Fax from -mw
1 March 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTERj
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
ADDRESS TO LIBERAL PARTY NSW STATE COUNCIL
ST GEORGE LEAGUES CLUB, KOGARAH
E 0E
Thank you very much. That's almost as good as Grand Final morning. To
Michael Osborne, to my parliamentary colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.
I can think of no more appropriate venue, no more appropriate meeting and no
more appropriate weekend than to celebrate what we have achieved over the
last twelve months.
It was a year ago this weekend, that together, we ended thirteen years of Labor
government in Australia. And I use the word together advisedly, because the
victory that we won a year ago this weekend was a victory that belonged more
than anything else to the rank and file members of the Liberal Party. And I
remember in my acceptance speech at the Wentworth Hotel on that great
Saturday night, saying that for thirteen years the Party organisatioq had endured
many disappointments, it had been the butt of much criticism, even ridicule
people said we no longer had the professional skills to win electioqs, there was
derision heaped upon the organisation, and all of that was flung back in the face
of our critics on that great Saturday in March of last year.
So ladies and gentlemen I commence my address to the NSW State Council this
morning by again thanking the organisation for the absolutely crucial role it
played in electing my government twelve months ago and for the continually
loyalty, fidelity and support that it has given tq me and to my colleagues over
the past twelve months. Fafxor '~ 01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 1
Fax from 2
As I review that twelve months I cani honestly say that we have stayed true and
kept faith with the essential commitments that we made to the Australian
people in the lead up to the election campaign. They elected us into
Government to reform Australia's industrial relations system and we have done
that. They elected us into Government to give a greater emphasis in policy
making to supporting Australian families and we have done that. From the first
of January this year, delivered in full on time without qualification was the
Coalition's Family Tax Initiative.
We were elected into Government to assist the small business sector. We have
begun to do that and more will be done in a few weeks' time when I deliver the
Government's response to the Bell Committee Report on Small Business.
We have swept away the unfair dismissal stupidity of Laurie Brereton, we have
fairly dismissed his legislative incompetence. We have through reforming the
industrial relations system, given greater flexibility to small business men and
women. From the 1 st July this year we will introduce the biggest taxation
change to benefit small business in more than three decades. We will allow any
small business man or woman in Australia to sell their existing business and
invest up to $ 5m of the proceeds in not just a business of the same kind but
indeed into any business without incurring any liability for capital gains tax.
There are still many people in small business who are doing it tough, I know
that, I recognise that and I understand that. And you won't be hearing from this
Prime Minister such arrogant responses as " this is as good as it ever gets" and
" if you can't stand the heat you ought to get out of the kitchen and stop being a
self-employed person". Small business copped the ravages of Keating's
recession like no other sector of the Australian business community, and it has
inevitably taken them longer to recover and the period of recuperation has been
more difficult.
We said that we would deliver the greatest ever capital investment in
Australia's environmental future seen since the end of World War II and we are
going to do exactly that. We have secured the support of the Senate for the one
third sale of Telstra and out of that sale we will invest almost $ 1.2 billion into
the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia and that will go towards the long term
of regeneration of Australia's environment it won't be wasted on fancy tinsel
stuff, it will go towards restoring our land it will go towards attacking salinity it
will go towards cleaning up our river system, it will go towards purifying our
oceans. They're the sort of long term building blocks of improving the
environment the Australian community wants. And it will be one of my
proudest boasts as Prime Minister of this country if I can go to the next election
pointing to a programme of environment commitment and environment reform,
because that was an area in earlier years where the Liberal and National Parties
lagged. Farxf t01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 2
Fax from 1 3
And we will also P~ e able to remind the Australian people and remind the
mainstream conservation movement of Australia that it was the Labor Party and
the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens that tried to stop this
record investment in Australia's environmental future. it still to my mind
beggar's belief that parties that claim to be concerned about Australia's
environmental fu~ ure have been so indifferent and so hostile to such an
imaginative proglame.
