Subjects: Referendum result
E&OE.............
JONES:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Alan.
JONES:
Prime Minister, are you surprised at the level of vilification and emotive
language that seems to continue after the result on Saturday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, from some people that - I think it is really from some people rather
than from the great majority who voted yes. I think there were one or two
strong examples of it, and you know who I'm referring to, and I don't particularly
intend to dignify their remarks by mentioning their names. But my sense
is that those people who voted yes in the main will say, well we've had
a vote - they can hardly complain that it was an unfair campaign. They had
the whole organisation of the Labor Party, they had one-third of the parliamentary
members of the Liberal Party because we allowed a free vote. And people
have lost sight of this that by allowing a free vote the Liberal Party's
grassroots organisation was effectively unavailable to the no campaign.
[Inaudible] and many of them did because they held strongly to the no view,
they were able to do so but they weren't organised in a Liberal Party sense.
And then on top of that I think it is fair to say that the great bulk of
journalists in the media were very strongly barracking for the yes side.
I don't think a fair-minded yes voter could say this morning that "we
was robbed", that it was unfair. I'm being criticised simply because
I've stuck to my guns on what I believe. I made it plain years ago that
I was against change to the present system because not out of being nostalgic
but I just think it's a damn safe system.
JONES:
I notice Paul Kelly in The Australian in 1998 last
year wrote, "the pinnacle of the paradox was a moving speech from Howard.
He entered the history books as a monarchical Prime Minister who called
the referendum while signalling he would vote no." That suddenly seems
to be a problem for some.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well, that is a paradox to me because when the Convention was held
and I said that at the end of it, and a clear support emerged for the model
that was put on Saturday, I said it would be put. The republicans were absolutely
overjoyed. Thomas Keneally who's a very strong republican said it was the
ultimate act of grace on my part to put the referendum even though I didn't
agree with it. Nobody was there saying that I was manipulating the process.
Nobody was then seriously arguing that I shouldn't have put that model.
But as we approached last Saturday and the doubts arose as to whether it
was going to be carried they then started rewriting history and then starting
saying, he should have done it this way or he should have done it that way.
I did it the way I said I would do it. Nobody was ever in any doubt about
that and this has been defeated not because of me, this has been defeated
because 55 percent of my fellow Australians have voted against it.
JONES:
Well, on one hand it's being argued that you influenced the vote in such
a way that it's damaged Australia but somehow or other the preamble lost
by 60 to 40, so where is the logic in all of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is no logic in that. That is not logic. I mean, I accept that
when people lose something that they hold to very strongly they get upset.
I mean, but they must ponder the fact that if it had gone the other way
there would have been perhaps 45 to 50 percent of Australians who felt disappointed
and upset. I mean, somebody wins, somebody loses something like this but
the one thing can be said without any doubt and that is that the proposition
that was put up on Saturday night had a fair go. It got huge media support,
huge. I've not seen such concentrated barracking from most sections of the
media. There were some exceptions and others that put it in a more balanced
way but overwhelmingly it did enjoy very strong support from the media in
so many ways. And, as I say, the whole Labor Party, a third of the Liberal
Party because we allowed a free vote and I think correctly and I'm very
proud that we did. So, I don't think anybody can turn around and say, oh
gee, we were robbed, it wasn't given a fair go, there wasn't enough money.
The yes campaign was more expensive because they had more sources of private
money. The Government money made available was equal on each side - $7.5
million on each side. I mean, I really, for the life of me, don't think
anybody has a right to cry foul. They can criticise me. They can say my
attitude is wrong. They're entitled to do that. I would say that the majority
of Australians at present agree with me.
JONES:
Only one in three rural voters or voters in rural areas registered a yes
vote, of the 10 New South Wales seats with an average age of under 32, only
one voted yes. Is this a little bit offensive, is it not, for these people
to now be labelled as being un-Australian or unpatriotic or unintelligent
or uninformed which seems to be the arguments being used about those people
who voted contrary to the way in which they were implored to vote?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it was always offensive. I mean, it is always offensive to run a campaign
on the basis that somehow or other you have got to do this or you have got
to do that. There's one thing I have learnt in 25 years is the politics
in this country and that is that you never take Australians for granted,
you never assume that they will do what they are universally exhorted to
do. You never do that. And there was far too much of that behaviour and
that attitude in this particular campaign. It is one of the reasons why
the "yes" campaign came unstuck. If it had been a little less
celebrity driven, if it had been a little less hectoring it might have had
more success. I don't know. But it never impresses people in Australia who
admire the skills of somebody on the sporting field or on the stage to be
effectively told by those people how they should vote. It never works that
way. I mean, Australians aren't like that. They admire people for their
skills and particular things, they don't necessarily take any notice of
them in other fields.
JONES:
Yes. Just on all of that, in terms of where we go from here, I mean, just
for the benefit of our listeners. We know that a plebiscite is something
that you put before the elected which doesn't affect the Constitution.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's right. It's very simple. It's really an opinion poll.
JONES:
Is there a likelihood that there could be a plebiscite on this issue to
ask the people a simple question which has no binding on the constitution
whether they want a republic full stop and then to put together a body of
people who can look at a way of representing that view if it's a yes view
in a way which incorporates and encompasses all the opinions of Australians?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, anything is possible. My guess is that the great bulk of Australians
will be saying to me and saying to Mr Beazley that in the near future they
don't want this thing revisited. Apart from anything else it is quite costly.
And one of the reasons why I am sure some people voted against it was their
resentment at the cost involved.
