E&OE...........
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, overnight there was more talk from the United States of unilateral action on Iraq. How do you feel about the isolation, I guess, of the United States and its position?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well our position on this is that no decision has been taken by the United States. If a decision were taken to do something and a request were made to Australia, then that is something that we would consider according to Australia's national interest.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think there should be a resolution by the Security Council as France's President, Jacques Chirac, has called for overnight?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not giving a running commentary on everything that people say. I've stated Australia's position. We are of the view that if Iraq were to dismantle any weapons. If she were to allow inspectors in and were to guarantee unrestrained inspection and dismantling of any weapons of mass destruction, then that would transform the situation overnight.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Mr Carr has suggested that the division of the bill, regarding stem cell research, may lead to its ultimate defeat. Is that a view you share?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't. My view is that the bill will go through the House of Representatives by quite a reasonable margin. I suspect the debate and the vote will be closer in the Senate, but it always going to be closer in the Senate. What's happened with the splitting of the bill is to ensure that there is a full conscience vote. There a number of people who support the ban on human cloning yet oppose the stem cell research provisions and they argued, I thought convincingly in the end, that it's unfair to force them to vote yes or no to both and that they should have a separate vote on each and I think that's only fair. I support both. I strongly support the stem cell bill. I believe it will deliver greater hope for people. I think it's a good bill. It's a bill that's about our future and I hope it gets through, but it's a free vote. And I don't intend to use any kind of Liberal Party authority or discipline. People are entitled to vote exactly as they think according to their consciences. And I ask people to respect the fact that different people have different views and let them decide and I think they'll make the right decision, but in the end it's for them to make up their minds.
JOURNALIST:
But your confident that it will go through?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m optimistic that it will go through the House of Representatives by a reasonable margin. I believe it will go through the Senate, but I think it will be closer in the Senate, but I still believe it will go through. But I can't guarantee that, it's a free vote. I';m not trying to corral the Liberal Party to my point of view. Some of my best friends in the Liberal Party have a different view from me. Some of my best friends in the Liberal Party share my view. I find myself voting on the same side as members of the Labor Party on this. It's just one of those things and I think it ought to be allowed to play itself out. And in the end, the Parliament will decide. But it's been a very good debate and it's a credit to our democratic system that we've been able to have such a good debate.
JOURNALIST:
Do you remember a debate on a conscience vote which is been…?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've been involved in about five. My first one I was involved in was in 1975 on the Family Law Act. So I've been through a number of these, but this is as good as any and it's a great credit to the Parliament and it's a reminder that people who denigrate that institution are wrong. It's worked very well on this occasion and I';m very proud to be one of a 150 people who participated in this debate.
JOURNALIST:
Are you doing any personal lobbying on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I 'm not. People know my view and if anybody wants to talk to me, they can and they have. But in the end, I respect my colleagues and they will be able to form their own views.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, were you personally…superannuation industry, news that APRA have…. to take legal action against one big corporate…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think it's appropriate for me to talk about the daily actions of the regulator. I think the regulator is endeavouring to do what it's charged to do by the statute.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, were you personally swayed or perhaps even misled by the comments Alan Trounson made about the rat experiment?
PRIME MINISTER:
It hasn't changed my mind at all and I don't believe it should change anybody else's mind. But I thought his comments were, to say the least, very untidy. And it's very important that people who's views are followed carefully be absolutely very careful in what they say. I mean, I';m expected to be in what I say and plenty of you characters jump on me if something is a bit loose, therefore it's understandable that people would be a bit critical. But look, as far as I';m concerned, it doesn't alter my view one iota. But it's just a reminder of the importance of people whose views are respected to listened to have to be very careful in what they say.
JOURNALIST:
How advanced is that review into the funding?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I said was that I would seek some advice about his remarks. I didn't say anything else and I don't intend to say anything else now.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Mr Vaile's pretty confident that we're going to be in trade talks within the next few months. Is that an optimism that you share?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't seen what he said.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, today the treasurers of Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia released a report by economist Ross Garnaut, saying that the States should be given funding, there should be an overhaul of State and Federal funding arrangements and the States with the largest growth, the largest population, should be given the lion's share. How do you feel about those comments?
PRIME MINISTER:
I suggest they convene a meeting of the States, leave us out of it and agree amongst themselves how you carve up the pie. We deliver a certain amount of money, they decide how it's to be divided and I have no intention of taking the side of one State against another. I';m the Prime Minister of Australia and as far as I';m concerned, when it comes to matters like this, State boundaries don't exist. I';m interested in optimising opportunities for all Australians and if one State is unhappy with its allocation, it's got to get the other five States on side and then they come along to us in a united way and say – will you please rearrange it in accordance with this new formula. I wish them luck.
[ends]