PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen, the Commonwealth is naturally pleased at the decision of the High Court of Australia in the WorkChoices case. The decision of the court follows the advice that we received when we drafted the laws that they were constitutional and entirely valid. This removes the one potential cloud, I suppose, over the legislation and it means that Australia at long last, in 2006, has a national system of industrial relations laws for a national economy. It's commonsense, it's beneficial, these laws are not only fair and good for the Australian economy, but they recognise the reality of 2006, that we are a nation before we are a collection of states, whatever may have been this historical sequence. We are in every sense of the word a national economy and these laws reflect the need for a national industrial relations system.
We have seen one after the other the attacks on the legislation by the Labor Party and the unions fall to the ground. They said it would lead to mass sackings, it's lead to mass hirings, unemployment is at 4.6, at a 30 year low. They said there would be increased industrial disputes, there are now fewer industrial disputes recorded than at any time since statistics began to be collected. And they said that the purpose of this legislation was to drive down the living standards of Australian workers. Let me say to the workers of Australia, the Government I lead has been a better friend for you than the previous Labor Government. Let me say to the workers of Australia that we have been dedicated and we remain dedicated to low unemployment and higher real wages based on rising productivity and one of the fundamental reasons why we've brought in this legislation is to encourage greater workplace bargaining, in turn producing higher productivity which in turn is the foundation for higher wages.
So far from this Government being an enemy of higher wages, this Government supports higher wages provided they're based on higher productivity. And we have achieved the double of low unemployment and high real wages. Labor, when last in office, delivered falls in real wages and record unemployment.
May I take the opportunity of congratulating Kevin Andrews, my minister who has been the principal steward of the Government's efforts on this legislation. It's a change in the law that I've been personally committed to for most of my time in Federal Parliament, but it has fallen to Kevin Andrews, in a very skilful and professional way, to be the principal steward of the legislation through the Parliament and I thank Kevin very warmly for that. I also want to thank the Commonwealth legal team led by David Bennett QC, the Solicitor-General, for the skill that they bought to arguing this case before the High Court. This ends any residual doubt in the Australian community about the lawfulness, the constitutionally validity or the legal basis of this legislation. Let us now look forward and not look back, let us not embrace the regressive attitude of Mr Beazley who, like his attitude on the GST, is always looking to roll things back rather than to move things forward. Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you see this decision as independent vindication for the laws that you've put forward?
PRIME MINISTER:
Any what?
JOURNALIST:
Independent vindication.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, this was a judgement made by the highest court in the country, a final legal judgement, that these laws were constitutionally valid. In our system of government the courts decide the validity of things, they don't express views other than legal views and like every other citizen in the country I am bound by the decisions made by the courts. I naturally welcome the decision and I'm very pleased at the High Court's judgement, but it's the judgement of a very respected court which has the final say on these matters. I don't want to in any way use the High Court's judgement in the political context of the debate. The High Court deliberated on the constitutional status of the laws and it has by a margin of five to two dismissed all of the elements of the appeal brought by the state so that is the end of the matter. These laws are absolutely valid, absolutely constitutional and without any criticism on legal grounds.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard how would you rate the decision today by the High Court compared with past decisions by the court, say for instance in the case of the Tasmanian dams case, the engineers case or the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's certainly, it is certainly a very important decision. As somebody who struggled, sometimes not all that adequately, to understand constitutional law when I was at university and also to at least keep an eye on it since, it's a very important decision but I don't think it means that the Commonwealth can in future do anything it wants in a whole lot of areas, unrelated to the economy or trading and financial corporations. I have heard a bit of commentary this morning about if the decision, this is before the decision was announced, if the decision went as it did, this would mean that the Commonwealth had a capacity to take over a whole lot of other areas, seemed to me very far-fetched. We will not interpret this decision as being any kind of constitutional green light to legislate to the hilt. We have no desire to extend Commonwealth power, except in the national interest. I have no desire for takeover's sake to take over the role of the states. The only occasions when I support the use of the Commonwealth's power to extend its role and influence, where it is clearly for the benefit of all of the Australian people.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Justice Callinan wrote in his judgement that he feared that the states could be progressively reduced until they became nothing more than impotent debating societies, so he obviously does hold some of those fears. Could you respond to his....
PRIME MINISTER:
No I am not going to respond to His Honour any more than I am going to single out a comment made by the Chief Justice or anybody who wrote the majority judgement. That would be entirely inappropriate. I respect all of the judges of the High Court and it is simply not appropriate for me to get into a debate with a Justice of the High Court about the reasons that he or she might have given. The Court has ruled that these laws are valid. I, speaking on behalf of the Government, naturally welcome that decision and I make the observation that it is not the intention of the Government to interpret this decision as some kind of carte blanche for some massive further extension of Commonwealth power. What the Australian people want from its national government is national solutions where national solutions are for their benefit. Where they're not for their benefit they don't want them. Now it's clearly beneficial for this country to have a uniform industrial relations system because we are a single national economy and that's the reason why we legislated as we did and I am naturally very pleased that the validity of that legislation has been upheld by the High Court.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you're saying that it's ended the debate of the lawfulness.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
What influence though do think it may have on the public's regard towards these laws?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the public will naturally be, those of them who might have had any doubts, they'll be reassured that it was all totally legal and valid and constitutional. The political debate will go on, and that's understandable. We live in a democracy. The Labor Party will seek to turn the clock back. They will want to take us back to an outdated, old fashioned system. They will want to return it to a more centralised wage fixing system which is entirely unsuitable for a nation where the level of economic growth in one part of it is different from in other parts. And I can't think of a time in our recent economic history where it would be less appropriate to have a more centralised wage fixing system. If you want to cause problems, you foist on those sectors of the community that can't afford to pay them, the high wages that are now being paid in the mining sector. And that would be the consequence of a more centralised wage fixing system.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you mentioned the question of roll-back before if Labor were elected, this decision might open the door for a future Labor Government to do just that on a national scale, do you have a concern there?
