Subjects: Sex Discrimination Act; mandatory sentencing.
E&OE................................
FAINE:
Good morning to you Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning. I can hear you okay John.
FAINE:
And we can hear you loud and clear. And thank you for joining us this morning. You caught many people by surprise with the announcement yesterday afternoon that the federal government will look to intervene in this IVF dispute. Is this about the rights of children or is it about politics?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's about the rights of children. I mean what other time would we have done it. The decision only came down on Friday. And I find this preoccupation with the timing of the announcement quite extraordinary. The decision was made by the court on Friday. We had legal advice available to us yesterday. It was our normal Cabinet meeting. It was wholly unexceptionably that we should have dealt with it yesterday and Cabinet having taken a decision that I should announce that decision. I mean what matters is the decision. The timing of it is perfectly normal and not to be criticised.
FAINE:
You could have chosen to intervene in the Federal Court proceedings as a government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the prospects of success were very remote. We have legal advice from both the Solicitor-General and the Chief General Counsel that there is a conflict between the Victorian legislation and the federal Sex Discrimination Act, and that as a result the Victorian act is invalid absent an amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act under section 109 of the Constitution. There have been other cases and the prospect of an appeal, I think technically an appeal might still be capable of being mounted but the prospects of that are quite remote. And the issue here is whether in the name of defending the rights of children whether States should have the right to legislate the way Victoria has. And we take the view they should and we are going to move to remove the federal impediment to the maintenance of that Victorian legislation. You see this Victorian legislation was enacted in its current form in 1997. I am told that in 1997 there was an amendment that had the support of both sides of politics including presumably the current Premier and the current Attorney General to produce the Act which we are in effect saying should be allowed to stand. So I don't think what we're doing is unreasonable. I think what we're doing is giving States the right to pass legislation to this effect and the reason we're doing that is that we believe that the rights of children in our society to have the reasonable expectation other things being equal of the care and attention of both a mother and a father, that that right is the dominant right and the major consideration and that's the reason why we've acted as we have.
FAINE:
At its simplest Prime Minister do you think that children brought up by either a single mother or an individual or a couple that are lesbians aren't being properly brought up?
PRIME MINISTER:
We're talking here about rights. I mean the circumstances in which people are brought up can vary from case to case. I mean this is not about single mothers. Now let's make this very clear - it's got no..the overwhelming bulk of single mothers do a wonderful job and I admire them the way they cope in very difficult circumstances. It's a complete red herring as your listeners will know, there's an attempt being made by the government's critics to drag the issue of single motherhood into it. That's not the issue. The issue here is the right of children in our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, that they have the care and attention and love of both a mother and a father. Now uniquely because of the circumstances of IVF being made available to people in circumstances we're talking about that cannot happen and that is why this is different. And of course there are loving family environments where deserted mothers bring up their children. There are tens of thousands of them and they do a wonderful job. This is not an attack on them. It's a completely separate issue.
FAINE:
But are lesbian women capable of providing good parenting?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not making a judgement on anything other than the dominant rights of children. This is an adjudication on the rights of children. You seem to miss that point and my critics seem to miss that point because it's an inconvenient point. And this is about the right..I mean people talk a lot in modern society about rights and what we are talking about is the right of children not to be treated other than, not to be treated as some kind of commodity, but the rights of children to have that expectation of the care and attention of both a mother and a father. Now people keep coming back saying yes but what about the capability of this or that set of potential parents. What I'm focusing on above all and what the government is focusing on are the rights of children.
FAINE:
Prime Minister I have on the line a caller James who says he's been brought up by a lesbian mother. Would you like to talk to him?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm happy to talk to anybody.
FAINE:
James good morning to you.
CALLER:
Good morning.
FAINE:
You've been brought up by a lesbian mother. Is that right?
CALLER:
Yeah and her partner, yep.
FAINE:
And what was that like?
CALLER:
I had a great upbringing actually and I'm really close to both of them. And basically I've never really looked at it in any other way but that's my family and I'm happy with that. I've been really close to both of them and as far as I'm concerned I've had a great upbringing.
FAINE:
We're hearing from the Prime Minister and others that children have rights to be brought up by a mother and a father. Do you agree with that?
CALLER:
Well it's...I guess I have a right to have a father. I chose not to keep in contact with my father.
FAINE:
Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm sorry I'm listening.
FAINE:
Go ahead James.
CALLER:
Basically my father wasn't around when I was younger and I ended up making contact with him when I was about 17, but it didn't really work out and I don't consider him my family in a way and to me my family are my two mothers, and yeah, who I put my time into and who have made an influence on my life as far as I'm concerned.
FAINE:
And provided you with quality parenting?
CALLER:
Definitely, definitely. I'm very happy with the way my life's turned out. I've got fond memories of my childhood.
