Subjects: Sex Discrimination Act- IVF and States’ right; Fij
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and Gentlemen, federal Cabinet at its meeting today has considered the implications of the decision of the Federal Court in McBain versus the state of Victoria. And we had before us some advice from both the Solicitor General and the Chief General Counsel to the effect that the interpretation of the law in the Judge’s decision was essentially correct. That any possibility of an appeal succeeding was quite remote and that in the view of both counsel and both advisers the Victorian legislation was in conflict with the federal Sex Discrimination Act and as a result was invalid under Section 109 of the Constitution.
It’s the view of the Government that the Sex Discrimination Act was never intended to deny states the right to legislate in the way that Victoria had legislated; that there is a proper and understandable debate in the community about these matters. This issue involves overwhelmingly, in the opinion of the Government, the right of children in our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the affection and care of both a mother and a father. And in those circumstances we believe states have the right to legislate to that effect and as a result we propose an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to make it plain that legislation similar to the legislation enacted by the state of Victoria would not be struck down by the Sex Discrimination Act.
This is an issue in our view which overwhelmingly goes to the rights of children in our society. And it is not, I repeat, our view that the Act was intended, and as somebody who was present when that legislation was debated and who in fact voted in favour of the Sex Discrimination Act back in 1984 along with a number of my colleagues who are still in the Cabinet, it was not our view that that legislation was intended to strike at matters such as this.
It’s the right of the states if they choose, two states Victoria and Western Australia have legislation to this effect, it would be open to other states if they wish to so legislate if our amendment were successful. We would propose an amendment to that effect. Any questions.
JOURNALIST:
Are you expressing your view…
PRIME MINISTER:
My view?
JOURNALIST:
… of the family?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I should tell you that there was an overwhelming view in the Cabinet to this effect - we believe that states should have the right to legislate. We have no constitutional power to legislate in relation to the provision of IVF programmes. The states do. It’s not appropriate in our view to use the Medicare funding device for something of this nature. We are merely proposing an amendment that will enable the state of Victoria’s legislation which was enacted some years ago in effect to continue. And also legislation in Western Australia.
JOURNALIST:
How much is this decision based on the states rights argument and how much is based on family values?
PRIME MINISTER:
It’s based on a number of things. It’s based on our view about the rights of children. It’s also based on our view that states should have the right to legislate to this effect. I mean these are matters that have always been within the province of states and it was not the intention as I understood it at the time of the federal sex discrimination legislation to strike it down.
JOURNALIST:
Is the Federal Government’s position on the mandatory sentencing [inaudible] on the rights of the children, in the Northern Territory for example ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think they are separate issues but there is some consistency in approach in relation to the rights of local jurisdictions, yes.
JOURNALIST:
Have you had discussions at all with the Democrats about this?
PRIME MINISTER:
No we’ve not had any discussion with the Democrats or the Labor Party. We discussed the matter today and the Cabinet decided I have to say to you overwhelmingly to legislation in this way. We think it’s right that if a state wants to express this view, I mean it can’t be argued that the view enshrined in the Victorian legislation is a view held by a significant section of the community. And we think states should have the right to express that view in legislation and there are many people in the Government who are sympathetic to that view. There are many people in the community who are sympathetic with that view. And if a state having the constitutional power wants to express that view it should do so.
We looked at the possibility of an appeal but it was very obvious from earlier decisions that there was going to be found to be a conflict. And it’s the advice of our Solicitor General and the advice of the Chief General Counsel that the prospects of any appeal would be quite remote.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister what’s wrong with single parent families?
PRIME MINISTER:
This has got nothing to do with single parent families. The great bulk of single parent families as you well know are not the product of the arrangements that are covered by this legislation. You know that. The overwhelming bulk of single parent families are the result of broken relationships and where it was never the intention in the first place that children should be denied the care and affection of both a mother and a father. To suggest for a moment that this is some way an attack on single parent families is ridiculous.
JOURNALIST:
What about same sex couples?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well clearly there is a view in the legislation that was passed by the Victorian Government that these IVF programmes should be restricted to married people in a bona fide domestic relationship or a women living with a man in a defacto relationship. And that is a view which I believe society has a right through its state parliament to express.
JOURNALIST:
Do you agree with that view?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am very comfortable with the position the federal Government is taking. Of course. I mean I wouldn’t be making the announcement if the Cabinet’s decision didn’t have my support. But you ought to understand that this is a view which is held widely in the Government.
JOURNALIST:
You said you considered using Medicare benefits….
PRIME MINISTER:
No I didn’t consider… well I said that it was not appropriate to use the funding, what in effect is a funding veto because that raises connotations of discriminating against poorer people in the community.
JOURNALIST:
Did the Victorian Government raise its concerns with you about…
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven’t had any discussions with the Victorian government. We’ve had no discussions of any kind with the Victorian government. My understanding is that the Victorian government doesn’t have a position. Although I have no recollection of how the Labor Party in Victoria voted on this legislation when it was passed. It may well have supported it. I don’t know. I haven’t researched it. We are not driven by the views of other political parties on these matters.
JOURNALIST:
What about the Western Australian government?
PRIME MINISTER:
What about it? I haven’t had any discussion with the Western Australian Government, why would we? We are not saying that states should pass legislation to this effect. What we are saying is that states who don’t now have the legislation if our amendment is successful would be able to do so and those that have it would not find the legislation struck down by the operation of section 109 of the constitution. I hope the opposition parties in the Senate will support the government’s proposal.
JOURNALIST:
Was there any further discussion of Fiji and sanctions in Cabinet ?
