Welcome, good to see you back and nice to be back. The Parliamentary Liberal Party met this morning and unanimously re-elected me as its Leader and Mr Costello as its Deputy Leader. I have continued the practice of coalition prime ministers of appointing the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and I’ve re-appointed Robert Hill as Leader and Richard Alston as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
The Coalition will, of course, be reformed and there’ll be a meeting of the joint parties this afternoon. I intend to now turn my mind to the formation of the new Government, the Cabinet and the Ministry. I’ll hold discussions with my senior colleagues regarding the composition of that, over the next few days, with a view to an announcement occurring probably during the weekend and also with a view to a swearing in taking place early next week.
I’d like to report on a couple of things that I told the Party Room this morning. I told the Liberal Party that it should not, in any way, underestimate the scale of the victory that had been achieved at the election. It was, in many respects, a more famous victory than had been achieved in 1996, because in 1996 we rode the tide of a very strong and hostile attitude towards the former Keating government. And some subsidence from that result was inevitable last Saturday week. We won despite the fact that we carrying, in political terms, the enormous burden of a negative campaign against the Goods and Services Tax. We defied conventional political wisdom in running with such a bold tax reform package.
I also took pause to praise the Liberal Party organisation for its great capacity in marginal seat campaigning. And one of the myths that was exploded at the last election was the myth of the invincibility of the Labor Party machine, particularly in New South Wales, in winning marginal seats. And the marginal seat campaigns of the Liberal Party, in particular, throughout Australia were absolutely first class.
I also indicated that I believed that there was a fair amount of fantasising being indulged in about the significance of the result. There is no such thing as an inevitable continuum in Australian politics. One election result does not proclaim the subsequent result or subsequent outcome. In 1961 the Labor Party drove the Menzies government to a slender margin of only two seats, yet in 1963 that margin was expanded to 20 and Harold Holt took it to 38 in 1966, and that was 38 in a Parliament of 124. In 1984 there was a swing to the Coalition, yet it took another 12 years before the Labor Party was prised out of the treasury benches. If one can not only plagiarise but turn John Donne on his head, every election is an island and you can’t assume that you’re going to have some kind of continuum the next time around.
There will be different issues at the time of the next election and any perceived momentum out of this result will well and truly have been dissipated long before that election takes place. I obviously don’t start making any predictions about that except to say that it will be completely different from the last election, just as the last election was completely different from 1996 and 1996 was different from 1993, and so it goes on.
The Coalition is entitled to feel very gratified at the result. At this stage it appears to me, on the best of my advice, that we will have a majority of at least 10. That could stretch to 12 or 14 at the outside, depending on the results in a number of the doubtful seats. The information I have is that there are, in essence, really only three and the outlook in one or two of those for us is not good. Those three seats being Kalgoorlie, Dickson and Bass but I really don’t know what the final outcome in those is going to be but I expect that we will have, as I say, a majority of at least 10, possibly 12.
I said to the Party Room this morning that we should not assume that One Nation is dead. We should not assume that the threat posed by One Nation, particularly to the Coalition side of politics, has gone. If you wanted to get a broad brush of what happened last Saturday week what you would say is that the One Nation Party took about 8% or 9% from us and delivered half or a bit more of that to the Labor Party via its preferences. And that, if you look at the results around the country, that is roughly what occurred. And I think it puts the result in a better perspective than some of the imagery that is endeavoured to be painted by our Labor opponents. And that, of course, carries a message for us. There is still work to be done to get One Nation voters back to the Coalition. The great bulk of One Nation voters are former Coalition voters. Don’t believe that there’s a large chunk of Labor voters amongst them, there isn’t. The great bulk of them are former Coalition voters and because of the way in which the preferences were farmed around, we were severely damaged in a number of our seats, particularly in Western Australia, as a result of the One Nation’s campaign.