FAINE:
Prime Minister, I'm not in any way suggesting that James is anything other than a typical Australian growing up in somewhat unusual circumstances. But he's telling us the quality of parenting from two women is better than the parenting he ever experienced from his father.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but can I say to you, and no disrespect to him or any people with whom he's been associated, but that's not really the issue here. I mean he made a decision in relation to his father and I don't know the circumstances of that and I don't seek to make a judgement. But we're talking about situations here where people like James would not have that capacity. That's the difference and you seem to miss that. And people who are criticising the government seem to miss that. That's why we're dealing here with a very special situation. And I'm not suggesting for a moment that you don't have affection between two people or between a group of people irrespective of the biological relationship. I'm not suggesting that for a moment. What I am asserting and what the government asserts is that in our society every child born into this world should have the expectation, other things being equal, and I stress that because things are often not equal, of the care and attention of a mother and father, mother and a father. Now if circumstances transpire where because of the behaviour of one or other of those biological parents people choose not to have that well the expectation and the opportunity has been there. But if you create a situation where that can never happen then I think you are interfering with the fundamental right of children who are born in particular circumstances and that is the basis of our reasoning. And it doesn't go primarily to the commitment of people irrespective of their sexual preferences to the upbringing of children. It goes to the fundamental right of those children. Now that point seems to be missed in the criticism and I don't offer a view...I don't know the circumstances of James upbringing, I don't for a moment dissent from you know his expression of gratitude to his mother and to her friend. I mean I accept that but that is not really the point.
FAINE:
James, thank you for joining us this morning and speaking to the Prime Minister. Any final questions that you want to ask John Howard?
CALLER:
I don't really have any questions but I just want to state that I think the most important thing in any upbringing is unconditional love and regardless of whether it's coming from a father and a mother or two women. What's important is that the kid is looked after and raised with love and raised properly and care and attention and everything that a child should have and I don't think it makes much difference whether it's two men, two women or two monkeys. It's just a matter of love and understanding.
FAINE:
Quick response Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well nobody can argue that unconditional love is the most important ingredient of any relationship. But that is not the issue here. The issue is the right of people to have the opportunity if other things are equal to have the care and attention of a mother and a father. Now the Government takes the view that that is a very important, fundamental, human right for children. And that doesn't really conflict in any way with what James has said about unconditional love.
FAINE:
All right. James thank you very much for calling. We've got a full switch board Prime Minister. We'll get to some calls if that's possible in a few moments. You've just raised the issue of human rights there. Your own Sex Discrimination Commissioner from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not happy with you. She put out a press release saying she wasn't consulted and she thinks you're wrong.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well she's entitled to her view. She has a human right, an unqualified human right to express her view. But John in the end what matters is whether the decision is right or wrong not so much the process. People often raise process and say this or that level of consultation shouldn't have occurred when they disagree with the decision. I'm quite certain that if the decision had gone otherwise those people who were critical of it wouldn't have been worried about the process. In the end we have to take the decision. We are the elected government. I am the person who, along with my Cabinet colleagues, is ultimately answerable to the Australian people. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner and indeed other people who hold similar offices they do a very valuable job for the community but in the end they're not accountable to the Australian public. I'm the person who's accountable and I believe on something like this that governments should have an attitude, take a stand. We've done what we believe to be right yet I don't know in the end how the legislation will fare in the Senate. I hope the Labor Party finally makes up its mind to support it.
FAINE:
Well indeed. You can't deliver on this promise unless someone supports you, can you?
PRIME MINISTER:
But John that's been the case with everything. That's been the case with everything. And all you can ever do in this business is to take what you believe to be the right decisions, explain those decisions as I am now doing to the Australian public and then you know put the legislation forward. I mean up to now the Opposition Leader has not expressed a view on this. I don't know what Mr Beazley's personal position is on this. I've heard from Jenny Macklin. I've heard from Meg Lees. I've heard from Senator Harradine. I've heard from Senator Greig who's the spokesman on these matters for the Australian Democrats. I've heard from a number of people. I haven't heard from Mr Beazley. And that's a matter for him but I'll be naturally interested, I'm sure a lot of his own Party rank and file members will be interested to know what his opinion is on this. But look in the end if he decides to oppose it so be it. And if our attempt to change the law goes down because we haven't got the numbers in the Senate well that won't be the first time or the last time that an attempt by this Government to legislate in a way it thinks best helps the Australian people goes down. But we don't control the Senate. There's nothing new about that.
