Subjects: Rugby World Cup; republic referendum; preamble to the constitution;
Melbourne Cup.
E&OE............
CLARK:
Good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Phillip.
CLARK:
Did you stay up on Saturday night?
PRIME MINISTER:
Did I ever. I got to bed about twenty-to-four. It was a great match. It
was a fantastic match and I'll be staying up very late this Saturday night
as well.early Sunday morning. It will be a long day but I think we've got
a real show.
CLARK:
It's going to be. The last week of the referendum campaign, I suppose it's
the only issue on the agenda for this week in a sense isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. I think it will get a very good run and so it should because it's an
important issue. I'll be taking the opportunity to suggest to people that
they should stay with the present constitution. I've been a consistent opponent
of change to a republic. I've never disguised that fact. I think we have
a very safe and reliable constitution and I don't think we should take the
risk of changing it.
CLARK:
Can I put this to you that whatever happens on Saturday, the result in a
sense is probably going to end up as a divisive exercise in that we've got
a whole lot of people in one camp with fervent views, sometimes passionate
views, and on the other side others the yes and the no cases will argue
their case with a lot of energy up and down the country. But in the end,
despite all of this effort and despite all of the expense and the trouble
we've been to as a country, at this time in our history at the end of 1999
we've ended with something that divides us when it could have been something
else. I mean do you feel that a sense of an opportunity being missed here?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. You could always, if you were going to as it were force a vote on this
issue at this time there's always going to be a difference of a view. But
a movement started some years ago to have a vote on the issue before the
turn of the century. And I promised the Australian people that if I became
Prime Minister, although I myself were opposed to change, I would give them
a vote and I'm keeping that promise. I mean this is democracy. You always
have differences of opinion. There were differences of opinion in the past
on other constitutional issues. But I don't believe after Saturday, whatever
the result, I don't think you're going to have endless division. I think
Australians are Australians above everything else. I mean I want the referendum
proposal defeated because I don't want to risk a very safe constitution.
But if the Australian people vote yes then as Prime Minister, I will accept
that result and I will facilitate the implementation of their wish. And
I would say to those people who want a republic that if it is defeated,
well we get on with our lives. We together as Australians celebrate the
centenary of our country. I mean this is not a debate about who is the more
passionate Australian. There are equally committed passionate Australians
on both sides of the debate and it's just a question of what is the better
system of government. I don't think we should be frightened to debate differences
as long as at the end of the day we are above everything else Australians
and that unites us more than any of our divisions on this might put us apart.
CLARK:
One of the phrases you used in your defence of the current system, issued
in the minute of your Bennelong electorate newsletter which struck me as
interesting, that is you said the Governor-General is effectively our head
of state, thereby acknowledging the truth that the head of the constitutional
arrangement in the country lies the Queen.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I said in that document...
CLARK:
In other words it's not quite right, the symbolism of our country isn't
quite right. The Queen is the head of the constitutional arrangements but
she's not really our head state. [inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
I was speaking a truth and the truth that I was speaking was that under
the constitution the powers of the monarch are discharged by the Governor-General.
I mean these are things people will take into account.
CLARK:
But it's a bit ramshackle isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think ramshackle is the last thing our constitution is. I mean even
the republicans acknowledge that we have a very stable, reliable, secure
system, otherwise they wouldn't be running around saying - ever so subtlely
- look this isn't really big change. It's just sort of a white out of Queen
and Governor General and a write in of president. I mean their whole thrust
is to say that this is a tiny miniscule change. You know why they're saying
that? Because they know that the present constitution is very safe and secure
and is workable. I mean we've had it for a hundred years. All this talk
about the powers of dismissal of the Governor-General of the President,
we've never dismissed a Governor-General. And the value of a constitution
is discovered when it is put under strain and stress. Any old constitution
will work when everything is going swimmingly. It's when something is put
under stress and strain that you know whether it works or not. And this
constitution has worked effectively for a hundred years. I mean I am a person
who will argue for change passionately if I believe that it is in the good
of the country as a I did with tax reform. But when it comes to something
that I see works, I know I feel, as I go around the country the feeling
I get from the people is gee we really do have a good system.