I mention these tl~ ings ladies and gentlemen not because they are an exhaustive
list of what has bfen achieved over the last twelve months there are many
other achievemen~ ts. We have restored the accountability of the executive to
the Parliament. No longer does the Government of this country regard
Question Time al a courtesy extended by the Executive to the Parliament. I go
to every Questionl Time, not fifty per cent of them. The number of questions
asked in my first twelve months is a twenty year record. We average almost
twenty questions fa day and Question Time has once again been restored to an
institution where the Ministers can be made accountable and can be questioned
as properly they ; hould in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. And the
restoration of the accountability of the Executive to Parliament is a very
important elemer~ t in the restoration of community esteem for the institution.
Without in any Nyay robbing Parliament of its naturally robust debating
atmosphere I also believe that some of the personal vitriol which the Australian
community founf so distasteful has been removed from parliamentary
proceedings. Au~ tralians want tough vigorous debate and powerful dissent
where there are d~ fferences of view, they do not want ritualistic eye gouging for
its own sake.
Ladies and gentleman that is in a sense a very quick snapshot of what has been
achieved over the last twelve months. But it is by no means the whole story.
There are many things that we have done outside the immediate economic and
industrial area thipt are very important to Australia's long term future. The
tragic events of 4Lpril 28th produced a great response in the area of national gun
control laws. Ai~ d the achievement of those laws, may I say quite openly in cooperation
with all the state governments and also with the co-operation of the
Australan Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. Those laws have made
Australia a safer Icountry and those laws have delivered a greater sense of
security, particularly to women in our community, and I regard the achievement
of those laws as being one of the great social achievements of my Government
over the last twelve months. Faxfrm01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 PSg 3
Fax from 4
We've also kept faith with our promise to allow a proper process for debate
about Australia's constitutional future. I said before the election where I stood
on the question of Australia's current constitution I've never disguised my
own view but I've always recognised that there are many in this party and
elsewhere that have another view and ours is not an authoritarian party ours is a
liberal open party.
We are going to have a constitutional convention, we are going to elect half of
the delegates and we're going to appoint the other halfjust as I promised, and
we'll see what comes out of it. My only goal is that if Australia is or were to
decide to change the constitutional structure the it ought to occur in
circumstances that unites and not divides the Australian community.
It is also necessary that we grapple in a sensitive way with one of the great and
more complicated challenges that I think any government could have and that is
to frame an appropriate response in the area of native title to the decision of the
High Court in the Wik case. That issue requires an understanding, requires a
patience and it requires a spirit of give and take and compromise by all
concerned if an agreed outcome is to be achieved. I'm trying to achieve such
an outcome. I have no illusions about how difficult it is. There is a great
difference of approach and opinion between the different parties at present and
I'm currently engaged in a process of discussion both private and public with
all of the interested parties and I hope that by Easter to either know if it's
possible to have an agreed outcome or if not to be in a position to recommend a
course of action to the Cabinet and therefore to the government parties.
I want to make it plain to all of you that all of the parties are being included in
those discussions. My goal is to deliver an outcome that delivers justice and
security to all of those concerned. The Wik decision was a surprise to me and
here let me say something briefly about the respective roles of the High Court
of Australia and the Executive and the Legislative branch of government in our
system of government. I am a strong believer as any believer in the
parliamentary democratic system ought to be, I'm a strong believer in the
separation of powers, There is a division of powvers and responsibilities
between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. It is the role of the
judiciary in a properly independent way to interpret both the common law and
the statute law of Australia and one of the great strengths of Australian
democracy is that we have always had an independent judiciary and we have
always had a judiciary of great integrity. And that remains the case today
because although like any other Australian citizen, a point incidentally
acknowledged as recently as yesterday by the current Chief Justice of the High
Court of Australia, like any other citizen I have a right to criticise a decision of
the courts, I nonetheless recognise and respect both the independence and the
integrity of those who hold judicial office in this country. I do not support any
change to the method of appointing High Court judges in Australia. I deplore
any suggestion that this country should go down the American path of electing
Faxroi~ 01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 4
Fax from judges. I oppose completely.. there are many things about the United States of
America that I love and admire, but I do not believe we will profit this country
by emulating the American judicial system.
