E&OE................................................................................................
[tape starts]
PRIME MINISTER:
....as rude as you like.
CARLTON:
Well all right I will. Now I thought [inaudible] Prime Minister was
bloody awful.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not surprised. I would expect a lot of people wouldn't
like it. These things are intensely subjective. Just as fashion in
all sorts of [tape break] varies from person to person and group to
group. I don't think it would matter who the Prime Minister were
or who he got to assist, there'd be some people who would think
it was great, some people think it was ordinary, and some people would
think what you thought of it.
CARLTON:
I take your point. I mean you could have had Shakespeare on one hand
and Henry Lawson on the other.
PRIME MINISTER:
Because you're talking here about how you express commonly held
feelings. You see the argument now is really going to be about not
what subjects were covered but how they were covered. The language
that was used to cover them. Now you said you didn't object to
a reference to God [inaudible], the Aborigines, democracy, all of
those. We all agree on those things. It's really about the language
which that's employed and look, I don't expect everybody's
going to like this.
CARLTON:
Let me throw the criticism that came from a lot of listeners. They
said, and many of them used, or several used a phrase that they thought
your heart was in the right place, that they couldn't fault you
for that, but the language didn't uplift it. Didn't soar,
didn't take us above ourselves.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can understand some people saying that. On the other hand when
I presented it to our Party Room it got a round of applause. Now that's
not because they were trying to be super polite to me. A lot of things
I think deserve a round of applause in our Party Room doesn't
get a round of applause. And one of the things we tried to do with
this was not use traditional preamble language. We didn't try
and load it up with where as's and humbly relyings on because
that is not contemporary language.
CARLTON:
That's 19th Century, 18th Century.
PRIME MINISTER:
Now, that was fine then and I'm not knocking it but the language
of people then is not the language of people today and I had rather
hoped that we could use language that people who, you know, are living
in [inaudible] 20th Century.
CARLTON:
But you still can't get away with qualms. I mean the phrase like
"immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation".
What's wrong with just saying: have enriched our nation's
life?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can, I mean okay, we can spend the whole afternoon [inaudible].
And look.....
[Line drop out]
CARLTON:
Can I get to some of the particular criticism and it's not necessarily
criticism I agree with by any means. But there is concern about mateship'.
That that might be too blokey. That it rather leaves out 52% of the
population, i.e. women.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I understand that. I don't agree with it. Mateship'
has become a hallowed word in the Australian experience. It's
the only word in that preamble that you would never conceivably find
in the preamble of another nation. Now doesn't that mean that
it's distinctively Australian? And if you look at the contemporary
use of the word mateship' it's been broadened to be
something beyond the male bonding and things to do with blokes being
together. It describes community spirit. It describes an attitude
of us all clubing together to help each other when we're under
the hammer. Now I thought about this. I know some of the, you know,
more rad fems will have a go at me over it. But I couldn't be
sort of even with myself, I wouldn't feel easy with myself if
I hadn't have put it in because I really believe that that ideal
is a very important part of the Australian psyche.
CARLTON:
So you said to Les Murray: Les, we've got to have mateship'.
PRIME MINISTER:
You can blame me for mateship'. Don't blame Les. Les
was not keen on it and we talked about it and he said well you know,
you're the client, I'm only the poet and in the end you
try and get a mix of our ideas, his language and in some areas my
language.
CARLTON:
How much was him and how much was you?
PRIME MINISTER:
A bit, but I mean a lot of it, I think more ringing phrases were his.
But perhaps I'm being modest. But I think the last paragraph's
very very nice. A lot of people will disagree with it but I think
it's a beautiful statement.
CARLTON:
And that was yours? "Australia's democratic and federal
system of government..."
PRIME MINISTER:
No that was very much Murray.
CARLTON:
Right. Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I think it's a beautiful paragraph and I think it says it
speaks very...
CARLTON:
"Australia's democratic and federal system of government
exists under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal
dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology
nor invoked against achievement." Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that what it is saying is we're all equal, we shouldn't
be over borne by prejudice. Of course we shouldn't, we're
a tolerant nation, "or ideology or fashion". Now that's
a reference to people being over borne by passing political correctness.
The last bit of course is a blow against the tall poppy syndrome and
if there's one thing we need to get rid of in this country is
our tall poppy syndrome. We have to be a nation that believes in achievers
as well as being a nation that believes in battlers. What I've
tried to do in this preamble is express both ideals.
