E&OE....................................................................................................
Ladies and gentlemen, I have called this news conference to make some
comments about the draft preamble which was overwhelmingly approved
in the Coalition Party Room this morning and to answer any questions
that you might have on it.
This preamble, which is the product of a great deal of work and discussion
between myself and in particular one of Australia's finest and
best known poets, Mr Les Murray, is an endeavour on the part of the
Government to express in contemporary and essentially ageless language,
not only some of the historical realities of our country but also
our contemporary values and those things that Australians hold dear
and those things that have a relevance, not only to Australia's
past and present but also to Australia's future.
You are aware of a number of the items that I indicated would be included.
It does include, as I have indicated in a number of interviews, an
acknowledgement of the prior occupation of the land mass of Australia
by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It recognises,
in very clear language, that they were here first. It also honours
their continuing culture and, I think, in language that Australians
will see as both dignified and appropriate.
The text also acknowledges in every generation the contribution of
immigrants to this country. And it is important to remember that this
country has, since European settlement, been a nation that has, in
every generation, received immigrants from different parts of the
world and that process continues.
The draft recognises the democratic federal character of our government.
It also acknowledges that sense of space which is inherent in the
Australian experience, the vastness of this country and the impact
that that has had on the nation's destiny and also on the spirit
and the temper of the Australian people.
It does express the importance in Australian life of a number of concepts.
The freedom that Australians have to express pride, not only in their
country but also in their heritage. And that, of course, is an acknowledgement,
in a very direct way, of the diversity of the backgrounds of so many
Australians. We are naturally stating, in very simple language, our
commitment to those basic freedoms and the right of people to pursue
their own hopes and ideals.
We pay proper regard to excellence as well as fairness to independence
as well as mateship. And let me say, in relation to the word mateship,
that it is one of those words hallowed by the Australian experience
which has a particular resonance, I believe, with all Australians.
It is also a document which seeks to make it plain that we do not
feel overwhelmed by the tall poppy syndrome, that achievement in the
Australian nation is an important quality and an important ideal,
and that the equal dignity and the equal respect that the law affords
to every Australian, irrespective of background or any other distinction,
is not something that should ever be invoked against either excellence
or achievement.
In the very nature of things a document like this is going to be the
subject of a lot of debate. It's never possible, of course, to
have a document that every person in the country agrees with completely.
All you can ever hope to do is to produce a document which most Australians
will feel, in most respects, expresses the sort of things that they
would like to say in a preamble to their Constitution, and that is
what I have sought to do. And I would address that comment obviously
to people who are going to have this or that to say about the draft
preamble.
The other observation I'd make is that it is necessary in a document
like this to have some continuity of poetry and of language. You can't
write a preamble through a meeting of the factions. You can't
write a preamble through a process of negotiation and bargaining.
You can try and embrace in a preamble a series of concepts and express
them in language that people can understand and express them in language
that is dignified without being pompous, which is ageless without
being old-fashioned and is contemporary without being faddish and
understandable only to a section of the Australian community. And
they've been the sort of considerations that I've had in
mind as I've worked over recent weeks.
The document did receive very enthusiastic support in the Joint Party
Room. It is now open for comment. The Government will consider comment.
I'll consider comment not only from the Opposition and other
parties and people in the Parliament but also from different sections
and from individual Australians.
I've already been in receipt of hundreds of preambles and I've
got quite a library of preambles that have been sent to me over recent
weeks and no doubt I will receive some more over the weeks ahead.
But may I say that it's been an extremely fascinating and uplifting
experience to try, in co-operation with a great wordsmith and also
seeking advice from one or two other people, to put together some
words that try and embrace in an appropriate fashion a sense of our
history, a sense of who we are, a sense of what we believe in and
a sense of what we aspire to achieve in the future.
JOURNALIST:
Does the word inhabited', referring to Aborigines, also
contain the concept that they would have had custody of the land as
well?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it means what it means. The great difficulty with this kind
of language is that it can mean different things to different people.
