r7~
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P. J. KEATING MP
PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA,
MONDAY, 11 JULY 1994
E& OE PROOF COPY
PMV: Well, we've had a real spectacle over the weekend, haven't we?
Alexander Downer said he was going to take the fight up to the
Government on ! he monarchy and before the bell goes for round one
he is scurrying back to the seconds and throwing in the towel. And he
says look, really, we don't really need this contest, both ideas are
compatible, the Queen isn't really our head of state. To the
monarchists he says look, I'll keep the Queen for you, tucked away, as
long as you don't mind me labelling her quaint and irrelevant, and to
the republicans he'll say, you don't really need a republic at all, our
effective head of state is the Governor-General. It is riot The Queen.
Now, can I just say that this is in contrast to a couple of things he said
last month. He said the monarchy was a foundation stone of the
Constitution June 3, The Canberra Times If you want to change
to a republic you have to take away a foundation stone of our
Constitution which is the monarchy." And, of course, over the weekend
and under pressure, " Well, the monarchy doesn't matter at all it's
irrelevant," he says. He says the Governor-General is our effective
head of state, so he is not simply just leaving us to borrow the
monarchy of another country, but he wants to damn Australians to
having as their head of state the deputy of a foreign monarch. In other
words, the anachronism is good enough, we just keep on rolling along
with the anachronism.
But, as I said this morning on radio, what this really reveals is how
Alexander Downer would be under real pressure. Here he is on a
debate on the republic and the monarchy, early in the piece, slipping
and sliding around on the unarguable that the Queen is our head of
state. And you wonder on the big decisions in the economic and
social areas as the Government has conducted them in the past the
big buy down in fiscal policy in the 1980s, the removal of exchange
control, the removal of tariffs, Mabo, the Uruguay Round. I mean,
where would this sort of weakness and vacillation get us in terms of
the prosecution of major national interests of Australians? As I said
earlier today, Alexander Downer is a policy free zone. He is all words
and no thoughts and no policies. And Mr Costello said, his deputy,
after they were elected on 27 May, " In six weeks time we will be giving
you a broad statement of principles and directions," and Mr Downer
himself said " well, in a couple of months, I hope, a directional
document which will make things quite clear." Well, they've been in
office seven weeks and we haven't seen anything of the kind from
either one of them.
So, the fact of the matter is and the other thing, of course, if you
actually have an empirical argument with him where he says the
Queen is not our head of state and I say well, I beg to differ she is,
she's central to our Constitution, he says I am personally abusing him
and I am in the gutter. In other words, he will not even have a proper
policy debate. If anyone crosses any of the policy lines I mean, he
expects to go through life without being challenged on policy and once
challenged says oh, this is shocking, I've been personally attacked by
someone in the gutter.
So, what I say to Alexander Downer is, show us the colour of your
polices and let us at least on this issue see you stand for something
honest. If you believe in the monarchy, say so. You've said so, stand
by it and understand what it means that you're saying to the Australian
community that this generation and the next generation, that we will
continue to borrow the monarch of another country and under a
Coalition government the effective head of state of this country would
be the deputy of a foreign monarch and that's good enough for
Australians. Now, that's where he stands. The Government stands four square
against him on this and as I've said in the policy speech last year and
subsequently, the Government believes that we owe it to Australians,
to this generation, and particularly the next to our children, that their
aspirations and their ideals and their identity ought and can best be
reflected by Australians taking full charge of their own affairs with an
Australian person as our head of state.
J: Prime Minister, why isn't Alexander Downer right that the Governor-
General is the effective head of state. Can you name an instance
where the Queen or King before her has actually stepped in and over
turned a decision of the Australian government?
PM: The head of state of this country is a monarch of another country. The
head of state of Australia is the monarch of Great Britain. That's a
simple, clear fact..
J: hasn't made any difference ( inaudible)
PM: And as the well, look, the fact has made all the difference in the
world, it's made all the difference in the world because the powers of
the monarch were the powers that were used on a number of
occasions in this country and last, severely, in 1975.
J: When he said no decisions made here are influenced at all by the
royal family, that's not right?
PM: . The central question is, here, there's only one question here,
whether Australia should and can continue with its head of state
Australia's head of state, the Queen of Australia, so called being the
monarch of Great Britain. And not an Australian person.
J: Well, the decisions of December 1975 were taken at Yarralumla, they
weren't taken at Buckingham Palace.
PM: They were taken under the monarch's powers.
J: Would you seek to limit those powers, then?
PM: Well, that's a different question.
J: But that goes to the heart of it...
PM: Well, let me decide what goes to the heart of it, thank you very much
at least in this instance, seeing I'm giving the answers. The first thing
is that the Government said that it would commission an expert group
to look at these issues. It did. That. expert group has now reported
and the government is considering that rerp-rt. And, in due time the
cabinet will make a judgement about how such a shift to a republic
ought best be executed.