So, ladies and gentlemen, it is important that in the current debate about the
role of the court that we don't confuse ourselves and we don't get confused
about respective roles. There is nothing wrong in anybody disagreeing with a
court decision or criticising that court decision. It has gone on for time
immemorial and it will go on again in the future. And the final word I would
say is that in a true separation of powers it is the ultimate role and prerogative
of the parliament of this country to alter any law as currently interpreted or
determined by the courts which it regards to be contrary to the national interest
of Australia.
One of the things that has been an essential ingredient in the successes that we
have achieved over the last year has been the determination and the capacity of
the government to stay in touch with the views and the aspirations and the
hopes of the Australian people. There's a column inch or two in the papers this
morning about the last twelve months and I notice the theme that's coming
through is that some people don't like the fact that I actually listen to what the
Australian public says. I thought one of the roles of a national leader was to
listen and to take notice, to empathise, to understand, to feel the joy and also to
feel the pain and to feel the various degrees of the emotions that the people of
the country he or she feels. And can I say to those who believe that I listen too
much that they're wrong. I listen because I think that's an important part of
My role and while ever I hold this job I will go on listening to the Australian
people. We face in the years ahead enormous challenges to consolidate some very
fortuitous economic circumstances. There are signs and I believe they are
gathering pace, that the Australian economy is beginning to grow again more
strongly than it did in 1996. Business investment is surging ahead very
strongly. We have historically low housing interest rates and I would like there
to be more competition in the banking system so that the historically low
housing interest rates can be replicated in the small business sector with equally
low rates.
Companies like Aussie Home Loans, RAMS, and all those other small new
players in the housing loans area have done great things. We want some of
those in the small business sector. And what they have done is a tremendous
demonstration to all of us of the value of competition. If you every hear
somebody say: ah all of this competition, that all of this deregulation is a lot
of nonsense", throw back to them the experience of Australian home buyers
over the last 12 months. We have the lowest interest rates, as Peter Costello
said, since man first walked on the moon, for the very simple reason that we've
now got more competition in the housing interest rate area. That's why you've
Fa1x/ f0ro3i/ 97 15: 39 Pg:
FarxoM 01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 6
6
got low housing interest rates. You've got more competition. You haven', t got
it because of Government intervention, you' ve got it because of plain old
competition something that we should never lose our faith in. Never, ever, as
Liberals because it really lies at the heart of a vibrant capitalist, free-enterprise
society. There's a bit of a debate around at the present time about how far you should
go in deregulating, or freeing, the economy. Now, of course, the pace of
change is important and, of course, you have to take account of the impact of
things like tariff changes on particular parts of the country.
But, ladies and gentlemen, let us, as we approach our second year in office, let
us with the opportunity of really consolidating a great economic recovery not
lose any faith at all in the cause of greater competition and freer approaches to
the regulation of markets because they do ultimately lie behind the prosperity
and the economic future of Australia.
I think if we can consolidate the circumstances we now have and that will
involve a further reduction in the budget deficit in the Budget of May of this
year. It won't be of the magnitude required last year but there will still need to
be further fiscal tightening.
We need to bed down the industrial relations changes, many of which only
come into operation on 12 Mar-ch. We need to proceed with waterfront reform.
We need to respond quickly and effectively to the report of the Wallis Inquiry
into Australia's financial system when it is delivered. We need to implement,
without any interruption, the commitments we've made to provide tax
incentives for private health insurance.
May I say that I register great disappointment with the comments made by the
Vice-President of the Australian Medical Association about private health
insurance. Of course, private health insurance is not what everybody would
like. One of the reasons is that the number of people privately insured in
Australia is much less than what it was when we were last in Government.