PRIME MINISTER:
We had some, I reported on my meeting with Mr Chaudhry and the view of the government is that the sanctions or measures announced by Mr Downer a few weeks ago should continue and they will continue and the issue will be discussed at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group when it meets in September. Mr Downer is a member of that and also at the Pacific forum meeting which is going to take place later this month.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister we’ve seen a record monthly fall in building approvals, because of the GST. Does that either surprise or concern you ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I never get totally surprised and totally concerned about one figure. You can only, when you are looking at the economy, you can only form a firm view as a result of a whole series of figures, trending in the same direction over a fairly lengthy period of time. There is some evidence indeed quite a bit of evidence of the bring forward of building activity because of the GST therefore I don’t think one should take too much notice of one particular figure. One should never do that and I think it’s particularly so on this occasion.
JOURNALIST:
…believe that a rate rise now would be disastrous, do you agree with them ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don’t comment on rate rises in any direction.
JOURNALIST:
Once the Sex Discrimination Act is amended will there be an appeal on that case ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I must say that we would think that, as it were, a redundant consideration.
JOURNALIST:
How would you amend the Sex Discrimination Act. What would you do to it ?
PRIME MINISTER:
We would simply amend it to enable legislation such as the Victorian legislation to continue without being regarded as invalid. It wouldn’t go any further. It would just be a saving cause in effect which says that legislation to that effect would not be inconsistent with the act. It wouldn’t go any further than that.
JOURNALIST:
…discriminate against children. How do you argue…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I didn’t use the….the expression I used was that we believed that the primary considerations were the rights of the children. We think the rights of children are more important than other rights on this occasion.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that single women and lesbian women have a right to have a child ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the rights of children are paramount and governments don’t have the luxury of avoiding choices. Other people may but we don’t and we have to express a view. It is our view that the rights of children and the reasonable expectation of children in our society, other things being equal, to have the affection and care of both a mother and a father is the primary consideration
JOURNALIST:
Is this going to [inaudible] what Mr Fischer called last week a rather unsavoury black market type situation…
PRIME MINISTER:
We didn’t talk about black markets or indeed anything Mr Fischer said. I saw some remarks of his but I suppose some of the remarks he made I would agree with and some I wouldn’t. But I mean that’s not the first time, we often express things differently. But look we took a view. We considered it and took a view and the view is based on the considerations, the primary concern about rights of children and also our belief that states do have the right to express that community view on matters of this type, without any doubt.
JOURNALIST:
…the offspring of same sex couples have had their rights trampled on simply by the fact that they are…
PRIME MINISTER:
No it is my view, and the view of the government, is what I said. And that is that the primary issue to be considered in the context of this matter is the right of children in our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the care and affection of both a mother and a father. That’s our…that’s the principle that we have had in mind. It’s not a question of discriminating against people, it’s a question of taking the view that the rights of children are the primary concern.
JOURNALIST:
Do you agree then that the offspring of same sex couples are somehow disadvantaged …
PRIME MINISTER:
I can only repeat, Geoff, I can only say what I believe and I choOse to express my beliefs and the beliefs of the government in the most appropriate way and I’ve done that.
JOURNALIST:
Did Cabinet have any information before it about the extent or growth of same sex couple occurrences?
PRIME MINISTER:
There may have been a reference to that Mark, but it’s not something that was a dominant or indeed even a significant concern. It’s not a, I mean it was an issue involving considerations of principal.
JOURNALIST:
Have you been following the Labor Party’s conference in Hobart?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I have. I understand free trade won by a narrower margin than expected.
JOURNALIST:
Your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not sort of excited either way. I mean it was a predictable outcome and I think those votes are largely preordained aren’t they?
JOURNALIST:
Are you comfortable with the delineation between Labor and Liberal for the next election between tax cuts and spending?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s not our delineation. I haven’t said that we’re going to the next election with a programme of tax cuts beyond what was bought down on the first of July which is the biggest tax cut in Australia’s history, where 80% of people are on a top marginal rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar. I will certainly be campaigning on that but it would be wrong of anybody to assume that we have decided that we will be campaigning on further tax cuts. And let us, let us absorb and enjoy and savour the tax cuts that were delivered on the first of July.
JOURNALIST:
Labor seems to be shifting its focus away from tax now and onto social policy…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they would want to avoid, they would want to avoid the GST because they have been exposed for the frauds they really are on that issue and of course they are trying to avoid it. I don’t think the Australian public will lightly forget that they tried to sabotage the tax plan for three years and ultimately Mr Beazley will have to explain where he is going to roll back, how much it’s going to cost, where is the money coming from. I mean if you have a roll back of any consequence that will cost several billion dollars and if you are promising to spend more federal money on health, that will be a lot more money as well so we will continue to ask where’s the money coming from Mr Beazley.
JOURNALIST:
…stepping down after the next election, and Mr Beazley says this means you are no longer interested in the prime minister’s job.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that really is clutching at straws isn’t it? I think all of you would be surprised at the proposition that I am not interested in being Prime Minister having spent the large part of my life working very hard to achieve that goal. I think that’s a fairly desperate sort of comment for an opposition leader to make.
JOURNALIST:
Are you concerned that you have opened up the leadership contest within your party.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I am never concerned about being honest with the Australian public. The Labor way of course is to make a secret deal about leadership changes, lie to the public in an election campaign and then for one party to the deal to welsh on it and for the now opposition leader to have known about it all along. I mean that’s the Labor way of dealing with these things. I prefer to be open with people. I think most Australians would have found what I said the other day as wholly unexceptionable and completely candid.
JOURNALIST:
When voters come to vote at the next election though are they voting for you or Peter Costello or Peter Reith…
PRIME MINISTER:
They are voting for the Coalition and I am sure that they will.
Thank you.
[ends]