CARLTON:
Prime Minister the other concern expressed by a lot of people is that
there is not sufficient acknowledgement of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Island peoples, and what has been called the custodianship
of the land.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I thought once we all thought very hard to get that. And look,
I know some....I knew people were going to say that. On the other
hand if you look as though you're going too far in that direction
you'll start losing people on the other side. I thought what
we did was to say that from the beginning of time and the hallowed
expression there is from "time immemorial" our country's
been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and we honour
their ancient and continuing cultures. I think that is both historically
correct, it is respectful, it's a tasteful reference. It avoids
the difficulties of, in the cause of getting one group in the community
on side you alienate others. In the end Mike you can't sort of
bargain something like this. You've really got to try and strike
a balance because you will never satisfy everybody. I mean some people
have....who have said to me: why are you talking about the Aborigines
at all? Why don't you just talk about Australians and nobody
else. Some people said: if you're going to talk about immigrants
why don't you talk about the people who were born in Australia.
I mean it's a mission impossible to satisfy everybody.
CARLTON:
All of the people all of the time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly. Nobody has ever tried to write something like this in 100
years so I suppose I'm attempting the impossible. But I thought
it would be a great thing to try and find a set of words that said
something about what we all believe unites us, and to cover all of
the things that we have in common. Now.....
CARLTON:
All right. So what happens now. Does everyone get a chance to have
a crack at it?
PRIME MINISTER:
The people will have their say. I'll listen to all the comments
and if I think that there are proposals that are worthy of incorporation
well we'll do that. If I don't we won't. And we will
put the final version if it is altered at all, or if it's not
altered we'll put that inside a bill and put it up and we'll
just see what the Labor Party and the Democrats do. I didn't
think for a moment that they would agree first up with what we put
forward. And you can't have a committee writing something like
this.
CARLTON:
You end up with a camel.
PRIME MINISTER:
It just goes on and on and on. But we'll hear what they've
got to say. I don't think it can be seriously argued that we've
left out things that ought to be put in. It's going to be an
argument about language and style. And everybody has a different way
of saying these things.
CARLTON:
Well yeah. I think a lot of people wanted a sort of the Thomas Jefferson
uplift if you know what I mean.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah but people who say that would, I mean, a lot of them, with respect,
they couldn't recite any of the words of Thomas Jefferson and
they were good for that century. We're not living in that century.
I mean some of the greatest speeches now if you read them again, they
sound excessively flowery and some what out of place. It's a
different world. I mean even some of the speeches of Menzies now which
were are only 30 or 40 years old probably employ language which is
not necessarily appropriate now and I say that as one of the greatest
admirers of that man around. But I'll let the, you know.....
CARLTON:
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
PRIME MINISTER:
Let the comments flow. I'm not the least bit offended by that.
I didn't expect everybody to sort of cheer from the sidelines
and say it was absolutely outstanding. But it's an attempt to
sort of cover in contemporary language thoughts and sentiments that
we all have in common. I mean it's early days yet but I haven't
heard too many, apart from the mateship thing which I think is perhaps
a bit of an over reaction from some and when you think about it it
really is part of the Australian psyche. Now apart from that there's
not a lot of controversy about the concepts covered, it's just
the way you express it. I don't think you'll ever get agreement
on that and Mr Keating would have written something differently from
me.
CARLTON:
I think he might have.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah and he would have got a different adviser. He wouldn't have
got Les Murray.
CARLTON:
He might have gone to the Commonwealth Bank.
PRIME MINISTER:
Now, now.
CARLTON:
Hey listen can I bowl you a question on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can. You just have.
CARLTON:
All right. Are you attracted to, do you want an inquiry into the whole
business of the piggery, the Commonwealth Bank?
PRIME MINISTER:
[inaudible]. Can I say honestly I have no personal political axe to
grind on this at all. I had my political shoot out with Mr Keating
in March of 1996.
CARLTON:
Is there a need for an inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're getting advice on that. We are. We are getting advice
on that. I mean if there is a public interest in having an inquiry
that's something a government ought to take into account.
CARLTON:
And do you feel there may be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're waiting...we are seeking advice. It's deliberately
being handled at an Attorney-General's level so that as far as
possible the decision making process is kept as transparent as possible.
CARLTON:
Are you concerned about the involvement of the Commonwealth Bank in
what appears to have been some quite secret deals done here?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it's fair of me to sort of say yes or no to
that because I haven't read all of the material. I saw the programme.
I haven't read the supporting documents. I haven't looked
at any detail the Commonwealth Bank's comments.
CARLTON:
Mr Keating's saying it's part of a Liberal Party plot to
get him.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I understand him saying that and there's no point in my
getting involved in responding to that. I mean let me simply repeat,
in political terms I don't have any personal axe to grind. We
had our stand off in 1996. He lost the election. He has disappeared
from public life. I have no personal desire to pursue him. But if
matters are raised and there is a public interest involved well that
does have to be looked at and I'm quite certain that if the boot
were on the other foot the Labor Prime Minister would be saying the
same thing.
CARLTON:
All right. Prime Minister thanks very much.
PRIME MINISTER:
A pleasure.
[Ends]