When the Fraser Government was defeated in March of 1983 sixty one percent
of Australians, sixty one percent, had private health insurance. That figure is
now thirty four percent. And Graham Richardson at least like myself he was
a follower of St George Graham Richardson said, as Health Minister in the
Labor Government in 1993, that if you allow private health insurance to fall
below 40 percent you begin to put intolerable strains on the system. And
despite those warnings, year after year, Labor in Government neglected it. If
they had, five years ago, done what we are proposing to do in July we would
not now have the problems that we have. And even Bob Canr belatedly
recognises it when he said the problem is that people are dropping out of
private health insurance and putting a strain on the public hospital system. So,
if we do have problems in that area, it's because for 13 years they set about
Fax from
Fax from 7
systematically dismantling the underpinning of private health insurance in this
country because of an ideological objection to it. They were driven by it and
despite the warnings of people like Richardson Keating, Beazley and
Lawrence and all the other crowd that had responsibility in those areas,
followed policies that did immense damage to Australia's health insurance
system. So, that represents a very considerable challenge. We have major challenges
on the foreign policy front. At Easter I will visit Singapore and China.
Australia's relationship with China is an important one to us. Under my
Government it will be a relationship which is built upon the expectation of
mutual respect. Australia and China are vastly different societies and countries.
Ours is an open liberal democracy. Theirs is a closed authoritarian country.
Yet, China has vast potential for the future. The most populist nation in the
world whose economy is growing at a very rapid rate. It is clear that it is in the
mutual national self interest of both of us to build a productive relationship. It
may surprise you to know that China invests more money in Australia than any
other country with the exception of the investments that mainland China makes
in Hong Kong. And it is a very important relationship and it is an important
relationship that I will certainly do my best to improve and build on when I go
there at Easter.
But, one thing that we have done and I think we have done very valuably in the
area of foreign policy over the last twelve months is that we have demonstrated
the proposition I have made time and time again that Australia does not have
to choose between our history and our geography in our foreign relations. Of
course, we want and we will deliver ever closer relations between Australia and
the nations of the Asia Pacific region. They are our friends, they are our
partners, they are our economic future and it is the fastest growing economic
region in the world. Yet, we have, as all of you know, deep and abiding links
with other parts of the world and our historic, and our cultural, and our
political, and our liberal democratic shared inheritance and shared values with
the nations of Europe, the United Kingdom and others, and with the United
States are an important part of our history.
And there is no incompatibility. You can have both. You don't have to make a
choice. And it was one of the foreign policy failures of my predecessor that he
gave the impression, intended or not, that somehow or another we had to make
a choice. Well, we don't. We can have both and the links that we have with
both can contribute to the mutual benefit of the overall relationship.
I suppose the only other thing I might briefly touch upon, of course, are our
opponents. I mean it would be uncharitable not to say anything about them.
But, I'm a btshy, so I'll content myself with saying about them what they have
said about themselves. I mean, we could try George Campbell. He's going
into the Senate next year for New South Wales and he said this: " I don't think
Far1xa/ N03 / 97 15: 39 Pg: 7
Fax from the Party knows or has a clear perception of what it stands for, or more
importantly what it wants to achieve in terms of development of our society".
Not bad. That was 24 February 1997.
And then, of course, you have relevence depravation syndrome Gareth. When
he was asked about branch stacking, he said: " I don't particularly like this
terminology of branch stacking, I prefer to think of it in terms of exuberant
democracy at work".
I suppose, in a sense, it's natural at a gathering like this that you should say the
odd thing about your political opponents and you should endeavour to crack the
odd joke. I guess it is part of the approach and I think it is fair to say that the
Labor Party is still tying very hard to come to grips with the reality of being
out of office after having been in power for such a long period time.
But, can I say to all of you, don't underestimate, ever, our opponents. I think
one of the great mistakes the Labor Party made was to underestimate us and
that is the reason that we won with such a big majority one of the reasons.
Don't underestimate them. They loved being in office, And they would love to
be back in office. They do regard themselves as the natural party of
Government in Australia. One of the reasons that they lost touch as we worked
up to the last election was they couldn't really believe that the Australian
people would actually vote them out. They kept getting the negative responses.