That's not the purpose of it. But it's meant to be a faithful,
respectful, dignified statement of what is an historical truth. And
that word was chosen because we felt that best expressed what we wanted
to express. And obviously it talks of the history. It's talks
of what happened which obviously was that this land was first occupied
by people who were clearly, they were the only occupants, the custodians
of it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, why did feel unable to go the extra step and mention the
word custodianship especially given that this is going to have no
legal implications?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think this better expresses what happened and in a more poetic
flowing fashion.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, just on the word mateship [inaudible] perhaps be perceived
as sounding a little bit blokey'? For example, would you
describe or refer to as say, somebody like Jocelyn Newman or your
wife as mate'? It's a fairly masculine kind of a word.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me say a couple of things about that. Firstly it is not true
that this is a subtle attempt to get the vote of the New South Wales
right! That's the first observation I'd make. And a more
important observation is that whatever the origins of the word may
be it has become to occupy I believe a hallowed place in the Australian
lexicon. It really has. And it not only talks of the bonds between
men but it also talks of the bonds between men and women, women and
women, of people. It talks of the spirit of helping people in adversity.
We express mateship when we help people in floods. We express mateship
when we help people in fires. We express mateship when we strive for
days to rescue people who have been buried under the debris of ski
lodges. We do it when we work hard to haul bodies out of train wrecks.
It's an expression that refers to the willingness, the distinctive
willingness of independently minded Australians to help their fellow
countrymen and women in times of adversity. It does also have a particular
historical residence to those who served and died in many cases in
war defending this country. And I would have thought if it has a particular
residence to them, as well as having a resonance to others then it
is an eminently appropriate word to have in the preamble. It does
conjure up to some degree the spirit of Weary Dunlop, and all of those
who can be cast in a similar light, as well as having a more contemporary
meaning. It is the one word in all of this which is so unarguably,
distinctively, and dramatically and proudly Australian. You wouldn't
find it in any other preamble. That is a virtue and a strength, and
not a point or a source of criticism. And I'm also supported,
I might say in my response, by the Australian Oxford Paperback Dictionary
definition of it being "a bond between equal partners or close
friends; comradeship; comradeship as an ideal". I don't
find that exclusively blokey' and I don't believe
any fair-minded Australian understanding the history and the spirit
of this country would either.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I've said is that I will consider the comments that have
been made. Obviously if I had an utterly closed mind I wouldn't
consider any comments. I will of course consider comments but I should
also say that a great deal of careful thought has gone into this.
And you can't negotiate something like this. In the end somebody
has got to make a decision and if you adopt the process of bargaining,
and parlaying, and negotiating, you can end up having a very ugly,
lumpy, piece of prose which nobody feels particularly happy about.
JOURNALIST:
What were the influences on you as one of the prime authors of the
preamble?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, my own feeling about this country. The history; the contribution
of the original Australians; the contribution of immigration; the
sense of space that I've always felt about Australia and the
impact that that has had and continues to have. A desire to say something
about our commitment to excellence and achievement, to put aside this
notion that we are burdened by the tall poppy syndrome, and that is
certainly apparent in the penultimate paragraph. They are some of
the things. And obviously the egalitarian nature of the country. The
quality of people before the law. And the other thing that I wanted
to do was to have a preamble that was not full of whereas' and
humbly relyings, because it is 1999, we are on the verge of the 3rd
millenium, and what was appropriate and dignified and poetic, and
what sang to Jefferson and others doesn't sound so poetic and
dignified and sing in 1999 and I think you do need something that
has a contemporary relevance without being an indecipherable sort
of dirge from a hard rock concert.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can you explain the freedom for fashion'? What's
behind the use of fashion'?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that means that you can't be sort of over-borne by a passing
fad and that's, you know, that's a gentle rebuke to political
correctness.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] largely your draft rather than Les Murray's?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's a lot of Murray in it. The poetry in it is. I certainly
contributed the ideas. Les Murray wrote and then we talked again and
he re-wrote. I also took some advice from a couple of people close
to me on my staff, Catherine Murphy and Michael L'estrange. They
contributed ideas. I talked to my Cabinet colleagues about it. There
were one or two changes there, several changes there. I think it's
fair to say that the bulk of it is a combination of Murray and Howard,
but listening to other people. There's a lot of Les Murray in
it. I mean he will speak for himself in relation to it. But we worked
together very closely on it and I spoke to him a few moments ago and
told him that it had been warmly applauded in the Party Room, and
he was very pleased about that. But he will speak for himself. I never
presume to speak for people in his situation. But certainly he contributed
a great deal. I did. Others helped and I'm very grateful to all
of them and I am very proud of this product. I feel very happy with
it. I think it reads nicely. I think it expresses what so many people
feel about our country. And it's not offensive in my view to
anybody. It's something that is republic neutral, and it's
the sort of statement that I believe Australians in 20, 30, 50 years
time would feel happy about it, and that's very important. You
can't sort of assume that what, as I said earlier rang and sang
a few hundred years ago necessarily works the same today.
