Subjects: Republic referendum, death of Malcolm Marshall, interest
rates.
E&OE.............
SATTLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Howard.
SATTLER:
Thanks for joining us on the programme.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a great pleasure to be with you as always.
SATTLER:
You must be salivating at the prospect tomorrow of a no vote.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know that the result can be taken for granted either way. I'm not
salivating. I take the view that whatever decision is made by the Australian
people it will be the right decision.
SATTLER:
How will you feel if your side wins?
PRIME MINISTER:
I advocate a no vote because I don't believe Australia will be better off
under the model put forward. That's why I'm voting no.
SATTLER:
Or any republican model put forward.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think there are enormous benefits in the present system but the
only republican model on offer is the one that we're voting on tomorrow
so that is an academic question. I certainly don't favour a directly elected
presidency if that is what you have in mind.
SATTLER:
That's what Peter Reith and others have in mind.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I know that, well I don't. I mean, my argument is a very simple one
and it's a very respectable one and it's a very pro-Australian one and that
is that we now have a very safe, stable, workable system and I am unconvinced
that the model on offer will make it better and, in some respects, in a
difficult time it will make it worse and less predictable and less secure.
That's why I'm voting no.
SATTLER:
Okay, so you don't like tomorrow's model and you don't like the direct election
model so really you just like the monarchist model, don't you, I mean, let's
be honest about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the present arrangement, and I respect your view to the contrary
and the views of my other fellow Australians who have a different view,
I think the system of government we have developed in this country over
a long period of time delivers better than any alternative I know at the
moment the sort of stability and security that I think all of us want.
SATTLER:
But does that mean that you've outsmarted the pro-republicans or they've
outsmarted themselves? Because I think you would concede that most Australians,
if it was a straight question - do you want Australia to be a republic or
do you want us to retain the links with the monarchy without going into
the model question - most Australians would opt for a republic.
PRIME MINISTER:
But, Howard, well, I'm not trying to be smart about this. If I had have
been smart about this as you put it I would have said one thing and done
another. But I have been utterly transparent and consistent. I've always
expressed my support for the current system. I've always said that, nonetheless,
I would have a convention and I would allow the clear view that came out
of that convention to be put to the Australian people.
SATTLER:
Yeah, I know that, but the polls are showing only nine percent of people
do support us retaining our links with the monarchy but they just don't
like the model tomorrow most of the people are going to vote.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, 45 percent of people in that same poll said that they were voting
no because they like the current system. I mean, there's a whole combination
of reasons why people vote in different ways but you can't change a constitution
in abstract. You can't say, well, we'd like to sort of go down that path
without knowing exactly what's involved. What people are being asked to
do tomorrow is to vote in a republican proposal which will allow in a way
unknown in any republican constitution in the world a Prime Minister to
dismiss, without notice, without justification and without appeal, the Head
of State.
SATTLER:
Would you have more or less power to sack the Head of State if the model
was accepted tomorrow compared with the powers you have now?
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe in effect there'd be fewer constraints on me if the model is accepted
tomorrow.
SATTLER:
But you can sack the Governor-General now, can't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's never happened in 100 years.
SATTLER:
So who's to say that you or any other Prime Minister would want to sack
the President?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the experience of the last 100 years has got to be instructive
in getting a proper answer to that question.
SATTLER:
Yeah, but I'm just talking about, you know, in a hypothetical situation,
the powers that you have. Now, under the model proposed I would suggest
that you'd less powers than you've got now to sack the Head of State.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't agree with that. To start with, you can do it in writing without
notice. The requirement of a 30-day approval by the House of Representatives
doesn't amount to a lot because the majority party in the House of Representatives
is not going to repudiate their Prime Minister. And even Gough Whitlam who's
an ardent republican acknowledged in the wake of 1975 that the idea that
he could have instantaneously dismissed the Governor-General without some
delay which itself affects the dynamic of any dispute between the Prime
Minister and the Governor-General was the reality.
SATTLER:
Direct electionists like Peter Reith think if the no vote wins on the weekend,
on Monday they can pretty well instantly start another campaign for direct
election. Are they wasting their time while you are the Prime Minister and
your Government's in office?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, our position on this is that if the referendum is carried on Saturday
then we'll naturally get about implementing the decision of the Australian
people. There won't, in those circumstances, be any possibility in my view
of another referendum for a direct election. So, the yes and more argument
which is being put by Mr Beazley is flawed, it won't happen, because if
the republic gets up there'll be sufficient members of Parliament on both
sides of the House to combine to oppose ever putting a referendum on a direct
election. On the other hand, if a no vote gets up my view is that the issue
will not come back in a hurry. I can't say that it will never come back.
SATTLER:
Peter Costello in the studio said he thought - I mean, history showed, he
said, that we only had one every eleven years and it would be at least as
long as that before another one.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't presume to try and deal in years and I don't think anybody can,
with respect. And Peter and I, of course, under the free vote arrangement
we have within the Liberal Party on this issue are speaking from opposite
points of view.