They kept looking at their research. They kept looking at the polls. They kept
realising that they had been in power for a long timne. But deep down they said
to themselves, but we are the Labor Party. We are the modem Labor Party. I
notice part of them now call themselves the New Labor Party. And despite
that, they just somehow, all the indications to the contrary, they couldn't
believe that the Australian public were going to vote them out. They really had
begun to think they were natural party of Government. What an extraordinary
turn around. They used to say that about us. They used to say we had a bornto-
rule mentality. Well, I'll tell you what nothing belts a born-to-rule
mentality out of you more than 13 years in Opposition.
But, I don't think anybody should every forget that. I mean, never forget the
difficult parts of the journey in politics. And if you don't forget the difficult
parts of the journey you will always remember that ultimately you're not there
because you are some kind of group of divinely inspired geniuses, you are there
because of the gift of the Australian people. We are there because they thought
we better represented their aspiration. We are there because they thought we
could better lead them into the next millennium. We are there because they
think we understand their concerns,, and their hopes, and their fears and their
aspirations. So my message to you on our first birthday celebration as a new Government
is, of course, again my thanks from the bottom of my heart for all that you have
Fafrr~ 01/ 83/ 9? 15: 39 Pg: 8
Fax from 0 1/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 9
I. 9
done to help me. To the section of the Party organisation to which I've
devoted so much of my own life and in which I find so many life long friends, I
thank you for that personal support. I thank you for the tremendous support
that you have given to all of my colleagues and could I say to you remember
that power in politics is a gift from the people. It is not there as a bribe.
Remember to keep in touch. Never be arrogant towards the people who voted
you into office. And always remember the great capacity of the Australian
people to level those within our community who get beyond their station in life
and imagine that they have some automatic right to hang on to an office. If we
do that we can celebrate many more birthdays into the future.
Fax from 01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg:
Q& A's
Question: The question's about defence. Prime Minister, the decision you made last year
in isolating the defence budget from cuts was one that I personally and a lot of
others associated with the defence forces was very much appreciated. The
morale of our defence forces is something vital to us and this party, I know, is
anxious to see that morale high. Can you tell us whether that same sort of
quarantine from cuts will be evident in the current budget, or indeed, will you
be able to maintain it for the term of this Government?
Prime Minister: Yes.
Question: As one of the rank and file members of the party, congratulations on your first
year of government and I'm sure I speak for everybody else on the floor by
hoping that there will be many more of them, But that's not my question. My
question relates to one of the first lines that you said in your speech where you
talked about environmental reform and I ask that the question with that
background, why was Airservices the people commissioned by the Federal
Government to do the utilisation, the greater utilisation of Mascot airport not
required to produce for the eastern area, modes 8 and 9, an environmental
impact study? And I ask that against the background that the No Aircraft Noise
are lobbying very hard in the eastern area, protest meetings have already been
held, more are expected in the future and as Vice President of Wentworth
Conference it concerns me with a five per cent majority, or just as
importantly.... . the seat of Vaucluse is effected by Bligh and Coogee, now why
was not the requirement why was special dispensation given so that no
environmental impact statement in regard to the jets going over the eastern
area? Prime Minister: The reason for that from recollection is that the advice we had
at the time, which was shortly after the change of government, was that a new
EIS was not required under the law, and as you know in all of these things,
EIS's do take a very long period of time. We were elected on a comrutment to
share the noise around. I know that I know that some areas of Sydney are now
getting noise that previously they didn't get, I know that. But I also have to say
to you that the previous arrangements imposed a quite intolerable burden on a
small section of the Sydney community, including many people who live in
strong Labor seats. And some of the greatest beneficiaries of the changes we
have made have been people who live in the inner suburbs. I mean I don't
know how people have lived in areas like Stanmore and St Peters and
Marrickville all these years, I mean I travel through them I mean you go over
and watch any sporting event in some of those areas, I mean it's an absolute
Fax from miracle that anybody can hear. I mean I think those people have suffered a lot,
and what we've tried to do is to spread it around, I mean my electorate was
badly affected, it is still worse affected than others, it is less affected now than
it was. I don't disgpise that fact, they have rights. The people who live in my
electorate shouldn't lose their rights, because people might say it's
unreasonable that anything is every done to help people who live in the Prime
Minister's electorate, but I think what we've done is we've spread it around
more fairly. Now I think we have..-I mean that's what we've tried to do.
