E&OE....................................................
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you very much Hendy Cowan, and the Premier. I don't know
that there's an enormous amount I want to add to what I said
in there. I'm greatly relieved that there are some technical
people here to answer some of the more technical questions, but I
just want to emphasise that it's not only the substance but also
the symbolism of our commitment to this project that's very important.
The Federation Fund was all about national projects of lasting significance
and the project that we've chosen for the first allocation of
support in Western Australia, that's the Jervoise Bay project,
is very much in that category because nothing is of more lasting significance
to Western Australia and to the nation than the resource sector of
this state, the ship building capacity of this state is rapidly becoming
legend and it is making a huge contribution, and to underpin the infrastructure
in the way that this project will do will be of enormous benefit and
it will provide a diversification of the skills base of the area.
It is a diverse infrastructure project. It's not just oil and
gas. It's ship building, it's high tech, it's skills
development and it fits the bill of the infrastructure projects and
it's a very appropriate project to be announced on Australia
Day and I know how much it will please the Deputy Premier because
it's something that's been very dear to his heart for a
very long time.
I can see a smiling Deputy Premier and smiling members of his Department.
I don't want to really say anything more by way of general comment
about it than that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, it's not a technical question but how do you
personally feel about the concerns of the people out there who say
that this will ruin this stretch of coastline?
PRIME MINISTER:
It won't. I mean, that's the sort of over the top criticism
of development that does the genuine cause of environmental concern
in Australia a great disservice. We have a process that's already
been initiated by the Western Australian Government to make sure that
those legitimate concerns of environmentalists are met. I mean, we're
not in the business ever of pillaging the environment but we are in
the business of generating jobs and we tried very hard and pretty
successfully to get a balance and that's what Australians want.
They want to look after the environment and they want jobs and they
want development, and you can have all three if you are sensible.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, isn't this just pork-barrelling in the lead up to
the 1998 election?
PRIME MINISTER:
It would be pork-barrelling if it made no contribution to the future.
That's what pork-barrelling is. Pork-barrelling is when you throw
money after useless projects of transient political importance but
of no lasting benefit to the nation. Now, you only have to look at
this project to realise the description, pork-barrelling, is monstrously
inappropriate. It's almost obscenely inappropriate.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, are you confident of industrial harmony at the site?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am very confident of industrial harmony and while I am on the subject
of industrial harmony, I saw a bit of paper the other day that in
1996, the level of industrial disputes in Australia was the lowest
it had been since 1940. In other words, in 1996, the first year of
the Coalition Government, and here in Western Australia in partnership
with a Coalition Government that has done a lot of tremendous work
in industrial reform, first class work in industrial reform, you've
had a 56 year record chalked up so far as a low level of industrial
disputes are concerned. One of the reasons I am very confident is
that the responsible union leadership in this state realises that
it's projects like this that will generate jobs. At the end of
the day, good, intelligent, responsible union leadership wants jobs
for Australians, and this job will generate jobs for Australians and
that's tremendously important.
JOURNALIST:
(Inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the State Government made a contribution and the private sector
is making a contribution.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on another matter, Pauline Hanson has criticised the
awarding of Young Australian of the Year and Australian of the Year
to Tan Le and Cathy Freeman respectively. She says it's politically
motivated.
PRIME MINISTER:
I've heard those remarks. I must say I thought they were not
only inaccurate, they were stupid, they were petty and they're
very divisive remarks being made on Australia Day. Neither of those
awards was the gift of the Federal Government or of any State Government.
Both awards were made by an independent committee. I was informed
of the committee's choices in each case shortly before the announcements
were made. Let me say, I think both of them were excellent choices
and I heard Mrs Hanson's remarks on Perth radio this morning.