PRIME MINISTER:
No parliament in our system can bind a future parliament. I've always accepted the view that if a government gets elected with a policy to do something, it's entitled to do it. Now I don't believe the Australian people, if the case is properly argued, which I certainly intend to do and continue to do, will see the virtue of going backwards, just as they rejected Mr Beazley going backwards on the GST. I believe they're going to reject him going backwards on industrial relations. But he can put his case, and he will, and he'll be supported by the unions. But let me appeal to the individual workers of Australia and remind them that their wages have gone up under us, their unemployment rates have gone down and their prosperity is more likely to be guaranteed by the government I lead than a government led by Mr Beazley.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you said yesterday there might be some further changes needed to WorkChoices, what sort of changes are you thinking of?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have any particular further changes in mind, but I'm stating the principle that we are ready to fine-tune the legislation if further need to do that arises. That's all I was saying yesterday but I don't have any particular things in mind. But something as big as this, there are bound to be things that crop up that need a bit of fine tuning.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard now that the validity of the laws has been set in stone, would you hope to see some of that estimated 15 to 20 per cent of the Australian workforce, that hasn't been taken in, to slowly come into the system?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would like over time that to occur. I mean that is really a matter for, in a sense, for the states. They may now contemplate the consequences of the decision and now that any doubt at all has been removed as to the constitutional reach of the legislation, the states may well give some thought to that. But I'm not, myself, raising, nor is Mr Andrews raising that issue today, but obviously the states might give some thought to how they now react now that it has been so emphatically ruled by the High Court that this legislation is valid.
JOURNALIST:
Is it fair to call it a national system without those one in five Australian workers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well obviously it would be a good thing if they came in, but I don't think there's any argument we do now have a truly national system.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard on state politics, do you support the proposal by Ted Baillieu in Victoria for a desalinisation plant supported by wind power?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know all the details of it, but I support all of his policies.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard I have a question on climate.
PRIME MINISTER:
You have a question on climate, yes?
JOURNALIST:
The French Prime Minister has....
PRIME MINISTER:
The French Prime Minister?
JOURNALIST:
...has suggested imposing a tax on all imports from countries that haven't signed the Kyoto Protocol.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a thoroughly silly proposal and is totally out of touch with reality and...but mind you he does come from a country that has often imposed high trade barriers against other countries like Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, yesterday the Reserve Bank told us that inflation was going to stay high through to next year, what are you going to be doing to prevent that level of discomfort at the Reserve Bank from increasing?
PRIME MINISTER:
On what?
JOURNALIST:
Well they expect inflation to remain high, what is the Government going to be doing to prevent any further increase in inflation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we've already done quite a lot of things and we'll certainly, amongst other things, be having a tight Budget, tight in the sense of maintaining a strong surplus, and I am very disappointed that at a time when the aggregate public sector borrowing requirement is important for the level of interest rates, I'm very disappointed that state governments are now running deficits. My advice is that, with the exception of Western Australia, when you include capital expenditure, every state government is now running a deficit. The Government that is profoundly in surplus is the Commonwealth Government and we're certainly going to keep it that way.
JOURNALIST:
On climate change, you seem to be keen to stress that you don't want to be seen telling other nations what to do in their own patch on this (inaudible), how are you going to avoid that though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I know this, that countries that strut around the world telling others how to behave, in different forms can be shown the door and there are ways in which we can enlist the support and the cooperation of other countries. We have a contribution to make, and the forum in Hanoi later this week is an excellent forum, because APEC includes five out of the six AP6 countries. It includes all of those countries except India. In my discussions with the Chinese President, the American President, the Japanese Prime Minister and others, I will certainly be talking about clean coal technology, certainly talk about the need to move on from Kyoto and talk about the need, if the world is ever to develop an emissions trading system, to develop a system that takes account of the legitimate interests of energy rich countries such as Australia and also the needs of countries such as China. We have to understand that China aspires to a living standard like Australia's and China will not lightly take to being told that she can't do certain things that the developed countries have been doing without let or hindrance for 50 years.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on climate, with your taskforce, when do you expect that to get underway and is there a deadline for some sort of result?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not setting any deadline. I would expect that it would get underway in the sense of establishing the personnel and some terms of reference within the next few weeks.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister is the mantle of the, I guess, of a greenie sitting well with you at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am a, as always, I am I a wholly pragmatic, Australian nationalist when it comes to these matters and it's in Australia's national interests to play a part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but in a way that doesn't damage our vital industries such as the coal industry and doesn't in any way diminish the great natural advantage that providence has given us in relation to fossil fuels.
JOURNALIST:
How would you react to a charge that you've been late to adopt this particular topic on this issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've had so many charges made against me over so many years I've lost count and I don't really reflect on how I might react.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you've said that the Government has no intention of expanding the Corporations Power into the areas of health and education and media or whatever....
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what I said was that we are not going to interpret this decision as some kind of green light to expand Commonwealth power just for the sake of expanding Commonwealth power, that's what I said, and I repeat it, that is our position.
JOURNALIST:
In that case, do you accept that there maybe a basis, a legal basis, for expanding the use of the Corporations Power into those areas?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not going to give a legal opinion.
[ends]