Nobody every welcomes a change that slightly disadvantages them, but I think
if you face a choice between on the one hand having a small number of people
copping it all, that's great for everybody else, but it's a bit unfair on that small
numnber of people, and that was the philosophy that drove what we did.
Question: Mr Prime Minister I preface my question by congratulating you on your
sensitive handling of the relationships with the judiciary over last twenty four,
thirty six hours, but this is on perhaps a similar question, and it's on the role of
the Governor General, and I'd like your opinion on this Sir. I've noted that the
previous two holders of this office have made a number of public statements
which I didn't think~ were in the tradition of the head of state being apolitical
and simply....
Prime Minister: When you say the previous two....
No, the present one and the previous one, and I refer particularly to the
present Governor General's statements as to what should be the timetable for
Aboriginal reconciliation. Now I know that's something to which you're fully
committed, but I'm concerned that statements by a Governor General might be
perceived as an expression of Government policy and if circumstances prevent
you adhering from that you will be regarded as not sticking to your previous
promises. What has been the position of the Governors General do they make
private statements, or are they expressers of government policy?. In a
Constitutional Mon~ archy, the Monarchist is very very careful not to give
private opinions.
Prime Minister: Well, Bob the situation, the convention as I've always read it
-is that the defacto Head of State, and that really is who the Governor General is
in our modem constitutional evolution, he is the defacto Head of State of
Australia, and in that position, he or she ought not to take sides politically, and
he or she should observe considerations of sensitivity in statements that are
made. It doesn't mean, and it would be unnatural for it to mean, that the person
who holds that office can never every express an opinion on anything. I think
that is to impose an unreal restriction and I have to say that the present
occupant of -the office, who was appointed by the previous government, is a
person for whom I have considerable personal respect. He's a person of
Fa om01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 11
Fax from 0 1/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 12
integrity and he carries out his duties very conscientiously and I really don't
have anything fiurther to say.
Question: First of all Mr Prine Minister, I would like to congratulate you on behalf of my
people of Fairfield for completing your term, your first term of office as the
Prime Minister. Now thirteen years of labor rule brought massive
unemployment burden for payments or loans to the financial institutions like
( inaudible) Bank and huge number of house breakups and family breakups, and
I understand that your reform packages started on March 2nd last year is getting
tremendous support I wish you success for at least two decades. My question
is if I say that, if Labor Party want to dream about the decision making
process, they have to sit and eat humble Australian pies for at least two
decades. My question is, anyway from Canberra to address the Premier of
( inaudible).
Prime Minister: What I understand your question is, is there any way we can
ensure that the NSW Government restores dignity to the office of NSW
Governor. Well change the NSW Government.
Question: Prime Minister, can I say how pleased most people are that you have refused to
buckle under pressure from the homosexual lobby and endorse tonight's gay
mardi gras. And on the question of family values, can I ask you how your
Family Tax package is being perceived around the country?
Prime Minister: Well I think it is being received very well around the country.
We delivered everything that we promrised. We have delivered a little more
choice for parents as to their child care arrangements. It's not the role of
governments to say to parents how many of them should be in the workforce
when their children are young. That's their business, and it's arrogant of
governments to sort of lay down some kind of paradigm. But the former
system made it very difficult for people who wanted, particularly when their
kids were young, to have either the mother or father out of the workforce for a
period. Now I'm not saying that the changes we've made have sort of provided
huge financial incentives for greater choice, but at least they have recognised
and made a contribution towards greater choice. And that's very, very
important indeed, very, very important. I think it has been seen as a well
targeted initiative. It's been widely supported and it's been seen by
organisations such as ACOSS as being fair to very low income families, so I'm
very well pleased with the reaction it's received.
Fax from Question: Prime Minister: How are you? Haven't seen you for ages.
still here
Prime Minister: Good on you.