I told the Liberal Party room that the Government would be different this time from what it was last time, that’s not said critically of what it was like last time but every government in every term is different. I’ll be a different Prime Minister in many ways than I was last time. I’ll have different goals. I will have come through a different experience. I will have different things that I want to achieve. We certainly want to achieve our economic reform agenda. And I expressed the view, the idea, that we could somehow or other close down the reform process or even dramatically slow down on the reform process was simply not an option. The world will not allow that to happen. The globalised economy in which we live will prevent that occurring. And the reform process has to go on, it has to be done skilfully, it has to be done in a sensitive way and it has to be done in a way that communicates the outcomes for people and the benefits for people perhaps better than has been the case in the past.
The Labor Party, of course, now faces an enormous policy dilemma. It’s got to decide what it believes in and where it stands in the Australian political spectrum. It’s gone through two-and-a-half years, effectively, of pretending no ownership of some of the changes that were made during some of the more politically successful years of the Labor Party since Federation. The Labor Party must now go through the agony of a serious policy debate. It’s dumped its capital gains tax but it has no serious policy alternative to offer to the Coalition, but I’ll leave that for the Labor Party.
I indicated to the Party Room that non-economic issues would, of course, bulk large on the political horizon over the next three years. There will be a referendum on the republic. It will be held at the end of 1999. Members of the Liberal Party will enjoy a free vote. I’m of the view that whatever the outcome of that referendum, and I frankly don’t know what the outcome of the referendum will be, the fabric of the Australian community is not going to be, in any way, damaged or hurt by the process. The Constitutional Convention demonstrated that and I’m absolutely confident that whatever the outcome is that we will move forward in a very positive united way to commemorate the foundation of the Australian nation 100 years ago on the 1st of January in the year 2001.
We do need to achieve reconciliation with the indigenous people of this country. It is a reconciliation perhaps not necessarily through the eyes of the former government once removed,but rather through the eyes of the current Government and the leaders of the indigenous people and I’m certainly committed to achieving that. I’m also very conscious of the fact that over the next few years Australia will have to play a stronger and more assertive regional role in both political and economic terms. The region in which we live now is very different from what it was when we came to government. It’s very fractured, it’s weakened, it is, in large measure, in recession and we will have to play a very strong regional role.
And, of course, overlaying all of that is what I call the millennium momentum which is gathering pace every month as we move towards not only the Olympic Games in Sydney in the year 2000 but also the commemoration of the Centenary of Federation. And that brings with it all sorts of, I guess, national stocktaking, all of which I think will be positive and ought to be positive and an inevitable focus on the future as well as a proper recognition of what we have achieved over the last 100 years as a nation.
Finally can I say the mood of the Party Room was understandably exuberant, and they had every right to feel exuberant. It was a great win. It was a win in defiance of a lot of
political predictions. It was a win off the back of a very bold economic reform agenda and it’s one of the great wins that the Liberal Party has had since its formation by RG Menzies back in 1944. Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, could you stand before us now and offer a rock solid guarantee that you will be the leader for the full term of this Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
I was elected with a mandate to serve another term. That’s all I will say. You take each term in its turn at its time. I was elected for three years, that was the mandate I had, that’s the language I use when I was asked that question and I am not going to alter it now that the election’s over.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you speak of reconciliation.What is reconciliation in your eyes? How will you achieve it and do you think you need a Ministerial change to achieve it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Barry, reconciliation in my mind is an acceptance of a number of things. It’s an acceptance first and foremost that we are all Australians together and that our national unity and our identity as Australians is the starting point. And that that carries with it both privileges and obligations. It carries with it the expectation of all Australians particularly those disadvantaged Australians which include a large number of indigenous people that they would have the right to share in the plenty that is available in this country. It also, of course, carries with it the obligation that all of us are bound by the same set of laws and we are all living together in the same community. It involves a recognition of history and an acceptance that the first inhabitants of this country were the indigenous people and that nothing can alter that fact and there are certain consequences that flow from that. It also involves a recognition that they were unjustly treated in the past. It involves a recognition that they have a distinctive culture and identity which is in no way inconsistent with their identity as Australians. And it carries with it an obligation for that separate identity and culture to be respected. But equally it carries with it an obligation on their part to see themselves as part-and-parcel of a harmonious Australian community. And I think with goodwill you can achieve some kind of understanding on the basis of those principles. I have spoken of a document which would attempt to, sort of, set some of those things out. I am not wedded to any particular form. I quite deliberately don’t use the expression treaty because treaty implies two nations within one which is something I have never accepted and never will accept and I believe will never be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the Australian community. I think we can all, sort of, strip away some of the drama surrounding this issue and if we just recognise the two simple things that we are all Australians together but there are for historical and ethnic and other reasons a distinctive group of Australians, the indigenous people, who by dint of history and experience have a special place in this country and they have a culture and they have an identity which is entitled to receive from the rest of the Australian community an understanding, a recognition and a respect.