They were wildly inaccurate and petty in the extreme. Cathy Freeman's
speech yesterday here in Perth accepting the award was a speech in
which she rejoiced in the fact that she was an Australian and that
she was naturally and properly and understandably proud of her Aboriginal
heritage. Her speech was nothing like what it was described as this
morning by Mrs Hanson on radio and I really think it is a very regrettable,
inappropriate, ugly intervention on Australia Day without any basis
and fact and it's a charge that I completely and utterly reject
in relation to both awards. I think they are both magnificent young
Australians of whom all of us can be immensely proud.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Cathy Freeman is quoted this morning as supporting
those who are calling for an apology for the stolen generation. What
do you say to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think her remarks were very understandable.
JOURNALIST:
Also the protesters at your breakfast speech, did you get a message
from those people?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not particularly, no. I thought it was a very civilised gathering
this morning.
JOURNALIST:
If Cathy Freeman's remarks are very understandable, does that
give any more sway to the Government's decision not to apologise?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I think we've stated our position. I think her remarks are
understandable.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Michael Cobb has decided to quit politics at the next election.
Has he done the right thing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's always the right thing when you decide where your
future is going to be. I mean, politics is never forever for anybody
and he has decided to retire. I want to thank Michael for the contribution
that he's made as the Federal Member for a very difficult electorate.
He's been a great Member of the National Party . He won a seat,
if any of you understand the political history of that seat, that's
the seat that includes the city of Broken Hill and it's been
held by the National Party in the Federal Parliament for a number
of years and it's quite a remarkable achievement and I wish him
well but it's his decision and I mean, this business of having
a seminar every time somebody decides to retire from politics, or
enter it, is ridiculous. He's decided to go, he's had a
long stint and he's going and I am quite sure that the National
Party will find a very good replacement and the Government will hold
the seat. I will certainly be campaigning to ensure that the Government
does hold the seat.
JOURNALIST:
Will he be a loss to the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he's made a good contribution to the National Party and
to the Government and I am sorry to see him go and I wish him well.
I particularly admire the contribution that he made to debate inside
the National Party on economic issues through the 1980s. He was a
very strong proponent of sensible economic policies and he was a very
strong proponent of a sensible approach to some of the more divisive
element that occurred in the Coalition in the 1980s and I will be
sorry he's no longer a Member. I can understand why he's
going.
JOURNALIST:
There are claims, or what do you say to claims that his decision is
more about protecting his superannuation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, you can go and talk to other people about that. I don't
know anything about that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, this morning you spoke about a republic and you spoke
about the symbols changing. What symbols were you referring to?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what I was talking about... well, if you want to ask me about
the flag, I think I've made it perfectly clear. I don't
favour any changes to the Australian flag.
JOURNALIST:
What symbols were you referring to?
PRIME MINISTER:
I was talking about symbols generally and what I was saying was that
a nation has, a nation has symbols and a nation also has its substance
and I think both things are important but the substance of a nation,
the character of a nation and what a nation stands for is even more
important than its symbols. Now I think we can debate symbols, we
can debate the flag - it's a free country and if Australians
vote for change to the flag well, it will change. I can tell you,
I am not in favour of change. I can see no argument for change. I
have never seen a flag that comes half anywhere near approaching the
present Australian flag. I am just uncomplicatedly opposed to any
change in the flag.
As far as the republic is concerned, we will be debating that in the
Convention. I gave a very detailed speech in Melbourne on Friday setting
out my conditions. I am totally opposed to an elected Presidency.
I think that would destroy the present Parliamentary system. I think
the present system works extremely well. A lot of people want change.
Let's talk about it and at the end of the day, let's put
it to the Australian people because they will decide these things.
It's a democracy and they will decide the future of this country.
For my part, I see no merit at all in having a new Australian flag.
I think the present one is perfectly acceptable.
No matter what flag or symbol you have, not everybody will agree with
it. We had a vote 20 years ago about a national song and not everybody
voted for Advance Australia Fair but the majority did, so it's
the... I mean, you don't get too worked up about these things.
People have their view. We have a debate, we have a vote and then
it's resolved.
Thank you.
[ENDS]