CLARK:
But our national symbols are important aren't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes they are important.
CLARK:
..very important. And isn't it important to get them right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CLARK:
There's a sense, you implicitly conceded in your letter ..
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't.
CLARK:
. there's a sense that our symbols are not quite right because our head
of state's effectively somebody else.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry, Phillip. Don't..I mean this is a very nice interview. I don't want
to be antagonistic. But look, don't put words into my mouth and words into
my newsletter. I didn't concede anything in my newsletter. I asserted the
obvious and that is that we have a very workable system. We are lucky that
the accident of history, the circumstances of history have given us a particularly
stable system. Now in the end people will make up their minds as to whether
they want to maintain that historical association with the Crown or not.
Whether that is so offensive to them that it overwhelms the evident advantages
of the present system. Now that is something that people will make their
mind's up at the weekend. I mean I don't walk away from that because it's
an historical fact. But equally the functioning practical day-to-day reality
is that the Governor-General exercises the powers of head of state in this
country. I mean that is a matter of law because his powers derive from the
constitution. So I mean these are things in the end that people have got
to make their mind's up. You ask me do I feel any less Australian because
of that arrangement, the answer is no. I don't think anybody does. You agree
with me that it is not a debate between as to who is the better Australian.
It's really a debate as to what is the better system.
CLARK:
Of course. It's clearly not a debate about who's the most patriotic, or
who's the passionate Australian. I think you observe a moment ago those
who feel equally strong on both sides. But the symbolism is important, just
to return to this point. And it seemed to be underlined most cogently in
the Olympic Games issue didn't it? Every other country would have its head
of state opening the Olympic Games. We don't. Whether you regard the Governor-General
or the Queen as the head of state. You said yesterday in your ..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that it's most appropriate given the sort of country Australia
is that its Prime Minister open it. I mean I had that view when Mr Keating
was Prime Minister. It's not something that I've developed since becoming
Prime Minister myself. And I would have that same view if we were a republic
because what you've got to remember..
CLARK:
That the Prime Minister should open...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes because in our system of government the person who effectively sits
at the apex of the decision making process is the Prime Minister. So there's
a lot of talk about the importance of the head of state. In a way that is
an accretion if you like, something that's come into the debate because
of the argument about a republic. The executive political authority in this
country is in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet because we
are a Westminster system of government. We are not like the American Presidency,
an executive President, or the Mexican Presidency, or the French Presidency,
where there is a division, or the Indonesian President or the South African
Presidency. All of these are very very different presidencies. So when you're
talking about the identity of the decision maker and so forth, in the end
it's the Prime Minister who sits at the apex of the political system. But
we have at the moment a fortunate division where as a last resort if the
political process doesn't resolve the dispute you have a system of government
that in a completely non-political impartial fashion can resolve dead lock.
Now, I don't believe you can duplicate that as well in a republican form
of the model being voted for on Saturday. And that is an overwhelming reason
why undecided voters should vote no. I mean, they've got to ask themselves,
do they really think that you can have as neutral, non-political a Head
of State arrangement as we have now under the republican model. And if they're
in any doubt about that then they should, on that ground alone, cast a no
vote.
CLARK:
I was reading a piece by Brian Matthews on the weekend which he made the
point, look it's not just a question of saying if the current system is
okay, leave it alone, as he says all political institutions evolve over
a period of time and that what we're looking at - I don't think anyone argues
that the current system doesn't work well, it does. But the question is
whether the symbols that the current system contains are the appropriate
ones for us and whether we could evolve a system with better symbols. And
it's forcing that argument, that we [inaudible] evolve.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the nationalism of this country is very strong. As I go around this
country I don't get people - people don't rush up to me and say, you know,
look I feel that the symbols are wrong. I find as I go around this country
that people are very satisfied with their identity as Australians. And they
are not saying to me, look, we lack identity. Look, we have just been through
a period in our history where we've probably played a greater leadership
role in our region in relationship to East Timor than on any occasion since
World War II. I didn't go to that debate and that series of discussions
other than as the political leader, the elected, democratically chosen leader
of a powerful independent country. Now, this suggestion which is implicit
in the republican case that in some way our national growth is stunted because
of our current constitutional arrangements is really a great furphy of the
whole proposition. I mean, it is not - look, the choice should not be, which
is the better system. Do you throw out something that is proven by the track
record of calm constitutional history to have been a very workable proposition
and embrace something that does have, for example, a dismissal provision
of the President to be found, as I understand it, in no other republican
constitution.