JOURNALIST:
On the Republic Prime Minister, do you intend to formulate the legislation that you will put to the Parliament … referendum, will there be any form of public discussion, perhaps a white paper to see how that legislation will be formulated?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I won’t rule out some kind of public discussion. I don’t want to do other than play this thing straight and true as I have up to now. The convention produced an outcome and I said we would endeavour as faithfully as we could to replicate that in the legislation and if that involves some kind of public discussion, and I don’t want to limit myself to what form that will take, then I’d be very happy to undertake it.
JOURNALIST:
Is it your intention for Senator Minchin to maintain carriage of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am not going to talk about who has carriage of anything at the moment. I’ll leave that to my own counsel over the next few days.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you speak about a stronger role in the region. Will we see that in APEC?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’ll certainly be having a few things to say at APEC about the need to maintain the reform process, the continued….
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
….well, the reform process a la APEC. The movement towards the trade liberalisation goals of APEC, that’s what I have got in mind. I mean, I am not going to run around the area giving people extensive domestic lectures although equally I am not reluctant to express a view on something that requires a comment from the Australian Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, how is what you’ve described consistent with you have previously said about people having a black armband view of history?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don’t think there is any inconsistency at all. What I see as a black armband view of history, and I continue to condemn it, is that people essentially see Australia’s past in a negative, pejorative light. I don’t. I see it…I don’t see it in any kind of triumphal light but I certainly see it as a history of immense achievement and something of which overall this country can be enormously proud. Anybody who holds that view as a matter of logic would reject what I don’t mind calling the black armband view of history, it’s got nothing to do with the indigenous people. It’s got to do with an essentially negative, carping, mean-minded, mean-spirited view of what this country has achieved.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)… high on your agenda, what’s your view about the latest attacks involving Kerry Packer and what you …done in terms of tightening legislation to ..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am not going to comment on an individual case. I don’t know the circumstances of it and I am not going to presume to comment on an individual case whether it’s Mr Packer’s position or, indeed, anybody else’s. Quite separately from that and quite separately from commenting on individual cases, my view about people paying their fair share is well known. There were measures in our tax plan that involved a severe limitation on the opportunities that were available under the law of the former Government for the use of trust upon trust upon trust. And some of the anti-avoidance measures that we announced when we announced the tax plan will make the use of those sorts of devices a lot more difficult in the future and we will not be in any way reluctant to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that blatant artificial tax avoidance arrangements are not allowed and are made as difficult as possible. I mean, I have had an uncompromising view on that all of my political career and I paid a…very dearly inside the Liberal Party some years ago for the uncompromising view that I took on it and I don’t have any regrets at all for having done that.
JOURNALIST:
What signal do you think it sends to ordinary taxpayers about the integrity of the tax system when they see somebody like Kerry Packer being able to avoid through….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don’t want to comment on an individual case without knowing….
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Glenn, come on, we are all over 21, break it down. I am not going to comment on an individual case but I will certainly state the principle which I did a moment ago. I mean, I don’t know the background of an individual case and I don’t seek without a full briefing on the background of it to express a view on it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you said you were going to be different. In what ways are you going to be different and why do you feel the need to be different?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we are always different Michelle. Each term is different, the challenges are different, you bring a different psychological approach to it, you have different goals to achieve.
JOURNALIST:
So why do you….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am…Michelle, really. I mean, I thought one of my difficulties was that I wasn’t willing to be different. I seem to have read a bit of your stuff over the last couple of years telling me to be different. Here I am offering to be different and you’re suspicious.