FAINE:
The politics of this is really very convincing also John Howard and I'm sure this has crossed the mind of your Party strategists. You force Kim Beazley to oppose you in which case you stand for families are he doesn't and you appeal to people in regional and rural Australia whose votes you depend upon coming back to your Government to be re-elected at the next federal election.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you've obviously spoken to some strategists that I haven't spoken to. Can I tell you John that I haven't consulted any strategists on this. This issue came up in the normal course of events. When the decision was handed down I knew the Government had to deal with it and I sought from the Attorney General and from the Solicitor General I sought legal advice. I spoke to the Attorney General about the matter on Friday and I said I want the matter dealt with on Tuesday when Cabinet meets. Now that is the normal thing to do and the proper course of events. And if you think this is just confined in some Canberra beltway situation to a small circle of people in some kind of political game can I say to you, you are very wrong.
People want governments to have views on issues like this whether they agree with them or disagree with them. They don't regard things like this as being the exclusive preserve of people who follow and pretend they manipulate politics. This is something that the community has feelings about. It's something they want their leaders to have a position on.
Now there'll be a lot of people listening to me this morning who will disagree very strongly with what I've said. Can I say to them I've conscientiously along with my colleagues reached a view. We hold to that view very strongly and we have to wear the criticism we have. There'll be other people listening to the program who might agree with me. But in the end you've got to take a stand on these things. Some will support you and some won't.
FAINE:
Let's speak to some of those people now. The Prime Minister John Howard taking your calls on this topic. Graham in Armadale. Good morning John.
CALLER:
Mr PM I don't like this modern prediliction to change the original intent and purpose of law by stealth. The rule of law should be inviolate and frankly should on the other side of coin should also keep up with the modern needs of a society. Now we have on the hand we've got this lady who's claiming a victory, a personal victory against what most of the community would agree with. On the other hand we actually have a history of, in many cases gay parents being a lot better parents and mothers than these ladies that get into baby factory situations and social welfare situations. What are you comments? Think about that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I pick up your last comment about the baby factories. That implies that the major problem in this country of single motherhood are teenage girls deliberately getting pregnant. Can I tell you that is one of the great myths of Australia. The overwhelming bulk of children in sole parent families are with deserted mothers. And the great bulk of those single parents and deserted mothers were previously in marriages or stable relationships. There's a common misconception and I think it's unfair to single parents and single mothers that the great bulk of them are sort of as you I think quite unfairly use the expression 'baby factory' I think that's unreasonably pejorative towards the overwhelming bulk of single mothers in the Australian community who are trying very hard to raise their children and didn't want to be single mothers. There aren't many single mothers of choice in Australian society. The great bulk of single mothers are there as a result of a relationship they never wanted to fail in the first place. And I don't think it's fair to imply that single mothers in the main have behaved in an irresponsible fashion because they haven't.
FAINE:
Thank you for calling Graham. Margot in Seymour. Hello Margot.
CALLER:
Hello how are you John. My argument about this business is the fact that 25, 30 years down the track we're going to have children who have no knowledge of their father and could marry their own brother and sister. Where does it stop?
FAINE:
You're concerned then about not just the IVF aspect but the privacy part of IVF where the children aren't necessarily able to trace a parent.
CALLER:
Exactly they will not know who their relations are, who their fathers are and.
FAINE:
Who else has been conceived from a batch of semen donated by the same donor.
CALLER:
Exactly right.
FAINE:
Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I guess that's possible. I mean it's not something that we looked at in detail yesterday and I can't argue that it's the principle reason but it's certainly a possibility. I mean.
FAINE:
But that's part and parcel of IVF generally. That's not [inaudible] to allow access to.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's one of the difficulties you get into when these things become more prevalent. I mean I have to say that I mean the lady is obviously in agreement with the Government's decision. I have to say in all honesty the principle reason for it is not the one the lady has advanced but it is a factor to be taken into account.
FAINE:
And that's always been part of the problem with artificial insemination even before IVF came along.
Chris in Hampton. Good morning Chris.
CALLER:
Oh good morning John. I have to express my opposition I guess to this idea for three quick reasons. The first is that I feel that most lesbians and I'm speaking here particularly of lesbians because I am a lesbian, most are wishing to undergo the IVF when they're in a stable, monogamous, long term relationship and they've put a lot of thought and planning into having children. The second thing is I'm very disturbed by the federal Government overturning bills and laws that it disagrees with without consultation with the Discrimination Office because I think that creates a precedent for further discrimination in other areas down the line, not necessarily just gay and lesbian issues. And the third thing is I feel that the Prime Minister by getting up and taking the stand particularly in an unstated or understated way against gay and lesbian camps is promoting a lot of homophobia and heterosexism that leads to a lot of violence in the community that we already have to deal with.