SATTLER:
Sure, and isn't that a good thing that we can all speak about this sort
of thing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly. I mean, I think the Liberal Party has displayed immense maturity
and sophistication in allowing this. The Labor Party won't. If the polls
are to be believed a significant chunk of the Labor support base is going
to vote no tomorrow. Now, where is that expressed in the views of the members
of the Parliamentary Labor Party? But that is a matter for Mr Beazley. Getting
back to the point at issue, particularly to people who are listening to
this programme who are undecided, this is a totally independent country.
It is a country with an utterly distinct, clear, national identity and clear
national character. We are not arguing about Australia's independence. We
are arguing about what is the best arrangement to handle political crisis
and constitutional difficulty. And we've shown over the last 100 years we
have a system that does that very effectively.
SATTLER:
If we're totally independent why are we hosting the Sovereign next year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there's absolutely no reason why, even republicans say, there's no
reason why she shouldn't come to this country.
SATTLER:
But it's because she's our Sovereign, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course she is, she is the Queen of Australia, but that doesn't affect
our legal and political independence. Let me throw that back at you - if
we weren't completely independent we wouldn't be having a referendum tomorrow.
I mean, the reason we are having the referendum tomorrow and the reason
why it is open to the Australian people to alter the Constitution is that
we are a sovereign, independent people. I mean, this argument about independence
is the weakest argument of all.
SATTLER:
But do we have to formally advise her we are holding this referendum?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
SATTLER:
How did she find out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there's no legal requirement that she be formally advised.
SATTLER:
But did you formally advise her?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't.
SATTLER:
Did the Governor-General?
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, I've not had any direct discussion with her of any kind about the
referendum. I mean, of course she's aware it's on, naturally she is, but
that's not the point. The point is that the decision is being taken tomorrow
by the Australian people to decide our future. Now, if we weren't fully
independent we wouldn't be, quote, allowed to take that decision. I mean,
this argument about independence is the weakest of all. Naturally the Queen
- the whole world knows about the process - naturally there.
SATTLER:
So there's just one more small step.
PRIME MINISTER:
She's aware - well, you see your argument falls down on the proposition.
I mean, if we were independent, if we weren't completely independent there
wouldn't be - I mean, I just don't know how people can sustain this independence
argument. We are voting tomorrow as 12 million Australians at voting age
to decide the future of our constitution. Whatever decision we make goes.
SATTLER:
And to retain the links with the British Royal family or otherwise.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we are taking a decision and we can decide what we do with it. Surely
that is the ultimate hallmark of an utterly independent country, a capacity
to fashion and design our future.
SATTLER:
I also heard you say this morning in another medium that Australia will
remain a decent country if we remain a monarchy. Are you saying we won't
if we are a republic?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I did not say - I mean, what I said, Australia will remain a good and
decent country no matter what the outcome. I've said that.
SATTLER:
I heard you say if we remain a monarchy.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Howard.
SATTLER:
So whatever, even if we're a republic.
PRIME MINISTER:
Let me make it clear, let me make this clear. We are a good and decent country
now. We will be a good and decent country on Sunday and all of next week
and all the weeks.
SATTLER:
Whatever the result.
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course but, don't chop me off, we will have a more stable and safe constitution
at a time of political difficulty and constitutional crisis if we stay with
the present system.
SATTLER:
We haven't got a crisis.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you only have a crisis once in a while and that is the real test of
a constitution.
SATTLER:
Sure.
PRIME MINISTER:
Any old constitution will do if it's calm weather. But it's when you start
having a few difficulties that you need one that we know on the basis of
a hundred years experience has worked extremely well. But look, the goodness
and decency of the Australian people is unrelated to a constitutional reform.
SATTLER:
I did hear you also warn voters against people on the yes side promising
a new nirvana if the republic gets up. I haven't heard anybody say that.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is implicit in..I mean..
SATTLER:
No one has said it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well hang on, hang on. People are running around saying you know, you'll
feel so much better. I mean, look, whatever the result is there'll be some
people pleased and some people disappointed. But I have absolutely no doubt
that whatever the result Australians will as always work together in a very
sensible cooperative fashion from Sunday onwards no matter the result is.
SATTLER:
All right. Well we better defer to our listeners. We'll take a short break,
and there is a commercial coming up for the yes committee. Don't blame me
but we'll take some calls shortly okay. Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay.
[commercial break]
SATTLER:
One day out from the referendum on the republic. The Prime Minister's my
guest talking to me from his office in Canberra.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sydney.
SATTLER:
Oh you're in Sydney. Sorry. I'd want to get out of Canberra too. Sydney's
much better. Here's some sad news - you're a cricket devotee as we know
and I'm sure you've got the Test Match probably on in the office some where
there. But Malcolm Marshall, who's the former West Indies' great cricketer,
he got 376 wickets in 81 matches, has died at aged 41 of cancer. Can you
believe it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very sad. He was a great cricketer.
SATTLER:
You had him as a guest at The Lodge at one stage [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
I did yes. Well I wasn't Prime Minister then, Malcolm Fraser was. But it
was in the 70s. Very very sad indeed. The cricket world will be very upset
about that. It's very [inaudible].