JOURNALIST:
I’m not suspicious, I’m curious.
PRIME MINISTER:
You’re curious. Well you shouldn’t be curious. Please believe me, I’m Prime Minister!
JOURNALIST:
How will your goals be different?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the goals are going to be different because Australia has different…has some different priorities. That’s why, I mean, the goals of a Prime Minister should be moulded towards the best interests of the country, not to his personal agenda. And when I became Prime Minister in 1996 my first objective was to get the Budget in order and to introduce certain legislation that we’d taken to the Parliament…taken to the people. And also, I think, turn around a fairly strong tide of political correctness that I think this country had suffered from under the later years of the Keating Government. Now I come to power for the second time in somewhat different circumstances. We have got the Budget into balance but we have a different international economic outlook than we had in 1996. We’ve been elected on an emphatic tax reform agenda. We are now much closer to the millennium. The proper handling of the republic issue and the reconciliation issue, and those other things, are more immediate now than what they were two-and-a-half years ago. Now obviously if I had exactly the same mindset now as I had two-and-a-half years ago I probably won’t give the right response. And that’s what I mean when I’m going to be different and you are always different. I’m two-and-a-half years more experienced. I’m only the third Liberal Leader since the Party’s formation to have back-to-back election victories. We have a differently composed Parliament than what we had last time and that brings with it different challenges. I face an Opposition that will have different challenges. I mean they essentially ran their show between ’96 and ’98 in a totally negative carping way. They can’t do that again. There will be an enormous pressure on them to produce some policy alternatives.
JOURNALIST:
… Ministerial Guidelines?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’ll have something to say about that at the right time but there will be guidelines and they will be appropriate. They will be guidelines, they won’t be a death sentence. See, I haven’t changed that.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)…Do you rule out the possibility of going to a Double Dissolution election and if so do you accept the inevitably of …?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t have to accept anything other than the will of the Australian people and I gladly accept that. The will of the Australian people was clearly expressed through giving my Government a majority of at least 10 seats. We will deal with the Parliament as things happen and as the cards fall. I’m not going to start hypothesising about what might happen if such and such occurs. I’m not into any of that. It’s a waste of time. We got the verdict of the Australian people and I accept that very gladly and I’m looking forward to the resumption of Parliament on the tenth of November.
JOURNALIST:
… Is your expectation that the Malaysian authorities will not hinder or censor the Australian media’s coverage of the APEC meeting?
PRIME MINISTER:
It certainly is and I make it very plain that I would be opposed to any attempt by anybody to censor the reporting of international events by the Australian media. I am an uncompromising supporter of the freedom of the press.
JOURNALIST:
There is an indication from Kuala Lumpur that the Australian Television network will be sent through Malaysian Telecom and it will be monitored.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can only say what I’ve said Paul, that I am against any kind of censorship, full stop, any kind of censorship of APEC or indeed other events of that kind by the Australian media. So I can’t be anymore straight-forward and candid than that and if there is any suggestion well I will express my view in very strong, if there is any attempt at censorship, I will express my views in very strong terms to the Malaysian authorities about that. I would regard that as quite unacceptable.
JOURNALIST:
During the caretaker period….(inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought I had. I thought was…I thought I had a very clear view. I mean there’s point in repeating what I’ve said before but I don’t resile from it and there’s really nothing more to be said. I mean I expressed a view. I don’t apologise for what I said at all. It was entirely appropriate. It was moderate, it was balanced, it was right, and I don’t retreat from it.
JOURNALIST:
From your personal point of view, how does the idea of third term appeal to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’ve only just got a second term Matt. Look so we don’t get hung up about this I have a mandate for another term but I said during the election campaign that I would take a term at a time. And if people want to know about the third term you come and talk to me a long long way into the future. I mean, gee, it’s only October. What is it….I mean I’m looking forward to the first test and I’m looking forward to Christmas, I’m looking forward to Parliament resuming. I just can’t wait for Parliament to come back.
JOURNALIST:
….in Asia. Do you have any specific plans to assist individual countries? Any mini-Marshall plans….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not prone to those sort of grand sweeping descriptions that sort of are full of rhetoric but don’t carry with them much substance. We have been a very constructive participant already and we’ll continue to be very constructive, consistent with our own domestic needs and obligations.