CLARK:
Although, as you point out, I think there's probably undue emphasis on that
in the sense we've never dismissed a Governor-General in the country and
the likelihood is that we wouldn't be dismissing Presidents either.
PRIME MINISTER:
No but when you change the system then you do have to ask questions about
alternatives.
CLARK:
Can I just, can I turn to another issue and that is the issue of what's
going to happen after Saturday. In essence, whatever happens in a sense
to the first question, whatever happens after Saturday there's going to
be a lot of unfinished business because it's very likely, if you look at
the trend of polls, it's very likely that there may be a majority of voters
in the country who actually vote yes on Saturday but the referendum didn't
succeed because it didn't pass in the required number of States. Even if
that doesn't happen there'll be a result which will in a sense leave unfinished
business because the direct electionists, Mr Reith in Cabinet included,
want to push on. After Saturday, as far as you're concerned, what should
happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as to what the result will be, I don't know.
CLARK:
No [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know and I'll have to wait and obviously I'm not going to speculate
about what the result is except that I think it could be very tight. I just
don't know. Well, I think we can say a few things. You can certainly say
that yes will mean yes to the present model. There is no likelihood in my
opinion and all we can do from my position is predict, I can't guarantee,
but I think if the currently proposed model gets up that will be it. There
will never be, in my view, a willingness on the part of parliamentarians
on either side, Labor or Liberal, at some time in the future to put forward
the option of a directly elected President. So, I say to people who want
a directly elected presidency, if you're contemplating voting yes on Saturday
because you think that Mr Beazley, as Labor Prime Minister in some years
into the future or some other Labor Prime Minister or a Liberal Prime Minister
of the future, whatever, may in some way give you the option of a directly
elected presidency I don't believe that will happen. I can only state that
as a very strong view because once you get a republic those who have been
pushing hardest for this model will have got what they wanted. And the great
majority of members of Parliament on both sides are opposed to an elected
presidency. Now, I mean, I am opposed to an elected President.
CLARK:
And so is Mr Beazley.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, I've never disguised that either. I mean, I don't support any type
of republic. I think people should clearly understand, there is really no
hope if you're a direct electionist in voting yes in this belief that you
can sort of have yes and more. Yes will mean yes.
CLARK:
If there's a no vote will you, during the term of your prime ministership,
ever put the question again?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think if there is a no vote, I mean, whatever the result is in the
near term people are going to sort of want to put this thing aside and say,
look, we've had enough of that for a while. I have said before that if there's
a no vote I don't see the issue coming back in a hurry. As to what happens
beyond that I can't really predict.
CLARK:
Will Mr Reith and others be told to maintain some sort of Cabinet line on
the issue or will they be able to speak freely?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, to be fair, Mr Reith, I mean, no individual should be singled out.
I mean, at the moment we have a free vote. We decided.
CLARK:
Will that end on Saturday?
PRIME MINISTER:
The free vote will end on Saturday, yes, of course.
CLARK:
What will happen after Saturday?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well, what will happen Saturday is that there will be a government position
on future handling of constitutional issues. That's what that means.
CLARK:
What will that be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what that means is that whatever is urged and advocated inside the
forms of the party will be urged and advocated. People will be entitled
to argue in Cabinet for anything they like but we will have a collective
government position.
CLARK:
And that's decided by Cabinet after Saturday.