SATTLER:
All right. Jacqueline's on the line, wants to talk to you. Hello Jacqueline,
the Prime Minister's listening.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister, and good morning Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
I want to go three very quick questions but first I want to congratulate
the Prime Minister on getting the process going because no matter what's
happened, we will have all learnt an awful lot about this. I'm a yes voter
and I want to ask - are you the only Prime Minister in Australia's history
to vote against his own bill for a referendum? Two..and campaign against
it? And two - why didn't you support us in the yes campaign and go down
in history as the creator of the republican Commonwealth of Australia? And
if monarchy is so good, why not an Australian monarchy? Maybe a branch of
the Windsors or maybe your own family.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh dear.
SATTLER:
Prince Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Jacqueline, the answer to the first question is I could be the first Prime
Minister to have done that. Can I turn the proposition on its head and say
that I'm the first Prime Minister perhaps to recognise that while I have
a view about something it may not be held as strongly by my fellow Australians
and they have a right to express their opinion. And I think a Prime Minister
that's willing to put something to a vote while he personally doesn't support
it is somebody who respects the ultimate authority and sovereignty and commonsense
of the Australian people. Whatever result comes out of tomorrow will be
the right result because the customer's always right in a democracy and
the Australian people usually get these things right. And I will accept
and act upon and observe the result whatever it may be. The second question
you asked me is why didn't I campaign for it. Well I didn't campaign for
it because I don't believe in it. I believe for the reasons I've been outlining
over the past few minutes that our present system will not be made better
by this particular model. I think our present system is extremely good.
As to the third question - no I've never thought that made any particular
sense at all. I think the present arrangement whereby the Governor-General
has evolved into being effectively Australia's head of state, he exercises
all the powers given to him under the constitution. This is a completely
utterly freestanding independent country. I think that is the preferable
arrangement. Certainly preferable to the alternative that's being put up
tomorrow that does have a powerful capricious removal of the president which
can't be found in any republican constitution in the world.
SATTLER:
All right. Trent's your next caller Prime Minister. Hello Trent.
CALLER:
Oh high. [inaudible] Prime Minister, I'm only 16 and I can't vote but I
reckon we should become a republic. And I'd just like you to clear something
up for me. The new segment 126 which states that this constitution and all
laws made under it by Parliament shall be binding on the courts and people
of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth not withstanding any
of the laws of any State. Isn't it already the same as segment 109 which
states that the laws of the Commonwealth prevail over State laws anyway?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'd just have to look at the two of them. I don't carry it around in
my head. But certainly as I understand it there's no intention of altering
the provision that says that where there is a conflict between the Commonwealth
law and the State law the Commonwealth law prevails. I'm not.I don't think
there's any fundamental conflict between those two things. But quite frankly
Trent I'd need to look at those two provisions myself before I gave some
kind of refined legal opinion. But the provisions...
SATTLER:
Daryl Williams says there's nothing to fear there. That's what..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not quite sure frankly what the point is. But as far as I am concerned,
there are clear, unarguable weaknesses in the republican model and those
relate particularly to the dismissal procedures. I think the other weakness
of the republican model is that because you have got this public nomination
process some quality people won't through fear of embarrassment make themselves
available. And the pool of talent from which future presidents might be
drawn will not be as deep as that from which past governor-generals have
been taken.
SATTLER:
All right. Very quickly to Annette's call. Hello Annette.
CALLER:
Oh, hello. Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I would like to say that I wish there were more politicians like Tim Fischer
who lacks the hypocrisy of people like yourself, who says that both.the
model is okay. And he is absolutely ashamed at the way his colleagues are
canvassing this issue and that the voting is quite clear. It's whether you
want a monarchy or not. But I think all this fear campaign of saying the
model is flawed is very, very hypocritical.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I guess you're in favour of the yes case are you?
CALLER:
I am.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, fair enough, I mean, that's your right.
CALLER:
But I just find the hypocrisy.I think, fine, if you want to argue for a
monarchy do so.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if you want to argue as I have done for the present system and also
find consistent with that some flaws in the alternative there is nothing
hypocritical about that. I mean, I know some people on the yes side find
some of the arguments about the weaknesses of the model uncomfortable but
there is an assumption on the part of the "yes" case that there
is really no respectable argument in favour of the status quo. I mean, the
thing I have found most difficult to accept about this whole campaign is
the starting point of so many of the republicans and that is that the idea
that anybody could possibly support the status quo is absurd. Now, a lot
of people support it not through any particular nostalgia about the monarchy
or anything like that, they support it simply because they know it works
and they know that it's helped to deliver to this country 200 years of stability
and.
SATTLER:
You don't think we can evolve any further, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, I don't think going to this model will make.
SATTLER:
I mean, we have evolved in the past 98 years haven't we?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
SATTLER:
We have evolved in the last 98 years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course we have. Look, every country goes on evolving. But what we are
being asked to do tomorrow is vote for something that, in my view, my respectful
view and I am entitled like anybody else to have a view on it, will actually
leave us with a less predictable.
SATTLER:
Sure, but you don't want a direct election e