JOURNALIST:
…(inaudible)…
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I haven’t made any plans to meet anybody yet apart from some of my colleagues over lunch. I’ll see them soon and obviously the person who is appointed as the Minister will carry the major responsibility but I will take an interest in it as I do in anything that I think is important nationally. I always take an interest in things that are important nationally.
JOURNALIST:
Do you rule out a special portfolio …
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I’m not ruling anything in or out as far as the Ministry is concerned. I’ve got nothing to say on the composition of the Ministry at this stage.
JOURNALIST:
You talked about reconciliation,…(inaudible)…did you have a revelation or someone that got to you over a cup of coffee…
PRIME MINISTER:
Only a cup of coffee?
JOURNALIST:
We know you are abstemious?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I’ve never claimed to be abstemious.
JOURNALIST:
What happened to make you suddenly….?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I mentioned it in the Great Debate.
JOURNALIST:
But you volunteered…(inaudible)…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I said that, you know, you should always expect a few surprises in my Prime Ministership. Nothing in particular…I think it is important. I mean one of the problems with this issues is that because the previous Government sort of went on about some of these issues so much people tended to see them only through the paradigm of the former Labor Government and they couldn’t accept that an alternative Government could genuinely hold a view in favour of a process which was quite different from the view of the former Labor Government yet was nonetheless quite genuine. It’s a point I made, I think, on the "4 Corners" programme. Now I think in some circles in this country there is almost a, you know, there’s almost an obstinate unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of a conservative position on certain social issues. Now I think that’s got to change.
JOURNALIST:
…(inaudible)…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not totally. Don’t get…. I can see, I can see. This will sort of be the foundation of articles for months ahead.
JOURNALIST:
…front bench…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh. No, I’ll bat that one away too Michael.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any room for another National Party minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the situation is that you do that on a mathematical formula and I think probably as a result of the election outcome there could be a case for one additional National Party Minister and one less Liberal Minister.
JOURNALIST:
…in general terms would you be willing to follow Mr Costello’s approach to [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
I always try that. I always try calm logical argument, and sweet reason, and evoke the will of the people. Try the lot Louise and I hope it works.
JOURNALIST:
Will you be accepting the vote of Senator Colston…(inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it’s something that needs to be perhaps looked at again because at the moment he’s been treated worse than anybody else who’s charged with a crime. I mean nobody else has been treated like that. He is, at the moment, being denied the presumption of innocence. But as I say it’s something to be looked at.
JOURNALIST:
…(inaudible)….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven’t been asked that question for a long time.
JOURNALIST:
But your refused to take his vote….(inaudible)…
PRIME MINISTER:
That’s right, we did. So I don’t think anybody can accuse us of being particularly venal on the subject.
I mean, your point is if we had taken his vote, some people say if he’d have expressed a different view then at the time of Telstra then the outcome of that would be different. But I think now that you’ve had an election, I was asked a question, I think it’s something that should be re-examined.
JOURNALIST:
In the interest of a reformed parliamentary process and the GST, would now accept or release all Treasury documentation given that the Democrats….
PRIME MINISTER:
What are they demanding?
JOURNALIST:
They are demanding the release of all Treasury documents… the impact of the GST …(inaudible)…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we’ll deal with those requests in an appropriate way.
JOURNALIST:
…(inaudible)…what’s your position on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
We’ll deal with it in an appropriate way. I don’t admit that we’re guilty of anything. We’ll just deal with those requests in an appropriate way.
JOURNALIST:
….One Nation is not dead but are you pleased that Pauline Hanson has not been returned to Parliament…..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well of course I’m pleased that the Liberal Party won the seat of Blair, of course I am. And noted with pleasure the very warm reception that the new Member, Cameron Thompson, received this morning because he won the seat. I’m very pleased that Mrs Hanson lost the seat and I’m very pleased that it’s held by the Liberal Party as is meet and proper for that kind of seat. Very pleased.