J: Prime Minister, Mr Beazley said yesterday that it would be a minimalist
change; you, yourself have said that it is a simple proposition. If it is
so simple why can't we see it?
PM: Well, because, firstly, it hasn't been put together the change. And
why should it be? We've struggled along now for, until 1993 with the
monarch of Great Britain as our head of state. And the Labor Party, at
its national conference, said it should be an objective of a Labor
government to see Australia become a republic by the centenary of our
federation. So, it is on that basis that the government has said that we
should move towards a republic and that we will exercise these, our
consideration of these issues. But, the question minimalist, and the
change, is not about a change to the way our system of government
works. It is not about a change to the states, it is not about a change
to the Senate, it's not about these things at all. It's about a change to
an Australian head of state.
J: Prime Minister, the Turnbull Committee saw all sorts of problems in a
popularly elected president, accepting that the government is yet to
take a final position, do you have a personal view on this? Would you
be prepared to allow the Australian people to elect their own?
PM: My personal view at this point doesn't matter very much because the
cabinet is in the process of considering all of these issues and that is
not the point. You've got here, the leader of the Opposition arguing
weakly, the unarguable, that the Queen is not our head of state.
J: But, Mr Downer did challenge you last week to rule out the possibility
that you wanted to appoint the President?
PM: I gave you the answer then and I'll give it to you now. There are two
questions to be asked here. Do you believe in an Australian republic
or do you believe in the monarchy? If the answer to the first question
is in the affirmative, you move to question two. That is, how such a
change should be executed and what the modalities might be. But, if
you say in answer to question one, " No, I believe in the monarchy",
you are disqualified from a debate about question two.
J: You have signalled in the past being personally more disposed
towards the idea of parliament electing a head of state rather than a
popular election, is that still your inclination?
PM: Well, this is a matter for the cabinet, not for here. But, Laurie Oakes
wrote a column on my view about this some months ago and how I see
it. But, again, these are preliminary thoughts. But, can I say this, no
debate about this is going to save Alexander Downer slipping and
sliding in his weakness all over the landscape, trying to say to his party
and to the country, " Look, if you want the monarchy, I can keep it as
long as I can brand it as quaint and irrelevant." And to the republicans
he'll say, ' You don't really need a republic at all, a monarchy is good
enough.
J: Those preliminary thoughts which favour the Parliament over popular
election haven't changed, have they?
PM: Well, that's a matter for the cabinet, not for here.
J: Is it a matter for the people, ultimately, will they be given that choice to
make?
PM: Well, this is all going to be by referendum, that is the key point. This is
a matter for the Australian people, in the end, to decide. This is why
all this stuff about the constitution and how its... I've never seen more
cowardly references to the constitution than from Mr Downer. And,
then, we find on ABC radio today, he says, " Written constitutions aren't
the be all and end all at all. It is the conventions."
J: Do you think it is a fair enough question for people to say, if we're
going to have a republic, if they ask what sort of republic?
PM: No, I think the key question is whether Mr Downers assertion can be
sustained in Australian political life. That is, whether or not the Queen
of Great Britain is or is not the head of state of this country. That is the
central question.
J: ( inaudible).., what sort of republic?
PM: Well, just wait your turn, Tom. I mean, it's all there in the report. Go
and pick up the Turnbull report and have a read through it.
J: Can you give them a reassurance that what we're talking about is
something as simple as whether or not we have an Australian as a
head of state and they'll be able to decide the rest?
PM: Between now and the year 2001, or certainly between now and the
time a referendum will be put, the Government will make its position
abundantly clear on all of these things. As I said a week or two ago,
forensically clear.
J: Will it be clear before the next election?
PM: Well, that's a matter for the cabinet to think about.
J: Will there be a referendum about whether or not the President should
be elected?
PM: You weren't listening, David, I just told you, there will be a referendum
put to the Australian people in due time so that Australia may become
a republic by the year 2001.
J: You also said, Mr Keating, that it's all going to be decided by
referendum. Do you think that the question of how a president would
be elected would actually be put to the people at a referendum, so
they'd have the choice?
PM: Well the Parliament will decide what referendum proposals go to the
public. There's a very democratic process here. There are first of all
referendum proposals that are put to parliament, parliament then
carries them and they are put to the public.
J: Do you agree that until you've got your position, or the government's
position, in the open, you are vulnerable .( inaudible)
PM: Not at all, not at all. I've got a mandate for my position. I stood up in a
national election, and a tightly fought one one where, in fact, at the
time, everybody believed that the Government was behind and said
I believe that Australia should become a republic, my party believes
that, and we will set up an expert group to look at the machinery, we'll
get some documentation there doesn't currently exist, we'll have a
national debate. That's my position. I stand here with a mandate for
that.