PRIME MINISTER:
It will be decided by Cabinet in the normal way. Now, that will apply to
me. It will apply to Mr Costello. It will apply to Mr Reith. It will apply
to everybody. But we have quite sensibly in this debate said we have a range
of views in our party. It's an atypical issue. It doesn't come up every
year. We're going to allow our Senators and Members a free and open vote.
And I think that's been quite refreshing and it really has been debated
with a great deal of civility. There's been an attempt by some of our critics
and some in the media to beat up every word, every nuance of differences
between Peter Costello and myself. I mean, he has a different than I do
on this debate. After Saturday we'll still have different views internally
about this issue. Of course we will. I mean, you can't run around the country
advocating a republic and if there's a no vote, say well I no longer believe
in it. I mean, that is disingenuous any more than.
CLARK:
Of course, but in essence there'll be no more constitutional conventions
after Saturday. Not in a hurry, not at the usual pace, in a hurry, you're
not in a hurry.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on. It's very important that I not be, I'm not saying you're doing
it, but I sort of . people don't run around trying to verbal me. I mean,
I keep seeing people saying John Howard says no means no, John Howard has
said this, John Howard, of course, has put all of that out of the [inaudible],
you don't have to worry about it any more, the Prime Minister has assured
us. I mean, I know everybody is jockeying for what I might call the 'expectational
advantage'. If you are a yes voter you are desperate to get the direct electionists
to believe the 'yes and more' philosophy. And if you are a no voter you
don't want that to happen. So, I'm just choosing my words carefully and
stating it as honestly as a I can and that is that yes will mean yes and
I don't believe we'll ever have a direct election. And no means that I don't
believe that the thing is going to come back in a hurry. Now, that is what
I indicated last week. I'm not sort of shifting from that. People should
not exaggerate that or take it out of context or run around and say, ah,
it's all over, Howard has spoken. All I'm saying is that I believe that
if the referendum is defeated on Saturday then I think the desire of the
community and the desire of the Government will be for the issue not to
be revisited in a hurry. Now, what happens after that I probably have to
say I won't have any control over.
CLARK:
It's eleven to nine. This is 2BL ABC Sydney. Phillip Clark with you. My
guest is the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Howard. We're talking about
the yes and no cases and this final week of the campaign. You might have
a view about it - 9333 1000 is the number. We've probably got time to take
a few calls about it.
You'd never be party, if I understand you correctly, to putting a case or
to putting a proposition to the Australian people that involved a directly
elected President.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm against a directly elected presidency. I would argue inside the
Government and if it ever became a proposition for public debate and resolution
I would campaign against it because I think that would create an intolerably
rival power centres within our constitutional arrangement and I've always
been against it. I believe in the Westminster system. I believe that you
should have the executive and ceremonial functions of government divided
between a titular head of State.
CLARK:
In essence, a directly elected President would upset that balance.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, that's my view, yes, absolutely.
CLARK:
Steve, good morning.
CALLER:
G'day John.
PRIME MINISTER:
G'day.
CALLER:
Just following on from what you were just saying. If you took the view that
eventually Australia will go the way of a republic, wouldn't it be better
to then support the 'yes' campaign as it is because that's the way that
there's a lead to change? You were just saying that.
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand your argument but see I don't.I agree with Benjamin Franklin.
There are only two things in life that are inevitable - death and taxes.
CLARK:
..[inaudible] 1st of July next year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Death and taxes. And they're the things I believe in and I just don't think
you can run around and say: oh look, something's inevitable. I don't accept
the inevitability argument about anything. People living in Canada 25 years
ago used to say to me a republic there was inevitable. My judgement of Canada
is that the only thing that will make them awaken a republic in the near
future will be if this country were to become a republic. I mean, it's the
last thing they want to touch because it's now seen, amongst other things,
as a point of distinction between them and the Americans. So you can't argue
this inevitable line. I mean, again and again it's really a question of
do you want to throw out something that we know for sure is safe and secure?
CLARK:
All right. Michael, good morning.
CALLER:
Mr Howard, we had a, sort of, barbeque discussion on the republic on Saturday
night.
PRIME MINISTER: