you say to the idea of voluntary voting?
PRIME MINISTER:
Me personally? I have expressed support for it in the past. In fact in 1964 when I was a member of the New South Wales delegation to the Federal Council Meeting I was the only Member of the Delegation to vote in favour of it. I think there was a disapproving eyebrow at the time. But can I say, it's not on the Government's agenda.
JOURNALIST:
So now is not the time...
PRIME MINISTER:
It is not on the Government's agenda.
JOURNALIST:
And it will not be on the Government's agenda?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can never say something will never be on the Government's agenda, but we are not considering it. We will not be proposing it for the next election. I'm sure it will continue to be debated, but it is not on the Government's agenda.
JOURNALIST:
Why isn't it on the government's agenda Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because there are a lot of people in the Government who don't hold my view. I don't feel that strongly about it that I want to change it in the face of those views. And there are a lot of people in Australia who feel that there is a stability and cohesion about our system and part of that is the current voting system. I think the system of preferential voting that we have for the Lower House is a good system. I think the system of optional preferential voting introduced at a state level is a bad system and I don't see any compelling need on grounds of pragmatism and balance to alter the voting system that we have at the present time. It's always possible in this political life to have a view that if you were starting all over again you might do things differently, rather like the States and the Federation. You might organise the Government of the country a different way if you were starting all over again, but we're not. And we're dealing with a current situation and I don't, as I move around the country, I don't get people stopping me in the streets and saying you've got to get rid of compulsory voting. I don't get that at all. And there are a lot of Liberals who are strongly in favour of the present system and I think it's fair to say that the party organisation on both sides of politics are in favour of the present system.
JOURNALIST:
What about the question of closing the rolls as soon as the election is called? Do you think it's right to introduce a system whereby you actually reduce the number of people who are able to vote?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Jim that's an issue that might be the subject of a recommendation and it will be an issue that the Government will need to look at. It's easier for people newly coming on to the roll to get on the roll. You can provisionally enrol now can't you before you turn the age of 18? That used not to be the case some years ago. I couldn't provisionally enrol when I first wanted to vote. But that's something we'll have a look at. I don't want to say any more on it at this stage.
JOURNALIST:
Tell us, what's the logic behind that recommendation? What is the logic behind cutting off the roll?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know. I haven't seen the recommendations. Isn't the report coming out? The Smith Report? I haven't seen the Smith Report. You'll have to wait until I've seen it and then maybe if you want logic behind the recommendation you should talk to the people who have made the recommendation.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister is there a case there for increasingly the threshold for disclosing political donations?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I've been asked that before. I think there is a case for increasing both the threshold for non-disclosure of the source of the donation and also for increasing the amount of a contribution that is tax deductible. We haven't discussed the matter in any detail but I've said before that I favour increases in both areas.
JOURNALIST:
What is the case for that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
What is the case for that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there is a case for...the passage of time obviously changes in money values. The last time the disclosure figure was set was more than 10 years ago. And I think there's also an argument that in the nature of political contributions, relatively small amounts should be given with a degree an anonymity.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister overnight the government's travel advice relating to Bali has been updated to take account of what's been described as gossip and rumour and Seminyak, in the last couple of days you've suggested that it was, there was no, or the government and the AFP have suggested there was no either need or capability for governments to respond what is effectively, a rumour mill. What's changed that you've done that today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think what I have said Karen when asked about this issue, that it is inevitable when general warnings are being given about the danger of visiting a place that there will be rumours. That's what I've said. I don't know that I've said those other things. The travel advisories are the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and they take the advice of ASIO and other organisations and this travel advisory has been updated in the normal process and that is their job. And if there is further information well it will be further refined.
Let me just enter a plea to understand the dilemma that is faced by the people who write these advisories. On the one hand, if anything material is not taken account of and something happens, the Government is criticised. On the other hand, if an overly zealously cautious approach is adopted then we are criticised by doing damage to the tourist industry. We've got to try and strike the right balance and I believe that's happened.
JOURNALIST:
Would Australians travelling to Bali be safer if JI was made a proscribed organisation by the Indonesians?
PRIME MINISTER:
Australians travelling to Bali would only be safer if the capacity of people in Bali to carry out terrorist acts was reduced. Now the question of whether declaring JI illegal in Indonesia has that effect or not will depend on a whole lot of things over which the Australian Government does not have control. We have argued all along that there should be a proscription of that organisation but I've also said, and Mr Downer has said, that just declaring it illegal, given the shadowy nature of the organisation and the difficulty of knowing whether people belong to it or not does not, of itself, mean that it won't continue to carry out terrorist acts.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard will you be raising it with the Indonesian President?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Will you be raising it with the Indonesian authorities?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we will be raising it with the Indonesian Government and Mr Downer and I'll discuss the appropriate way to do that.