JOURNALIST:
Could you specify a bit more about the processes that took place here?
How long did you spend with Les Murray....?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what happened Tony was this: that I, as you know, started talking
about this a few weeks ago and I rang Mr Murray up, and I'd never
met him before. I knew of him. And I think I may have met him in a
group, at a dinner about 15 years ago. And he came here and then we
went to the Lodge and we talked. And then he did a draft and he faxed
it to me. And then I had a talk to him and he sent me another draft.
And then we played around further and then I also sought the views
of my colleagues on it, and I also took the liberty, at one stage,
of showing the draft to Professor Blainey, the person, the historian,
the whom I have an immense respect. And there weren't...I
mean, the changes and the evolving character of the document were
largely, were overwhelmingly the product of exchanges between myself
and Mr Murray. But I did take it to Cabinet on a couple of occasions
and in response to comments and suggestions made by my colleagues
there and nuances or preferences expressed for nuances there, they
were reflected. And, basically, I talked to Michael L'Estrange
and to Catherine about it quite extensively and right at the end I
showed it to the bard O'Leary.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, if I could just turn for one minute from the preamble.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, could we just deal with the preamble?
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] If, as expected, the Democrats oppose this in the Senate
you'll have to mount a formal no' case against the
preamble...
PRIME MINISTER:
They will if they vote against it.
JOURNALIST:
I mean, [inaudible] a formal no' case, is not the case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we'll deal with that when it comes. I'm not making
any forward commitments about funding no' cases. To mount
a no' case against the preamble, to formally campaign against
it, that's an interesting proposition.
JOURNALIST:
Did you seek any religious advice in relation to the reference to
God?
PRIME MINISTER:
Did I seek the advice of any men or women of the Church? No, I didn't.
I think one of those things where a mere layman is appropriately qualified
to have a view as to how you might refer to God. I think the formulation
of with hope in God' is more contemporary, is softer, is
better than perhaps humbly relying on the blessing, which was nice
then but perhaps not quite as appropriate. And I hope that those in
the Australian community who have a reservation about referring to
God will see this as an appropriate way, if you are to refer to the
Almighty, the appropriate way of doing so and I believe it is.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you have any plans to visit the towns hit by Cyclone
Vance?
PRIME MINISTER:
Do I have any plans to what?
JOURNALIST:
To visit the towns in Western Australia hit by Cyclone Vance.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'll be talking to Mr Court in a few moments, as soon as
this press conference is over. Mr Court and I are going to have a
discussion and he's going to bring me up-to-date. And the question
of what I may or may not do and so forth, I'll determine after
that discussion. Clearly I am distressed, as all Australians are,
of the damage that has been done. There are disaster relief arrangements
in place under which federal money is automatically available to help
people who are affected to a certain degree, to the requisite degree,
and that will naturally operate in relation to this and I'll
get a full briefing from the Western Australian Premier shortly after
this news conference.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just on the...can you confirm that the Government
has received a submission from Singapore Airlines and News Corp that
Singapore Airlines fly 50 per cent of Ansett and if so has the Government
formed a view on that at this stage?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are reports in the press this morning. I obviously did
meet Mr Murdoch, Mr Eddington and the Chief Executive of Singapore
Airlines yesterday. I think it's up to those companies to talk
about any commercial plans they may have. It's not for the Government
to talk about things. If the Government was to talk about those things,
let me say this, that the relevant laws would apply and the relevant
laws, if there were any proposal in the wind, the relevant laws relating
to foreign take-overs are well known and the laws relating to competition
are well known. At present Ansett is owned by two corporations, both
of which are foreign. And in terms of foreign investment, hypothetically
speaking, a transfer from News to Singapore Airlines would be a foreigner-to-foreigner
transaction.
JOURNALIST:
Are you concerned that politicians on all sides of the Parliament
have access to a loophole which Keith Wright [inaudible] superannuation.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it's always necessary in these things, George, to look
at the totality of the remuneration.
JOURNALIST:
Have you any advice yet on what form of examination or investigation
you may follow and what exactly are you looking for?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will get some advice from the Attorney-General and when that's
been received, if it's appropriate to say anything further we
will. I don't wish to say any more. The issue's been very
well publicised and I don't think it's right in something
like this that the thing be treated other than seriously and carefully
in a totally transparent fashion and in a manner which is fair to
everybody who was mentioned in the programme and also fair to the
public interest because the allegations made are weighty allegations,
serious ones, and I don't intend to play the political game over
them. Thank you.
[ends]