J: But Mr Downer says you're plotting, that you're seeking to lI mean,
can you say that
PM: Well, Mr Downer's even...
J: Can you say now that something as simple..
PM: Well, take.. let's just..
J can you say something as simple...
PM: Well, lets just cast Mr Downer's view to one side by his weak assertion
that the Queen of Great Britain isn't our head of state. I mean, that's
the state of him.
J: But nevertheless, can you reassure people now that the change you're
looking at is as simple as whether Australia has an Australian as head
of state? Just that no more, no less.
PM: I'm here giving full expression to the Government's mandate. And the
Government's mandate is to look forward to a republic by the year
2001, to have a public debate which we've already generated -I
mean, we're having it, aren't we? By having the documents, quite
voluminous and tightly-written documents, in the political market place
for the first time ever, and the Government has undertaken, and I
repeat the undertaking, to have referendum proposals, in due time,
proposals passed by the parliament. See the thing is this about Mr
Downer. He thinks he can skate through life without policies and the
country, the Australian community, can't get a move on, can't get a kick
along without leadership. It can't get a kick along without decisions. It
can't get a kick along without victories. And it is the victories, whether
they be in Mabo or in the Uruguay Round, or in opening the economy
up, we move ahead by decisions and leadership. You don't move
ahead by vacillation and trying to please everybody at once,
shillyshallying and compromising, as he's seeking to do. I mean, if
that's the best the Liberals have to offer, after now 7 weeks in office, a
leader who can't even stand to defend a position he's taken on the
monarchy, then the Liberal Party has, as I've said before, from
Peacock to Howard to Peacock to Hewson to Downer, soft to hard to
soft to hard to soft.
J: Mr Keating, later this year when Cabinet gives it's response to the
Turnbull Committee, do you expect it will indicate a preference to the
way in which the present...
PM: Look, in due time, the Government will make its thoughts on this
subject known. I mean, this has been on for, now, a debate about our
future has been on for over a century. And given that the government
has said in 1993 that it considers that the full expression of Australian
sovereignty can't be achieved and our aspirations can't be met by
other than an Australian head of state, it's doing that which it has a
mandate to do, that is embark upon a process where there is a debate
and a set of proposals put and that will happen.
J: By refusing to rule out the possibility of personal benefit inaudible...
PM: Well, look, I'm not going to, look, look, let me tell you this. I'm not
going to argue Alexander Downer's case for him, and nor should you.
The key point is ' this-that you've got, I mean this must be, I can't
imagine any other Western world leader in a democracy, particularly a
Westminster style one, where you have the leader of the alternative
government saying that the head of state isn't as the constitution says
itis
J: Iwas..
PM: I mean that's where we are.
J: I was going to put Graeme Campbell's view to you that you're doing
this as a power grab?
PM: Well, let me tell you this. There's, let me tell you this. Seriously and
jocularly, there would be no way, no way whatsoever, no matter what
the outcome is, that there is more power for the government or for me
in this. But what I want to see is young Australians, in the main our
children, have the chance to grow their own society with a full
expression of Australian sovereignty and the full, and their full
aspirations, and not have it compromised by an anachronism of having
the deputy to a borrowed foreign monarch. OK, I'll take one more...
J: You talked earlier about leadership, and also about what's owed to
future generations of Australians in those terms, shouldn't the revamp
of the Australian constitution, a 19th Century document as you said,
written in the British foreign office, shouldn't it involve more than simply
the head of sate...
8
PM: Well, the constitutional...
J: . shouldn't it involve things like four year terms and updating things like
relations between the states and the Commonwealth....
PM: Well, these things are all...
J: . inaudible...
PM: well look, it's a matter of how one prioritises any such thing. There's a
constitutional centenary foundation, a bi-partisan group, which is
engendering now a discussion about the constitution and all of its
parts, fine. The Government supports that, it thinks its a good thing.
But there is a central question, and in the Government's terms, a
priority question, and that is should the Australian head of state be an
Australian person? Now the Governments answered that question in
the affirmative.
J: Prime Minister.
PM: Thank you.
J: Prime Minister, inaudible. . the situation in North Korea?
PM: Well, I'd just say that we're watching developments there closely. It
seems by early signs that Kim Jong 11is succeeding to the leadership
of North Korea. It seems, also, that the third round of talks between
the United States and North Korea and the North-South Leaders
Summit, is going to continue, if with a delay. So, I think there's a
choice here for North Korea that's one of greater openness, or taking
the uncertain path of developing a nuclear capability and isolating
itself from world opinion. So I hope they see advantages in the former
rather than the latter.
ends.