JOURNALIST:
When Abu Bakar Bashir says that Jihadists should consider embracing nuclear power if necessary as he has in recent weeks, how seriously do you take that? Do you think that's just sort of loose talk or is it a concern that Abu Bakar Bashir is actually talking about embracing nuclear bombs in some way?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my view is that there is no limit to the evil intent of terrorists.
JOURNALIST:
With all the speculation about JI, who's behind these bombings, do you have anything more you can give us today which points to who may have been behind this latest bombing?
PRIME MINISTER:
No there isn't. And before coming to this news conference I checked with the Federal Police and we don't at this stage have any hard information about people who have been apprehended. I have no direct evidence that it was somebody who was a member of or associated with or influenced by JI. What I do observe as I did immediately the incident happened that it had characteristics that were very similar to the way in which JI operates. Now that's been our position all along. It's the position of the AFP, although they can talk for themselves on operational matters and it's the position of the Indonesian authorities. Two more questions.
JOURNALIST:
What sort of message do you think it sends to ordinary Australian travellers when the travel advice is ignored by a senior Government Minister Tony Abbott?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, travel advisories are to inform people of information the Government has. It is not the role of the Government to decide for individuals the risks or otherwise they may take in the conduct of their lives. It is not the role of the Government to prevent people from travelling to places they want to travel to. It is the responsibility and the obligation of Governments to lay information in front of people, to make sure it is full information, it's factual information, and then allow individuals to make their decisions. This is a great dilemma because some people have gone to Bali and I noticed on your very programme yesterday, one of the people you were interviewing she said that, as I understood, what Sally Loane was saying and I fully sympathise with her sentiment. She was saying, in effect, I felt it was a way of demonstrating support and understanding for the people of Bali. Now that's a sentiment shared by many Australians and therefore I understand why people would do it. On the other hand, we have an obligation to point out to people that there is a danger. Now, adult, mature Australians have got to make their own minds up and so they should as to what they do.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister have you given any more consideration to the introduction of a national ID card?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not in the wake... Nothing has changed in relation to that. It is still under study, but it is not something that has been particularly accelerated by the events of the past few weeks.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not necessarily so Jim no.
JOURNALIST:
Family First has called for a 72 hour cooling off period...
PRIME MINISTER:
Who's this?
JOURNALIST:
Family First have suggested that Australia might institute a system where women who are seeking an abortion would be asked to have a 72 hour cooling off period. Is that an idea that you see any merit in?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not sure I understand what is involved in that. I would simply say in relation to that issue generally we're not proposing as a Government, any changes in relation to the law. I have previously expressed a view that you know, people are obviously entitled to debate the issue, but we're not proposing any changes in relation to the law. The law in any event is governed at a State level. But what I mean by changes of the law, I mean any changes in relation in the current funding of particular procedures. I think I may have previously said that I saw some merit in supporting organisations that provided advice for, and approaches and alternative to abortion. I see absolutely no reason why that shouldn't be supported. If it's proper that procedures that we're speaking of be funded under Medicare, it is surely not unreasonable if an alternative point of view wants to be put by organisations in an appropriate way that that shouldn't perhaps receive some recognition. But the Government doesn't have any plans to intervene and alter the current arrangements in relation to Medicare funding, but Senator Fielding is entitled to put his point of view. I'm not sure that I fully understand frankly, what is involved in that. It's not a matter he's discussed with me and he doesn't have to, but I'm not aware that I fully understand what's involved. I mean these things in the end ought to be matters between individuals and medical advisers. But I think all points of view should be respected including the point of view that is critical of current arrangements.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on media regulation, is the Government still proposing a wide review of the future of regulation...
PRIME MINISTER:
Senator Coonan is still in discussion. Last question.
JOURNALIST:
Just back to Bali. Next week, before the weekend's events there was going to be a ceremony to mark the 3rd anniversary of the 2002 bombings. Is that still going to go ahead?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, the ceremony as previously proposed will as I advise now, will go ahead. It will be a lower key ceremony than last year and obviously a lower key ceremony than 2003. And there will be an appropriate marking of the event here in Canberra because both Houses of Parliament will be sitting and we will have an appropriate event to mark the occasion. Thank you.
[ends]