Mr Prime Minister, first of all let me congratulate you on obtaining the high
office of Prime Minister of Australia. If there was every an Austr'alian citizen
that deserves such a high office it is the present holder of that situation. As you
know, Mr Prime Minister, I had never any doubts that you were going to
achieve this high office, and having achieved it you've added dignity, both
internally and externally for this nation. Having said so, let me put a very
simple question to you. What initiatives has the government in hand to initiate
further policies in overcoming the crippling overseas debt?
Prime Minister: Well a number of things, the first thing is that we have
reduced the budget deficit and therefore reduced the core of the government
sector on the savings of Australians to pay for government expenditure. We
have also, through reforming the labour market, we have set about making
Australia more competitive. There are two things that you need to do to reduce
Australia's monthly trading and balance of payments deficit, which of course is
the cause of our overseas debt. The money we owe to foreigners is the money
we have constantly borrowed from foreigners to buy the surplus of imports
over exports. The two things you need to do, the first is you need to increase
savings in the Australian community so we don't have to borrow so much from
foreigners, and the second thing you've got to do is to make the Australian
economy more competitive so that we can sell more overseas and our local
industries are more competitive against imports. Now we've set about
addressing the first by cutting the budget deficit and thereby building national
savings, and we've set about tackling the second by reforming the labour
market, we're going to tackle waterfront import reform this year. We've got
major telecommunications reform which will come into operation on the first
of July. We are pressing ahead with national competition policy, all of which
is bound to make Australia more competitive country. There has been some
improvement in Australia's balance of payments situation over the past several
years. It has been slow, but is not as acute as it was some years ago. There is
still a long way to go it is very much like turning round an ocean liner double
the size of the biggest one that's afloat at present it takes a very long time but
at least we have begun apply the policies that will start to turn that ocean liner
around. And they're being applied in those two areas. Fa rom01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 13
Fax from 0 1/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 14
Question: And if! I might say Mr Prime Minister, congratulations, we are in delight if we
have one big thing to win if I might say, we've got to win Manly back, which
was one of the strongest Liberal branches in Australia, though I hope that that
will be able to be said after the next state elections. But that is not my
question. My question is about the Constitution of Australia which is, I
believe, personally one of the greatest constitutions of the world. And we are
talking about having a referendum or even discussions about a change, republic
or constitution monarchy which has served us so well over the years. My
problem is that in Australia, less than twelve per cent of the people in Australia
have never seen, let alone read the constitution of this country, of which there
is no litigation virtually about. If you go to the United States, litigation is
continuous, and what concerns me is in this talk of change that we might get
something like the United States constitution, which all I can see will keep
lawyers, and I excuse all lawyers here, but will keep them in jobs forever. How
can we have any proper vote when people do not know what is in this
marvellous constitution that was written one hundred years ago?
Prime Minister: I think that's right, we have failed lamentably over the years to
properly teach our children the basic features of our structure of government.