FAINE:
Well there's a lot to deal with there Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I take the last thing first? This is not designed to promote homophobia. I just reject that completely. I mean that is a common smear used against people who support a view that another section of the community may not agree with. And it's very easy to smear somebody and say you're homophobic or you're promoting this. But we're not doing that. We don't seek in any way to discriminate against people who are homosexual. That's their business. And I might remind the person who raised that matter that I voted in support of the former government's overriding of the Tasmanian homosexual laws. I've long held the view that homosexual conduct shouldn't have been the subject of criminal sanction and I thought that change in the law was a necessary liberal, enlightened approach. That's not the issue here. The issue here is the rights of children. People want to avoid that. I don't and the Government doesn't want to avoid it. In the end it's the rights of children that are dominant. And in the end you have to take your own decisions when you're in government. I mean the people voted for me and my colleagues they didn't vote for a discrimination office or this or that person holding an appointed position. They voted for me. They voted for Peter Costello and they voted for all of my colleagues and in the same vein they will vote against us if they don't like what we've done. And you've got to be prepared to stand up and be counted on issues like this.
FAINE:
Thanks for calling Chris. Kim in Brunswick. Hello Kim.
CALLER:
Hello how you doing? I just want to say that I think that John Howard's being a bit hypocritical here in his understanding of the rights of the child and turning over state legislation when he won't turn over mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
FAINE:
Is there a parallel here Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kim you couldn't be more wrong. We're not overturning the state legislation, we're in fact upholding it. So you've got the thing completely wrong. See what you've got to remember is that if we are successful in amending the Sex Discrimination Act then the legislation passed by the government of Victoria will be valid, not invalid. It's quite the reverse of what you say and therefore there is absolutely no inconsistency in our approach here compared with our approach in relation to mandatory sentencing. There's no difference at all.
FAINE:
In both instances you're saying the state or the territory can make up their own mind about what laws they want to apply locally.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well certainly there is a consistency in relation to that, yes.
FAINE:
Kim?
CALLER:
But how about the holding up the rights of the child when the UN Convention is saying that mandatory sentencing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no the UN, I'm sorry once again you're not right. The UN Committee specifically said last weekend that it had not made a finding that mandatory sentencing was in breach of the convention. They specifically said that. They didn't say it wasn't, they just didn't make a finding that it was so that's not right either.
FAINE:
Thanks for calling Kim, Ralph in Northgate.
CALLER:
Good morning. I am very suspicious of politicians who invoke fundamental rights to support their argument. I think they're often a smoke screen for real ideological reasons. I will give you an example, I don't think and I would be interested to hear the Prime Minister's view on this, I don't think our society has a commitment to fundamental rights of the child to act, to have an expectation of a mother or a father at all. I don't think it ever has. We have a family law act which I presume the Prime Minister has voted for in 1975 which allows people to divorce on an easy no fault basis. We have family services that will remove a child from the custody of inadequate parents instead of providing support within those families to improve their parenting skills. We have government services that removed Aboriginal children from their parents in order to give them a better life. I mean, I think the Prime Minister and the government has ideological reasons for not wanting non traditional families to access IVF and they should state them, rather than hide behind a smoke screen of an objective human right.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are not hiding behind a smoke screen. I think the community does have a view that other things being equal, people should have the expectation of being raised, children should have the expectation of being raised by both a mother and a father. I think a large number of people do share that view and they do think it's a fundamental right. I don't agree with you. I don't agree with you, let me finish, I listened to you. I don't agree with you that in that it's a smoke screen. You talk about the family law act and as a matter of historical record, I did not vote in favour of the main altering provision of the family law act. I was one of those who in 1975 in a free vote, voted against some aspects of the family law act, not the removal of the old grounds for divorce, I think that was an improvement. I think many of the features of that old legislation were very undignified and didn't do anything to keep families together, but I think in some respects the family law act changes of 1975 went too far and I voted against some of those that in my view did go too far so I don't want it to go down that I had a different view in relation to that. I think people do have opinions about fundamental rights and I don't think we're hiding behind a smoke screen. I mean in the end if you want to make changes of this kind, you do have to uphold, according to some proper conceptual base, the reason why you do it, otherwise you can't defend it and the reason we are doing it is that we do think children have that fundamental right, other things being equal to have a mother and a father to raise them. Now other things are often not equal, unfortunately, and we have already discussed that, but you are talking about a situation here that these children can never have that right or that expectation.
FAINE:
Ralph thank you for your call, Prime Minister just briefly because the news is nearly upon us. One effect of your intervention is that we could just go back to what used to be the situation in Victoria where people go interstate to access IVF, so what do you ultimately achieve?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can only ultimately achieve what is within your constitutional power to achieve. We cannot legislate directly to deal with IVF availability.
FAINE:
But if has no impact, is it worth the [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it will certainly have an impact in relation to Victoria and it may well encourage other states to enact similar legislation. It would be open for them to do so and they won't be able to say well we can't do that because of the Federal sex discrimination act, so it could have wider ramifications than your comments suggests.
FAINE:
Thank you for your time this morning. You have been most generous and we have got through lots of callers with varying opinions. The Prime Minister John Howard, speaking to us from his office in Sydney.
[ends]