JOURNALIST:
Are you concerned about the $3 million in electoral funding going to One Nation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they’re entitled to it under the law. If people run in elections and Australians vote for them they are entitled to public funding if we have a public funding system. I’ve got no right to say that they can’t have it. I can see people criticising their party structure as some of my colleagues have done and that’s fair enough too. But I’ve got no right to say that they should be denied that money anymore than they’ve got a right to say we should be denied public funding. The fact is a lot of Australians voted for One Nation. I think there’s an obligation, despite Mrs Hanson’s defeat, there’s an obligation on us, in particular, because many of her supporters were former Coalition voters. There’s an obligation on us to try and win them back and I think that campaign must go on. And I would encourage Liberals and Nationals all over the country not to assume that One Nation is finished. Not to assume that there’s an inevitable decline, but to keep working to win those votes back.
JOURNALIST:
..(inaudible)…What are you going to do to win the votes back Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I’m working on that. I haven’t formulated the total battle plan but one way of course is to govern well and to do what you say you’re going to do. I don’t think you’ll have quite the conjunction of negative circumstances in this coming term that we had in the last term that spawned the growth of One Nation. There was a number of trigger points that helped One Nation spring to life in the last term which won’t occur on this occasion. Not that I regret any of those trigger points but they occurred and they naturally had an impact.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, why would it be any less venal to take Mal Colston’s vote on Telstra now since the election when you didn’t mention the fact you might reconsider this decision not to take his vote during….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the point I was making about venality was that we took a position in relation to Telstra which clearly made it more rather than less likely that he would vote against us. That was the point I was making. I mean you may in fact be aware of discussion I had with him before that vote took place.
JOURNALIST:
Have you spoken to any of the Coalition Members who lost their seats and …(inaudible)…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’ve spoken to each of them and I’ve expressed my personal regrets and I’ve discussed the reasons. They’re a very interesting miscellany of reasons. A significant number of them said it wasn’t the GST. Some of them said it was but quite a significant number said it wasn’t. There’s no doubt that the way in which One Nation preferences were directed, particularly in Western Australia, was quite significant. The One Nation preference distribution ended up being quite malicious and disadvantageous to the Coalition and there was a quite deliberate campaign in relation to the distribution of those preferences in seats like Canning in Western Australia. I think they went something like 70% against the sitting Liberal Member, or the then sitting Liberal Member. And a number of the people who were involved in the One Nation Party in that seat had been members of the Liberal Party.
JOURNALIST:
How concerned are you about Noel Crichton-Browne’s suggestion that he approached One Nation candidates….(inaudible)…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am past concern about him. I mean, I think you understand we are not regular correspondents?
JOURNALIST:
Are you still confident with the economic forecasts?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I’ve not had any advice from Treasury to countermand them.
JOURNALIST:
Will you speak to Senator Harradine about his proposal for a Senate inquiry…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don’t have any plans at the moment to speak to Senator Harradine but we enjoy a good working relationship. I don’t rule out talking to him and I don’t rule out the possibility he might talk to me. I respect Senator Harradine. I certainly would rather him win a Senate seat than the Tasmanian Greens.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No, a good government can deal with any difficulty.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] lessen the impact of the … on the financial institutions. Would you like to see the Japanese government do more?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have said before that Japan faces a very big challenge in relation to the restructuring of its banking system and it’s very important that that be undertaken. I think it’s a little part heard at the moment and it’s a little premature for me to say whether enough has been done. Certainly there appears to have been a more determined effort to fix it than was the case earlier.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister can your Government repel any….
PRIME MINISTER:
Propel?
JOURNALIST:
Repel.
PRIME MINISTER:
Repel. Well, all of us are affected by what happens on the international scene. The point I sought to make a moment ago is that if you govern well economically and in other ways then your government is not necessarily under threat. That doesn’t mean to say the country won’t be affected. We can’t stand in isolation from what happens in the rest of the world but what we do domestically will influence how badly what happens in the rest of the world affects Australia. Witness the success we’ve had over the last two-and-a-half years in mitigating the impact of the Asian economic downturn. I think we’ve had enough and good to see you back and we’ll see you all around.
[ends]