This, what's the correct expression, this sort of episode, or issues treatment of
Australian history, which has been, become the vogue in recent times has
destroyed any sort of chronological understanding that people under the age of
about forty have all the steps taken to build.... how many children.. how many
Australians under the age of thirty five or forty were properly instructed about
the federation debates, about people such as Parkes and Barton and Deakin and
all of those people it just doesn't happen anymore. You've had plenty of sort
of issues studies, but people, unless you have a chronological understanding of
a nation's history, you have no sort of structure to refer back to. Anyway, I
shouldn't go down that path too much. But you're right. People don't know
much about the Constitution, and there's a lot of people, of course, who are not
particularly keen to get into too much of the detail about it either. They
essentially regard it as a fairly dry subject, but one of the things that we are
going to do in the lead up to the convention is that we're going to prepare and
have published a document to which we will seek, probably seek, input and
contributions from people in the community who have different views, stating
some of the bare facts about how our system, our present system of government
works,, describing the present system of government, describing its strengths
and there will also be people who will argue in the same document about its
weaknesses, and I hope that that document which will be very widely
distributed, I've even got it mind perhaps it appearing as a supplement in all of
the major newspapers in Australia, so and in a relatively attractive form, so that
people can and now a lot of people will actually read material like that if it's
presented in a proper form. I mean, you can't force people to read the
constitution. We're a democracy, no matter how much you distribute a lot of
Fax f romt 1/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg:
people just won't read it and you just have to accept that fact. But I do think if
we had a bit of a better understanding about how the system works we can have
a more intelligent debate. Now, I agree with you I think our constitution has
worked very well, I think the present system of government is a very good
system of government. I don't believe that a republican system of government
would be more liberal or more open or more democratic, but it's not just about
debate, it's I've said it before and I'll say it again that I don't think anyone's
unhappy with the present system of government. I think some people that some
of the symbolism associated with the present system of government is no longer
as contemporary as it might be, now that's not necessarly my view, but it is the
view of a lot of people, it's the view of a lot of people in this room, I think we
have to recognise that and we have to be willing to talk about it, but I don't
think we should change something unless we're satisfied that what we're
changing to is as good or better. And that's a pretty hard ask, but we shouldn't
be fightened to talk about it and but we should talk about it against the
background of being well informed and also talk but I think the way we
handle that will give people a lot more information.
Question: Prime Minister, could I begin by congratulating you for your opening speech
yesterday for the Youth Suicide Forum which was held in Canberra, it's quite
obvious that you have an excellent understanding of what is an horrific problem
and indeed a tragedy which faces Australia's youth. But my question is in lieu
of yesterday's discussions, what plan does the Government have to co-ordinate
a national strategy to address this problem?
Prime Minister: Well we have done a number of things, we have looked at the
problems of youth homelessness in a more systematic fashion, and there is
some link between dysfunctional family situations and suicide. There are a lot
of as I said yesterday, there are a lot of tributaries, and that's one of them. We
have got out pilot programnmes on youth homelessness and you may remember
that was an initiative I announced before the election they are now well
underway and I believe they will help in that area. We have put about S$ 19m
into a three-year programme which is a mixture of approaches. It's a very hard
problem and you were at the seminar and you have an understanding of it. It's
a product of family breakdown, of high unemployment, it is bound up with our
attitude to the treatment of mental health disorders, it's part of the wider debate
in the community about how soon people who have mental disorders arc
pushed back into the broader community and that's a very lively debate as you
know, and some of the personal examples that I as a local member have come
into touch with, and I mentioned one of them yesterday, are very much bound
up with that. It's about the availability of services which provide young people
in particular with a point of contact when they feel completely shut off from the
rest of society, I think one of the greatest social innovations in social policy so
simply devised when you think about it that I've seen in my life was the
Fax from01/ 03/ 97 15: 39 Pg: 16
launching of the original Lifeline programme in the early 1960s by Alan
Walker's mission here in Sydney which provided the very simple device of
there being a telephone, and those kids helplie services, the number of
suicides that have been avoided because of that service has been absolutely
magnficent it's very simple it's very effective, It's not just a question of
money, but money's important, it's a question of mobilisig community
services in a completely non-political non -combative way, and you would have
seen there were Labor members present as well as Coalition members. And so
it's trying to do A the things that are going to bring about a change. And in a
sense you say we've got a co-ordinated strategy, well sometimes a co-ordinated
strategy doesn't look very co-ordinated, because you're drawing upon the
voluntary efforts of a lot of people and I still believe very strongly the
involvement of the volunteer sector in areas like this is enormously important.
I mean I am constantly in awe of those men and women who spend hours and
hours often during the long lonely parts of the night sitting at the end of the
telephone, waiting for someone who's about to take their life to ring them up in
the hope that they may be able to persuade that there's a bit more hope in life
than what they at the moment think. And I think those people do a tremendous
job. You can never pay those people, all you can do is thank them, and all you
can do is create a society which makes that kind of work respected and
ennobled because it's a very, very important part of our society, and without
that volunteer glue a lot of the glue that holds us together and keeps people
feeling wanted and cared for is going to disappear.