JONES:
But if Mr Beazley had to go to the next election saying that if you elect
a Labor Government we will hold a plebiscite to offer you a choice on whether
you want a republic or not, what will be your position on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what we will do as a Government now is have a talk about it. We are
having a Cabinet meeting tomorrow. There will obviously be some discussion
about this. I have made it clear that we are now back to a Government position
as being incorrectly interpreted within a lot of the press again this morning
as an attempt by me to gag the debate. I have no intention of gagging the
debate inside the Government. If people want to raise issues relating to
constitutional reform inside the party room or inside the Cabinet they are
free to do so. I am not going to.
JONES:
On something which was a matter of conscience last Friday will it become
a matter of unified party policy this Friday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think so because the referendum has been held. See the free vote
related to people's attitudes regarding the referendum question being put
last Saturday, I think people are quite..there seems to be an inability
or an unwillingness on the part of many in the media to grasp the difference
between debate within the Government and everybody expressing a different
point of view in public. I have never tried to gag debate inside the forums
of the Government on this issue and I never will.
JONES:
There will be debate on a popularly elected head of state. People will talk
about Ireland and they'll talk about whether you either have reserve powers
or whether you codify the powers. If that debate wants to run how does the
Government of the day give expression to it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think that the best thing is not to, sort of, make any hard and
fast declarations.
JONES:
At this point.
PRIME MINISTER:
Two days after the referendum. I think the community.
JONES:
You are not ruling that out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, in a democracy you never rule out anything, you only make predictions
as to the time at which you think things will be dealt with. I mean, I was
constantly asked during the campaign what happens if there's a no vote.
And I said, I wouldn't think the thing would be revisited in a hurry. Now,
I couldn't be more precise than that because that is what I believe. Of
course people will be free to go on talking about it in the community and
inside the political parties. All I am saying in relation to the free vote
issue is that if the Government develops a view on doing this or not doing
that, it will be in relation to the process, it will be a Government view
and not just a free wheeling view. But if we were at some time in the future
to decide on another process then we might decide in relation to that process
that we will allow a free vote again because that is the right way of having..
JONES:
Right. I mean, a plebiscite to that extent. You say that because we're having
a debate about this and we need to clarify it. A plebiscite would be a simple
way of doing that. That means Australians would vote yes or no whether they
want a republic, and then if the vote were yes you or the government of
the day would set up a large committee to conduct extensive consultations
on framing an appropriate referendum question which would alter the constitution.
It seems to me to be a better process than what we've been through.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is a different way of doing it. But can I say the only flaw in that,
it's a great flaw of a plebiscite is that if you do have that and supposing
the community were to say yes, and then you set up this committee and from
that committee emerges a model and you put that model up and the model gets
defeated. You're in a bit of a constitutional no man's land.
JONES:
And it ain't cheap.
PRIME MINISTER:
No it isn't cheap. It ain't cheap. I mean the reason it is very expensive
is you have two national votes and you could end up still with a narrow
outcome and by having a plebiscite you've delegitimised the original..the
current system. I mean it's all very well for you to run around and say
70% want a republic, 80% want this, 20% don't want this. In the end the
only vote that gives a correct expression of Australia's will is a referendum,
or a full vote of all of the people. If you have a result like last Saturday
against all of the odds when you think of it in terms of the mobilisation
of groups in the community it's a very interesting outcome and one that
I think all political leaders should reflect on.
JONES:
There is no reference in the constitution to head of state which seems to
be the constant subject of debate. You weren't the Prime Minister in 1995
that the official guide in the Commonwealth Government Directory in 1995
notifies the public in that guide of the appointment of His Excellency the
Honourable Sir William Deane AC KBE as Governor-General. It describes in
the guide his function, and this is of course as I said not under your Government,
but the functions says under the constitution the Governor-General is the
Queen's representative in Australia, he is the head of state with the whom
the executive powers of the Commonwealth is vested. But there's no ambiguity
about what that title means?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is in the eyes of a lot. I mean the true position is that the
Queen is, by law the Queen of Australia, but the effective head of state
is the Governor-General, and that was the view that was expressed in the
official government information pamphlet, and that is the truth. And nobody
can alter that, nobody can deny that the Queen is the Queen of Australia
by law, and equally nobody can deny that her powers under the constitution
are exercised by the Governor-General. And people can swear at the way I
put that as well as they like but it happens to be a fact. Nobody doubts
that, I mean I was commissioned as Prime Minister not by the Queen. I was
commissioned by the Governor-General. The Governor-General formally appointed
me as Prime Minister. He did so under the provisions of a section of the
Australian constitution which the Australian people almost a hundred years
ago voted for. I mean all of these things are forgotten.
JONES:
So while all of this goes on, I mean while other issues of major significance,
we've got troops in East Timor, we've got problems with education, with
got Aboriginal health and wellbeing, we've got problems with the disabled
and the aged. When is the Government of the country going to sort of get
back on track away from what has been an amazingly expensive and dislocating
side show?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan we have never taken our eye of the ball on those issues. And of
course now that the referendum has been voted on, there'll be an even greater
preoccupation on those issues. But let me assure your listeners that through
all of this we haven't stopped governing on the things that really count.
Those things have always been far more important to me than constitutional
change. I'm not saying that constitutional change is unimportant but I think
one of the lessons out of Saturday for a lot of people on both sides of
politics is that Australians are skeptical of things that don't directly
relate to their lives, and they wonder about the motives of those who lead
political parties who engage themselves too much in things that are not
of direct concern to their daily lives. And I've always taken that view
very much to heart, and the result on Saturday really enforces my view.
JONES:
Good to talk to you. Thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you. Bye bye.
[Ends]