Post by Flash on Aug 16, 2007 14:33:13 GMT -5
Has the rudder fallen off the Australian Labor Party 
hONEST jOHN TO THE rESCUE\\\\\
this WILL cost rudd the election
bEaties Labor nazis threaten to arrest Councilors who oppose
Queensland Local Government amalgamations
Subject:
Queensland Local Government amalgamations; uranium; advertising; workplace reform.
E&OE...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen Mr Nairn and I have called this news conference to announce that the Joint Party Room has approved the introduction, immediately, of an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which will be styled the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Democratic Plebiscites Bill 2007, and this bill will have two purposes. Firstly, to authorise the use of the Commonwealth electoral rolls for the conduct of plebiscites in local government areas where the use of state rolls are not immediately available or facilitated, and secondly, and very importantly, the law will also provide that any state law, such as the law in Queensland that penalises, discriminates against or interferes with local councils or other people being involved in plebiscites, is invalid. And what we're effectively doing with this legislation is to strike down the penalties being imposed by the Queensland legislation on the people or councils who might decide to conduct a plebiscite as to whether a local government merger will take place. We are not expressing a view as a Commonwealth as to whether or not an individual merger should occur. We accept that in some parts of Queensland there will be strong support for particular mergers. We also accept that in other parts of Queensland there will be very strong opposition to particular mergers and we believe that the people should have the right to express an opinion and we believe very strongly that the arbitrary jackbooted fashion in which the Queensland Government has trampled on some basic rights of people to express a view by threatening fines, threatening council dismissals, that that is quite beyond the pale and we're going to act to prevent that occurring. And we have legal advice that we can do so and the bill will provide according. It's a very simple bill and there's a very simple proposition and a very simple message to Mr Beattie; let the people of your state speak, let the people speak, let them have a view, let them express that view. We will fund the conduct of the ballots, it's long been the practice of the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct ballots on a fee-for-service basis for local councils and that's happened for a very long period of time. The actually timing of the ballots, the conduct of the ballots and the arrangements for the ballots will be matters to be determined by the Electoral Commission. We're not directing the Electoral Commission when the ballots should be conducted or how they should be conducted, we're saying that they should be arranged and the cost and the details negotiated with the local councils who want them. We will reimburse the local councils the cost of the conduct of the ballots so they will not be at any expense, but whether councils have them is a matter for them, the outcomes a matter for the people. Whether individual mergers take place, well that will vary from case to case, but we're just intervening to uphold a very simple principle and that is if people want to express a view on something a government's doing, it is outrageous that any level of government should punish people for wanting to express a view.
JOURNALIST:
Does this legislation however go to local government throughout Australia so that if any local government area on whatever issue would like to hold a plebiscite that the Commonwealth today undertakes to fund that plebiscite? For example it could be on rezoning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it applies throughout the Commonwealth. It stands to reason, Paul, that the Commonwealth is not going to willy-nilly fund plebiscites. I mean there is a very important issue of principle involved here.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard are you asking Mr Rudd to back this?
PRIME MINISTER:
You ask Mr Rudd what he's going to do. I mean we are acting independently of and way ahead of Mr Rudd on this, but what Mr Rudd does on this is a matter for Mr Rudd. We will get the legislation through the Parliament. It has very strong support.
JOURNALIST:
Could you see an efficiency argument for holding the plebiscites on federal election day, given that.....
PRIME MINISTER:
No well when it is held, you know, I don't give advice publicly or privately which could be construed as a direction or an undue bringing to bear of influence to an independent statutory authority. When these plebiscites are held will be matters to be determined by the Australian Electoral Commission and I don't and the Minister does not seek to tell the Electoral Commission what to do.
JOURNALIST:
Do you see any difference between this amalgamation Mr Howard and the amalgamation undertaken by the Kennett Government which was also unpopular?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't examined all the details of the Kennett amalgamation, if my memory serves me correctly, I was not then Prime Minister, I was not even Opposition Leader at the time. I think the Kennett amalgamations took place in 1993 and 1994, just not long after Mr Kennett was elected. I don't remember whether there was any consultation with the local councils but I don't recall, and your memory may be better than mine Michelle on this, I do not recall the Kennett government passing legislation to penalise people who wanted to have an expression of opinion. So if my recollection is correct then the circumstances are quite different. What we are railing against is the denial by the Beattie Government of the right of the people of Queensland to express a view. That's what this is directed against. You asked it in the context of the amalgamations, that's not what.....that's not the principal target of this legislation. The target of this legislation is the outrageously undemocratic punishment of local councils for daring to want to express a view, that's all.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just get this clear, does the legislation authorise any council, anywhere in the country, that wants to have a plebiscite on any issue that you will allow that and subsidise that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, well it happens now.
JOURNALIST:
But will you fund it and....
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, this bill has got nothing to do....now let me make this clear to you Jim, this bill has got nothing to do with funding. Funding is an executive decision. I have said that the Government will fund the conduct of any ballots in the Queensland local government amalgamation context. Right now without any change to the law local councils regularly use the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a plebiscite. Julie Bishop, for example, reminded me this morning that the Perth City Council recently had...conducted...there was cooperation with the Electoral Commission, a ballot conducted regarding the holding of some, I think, a gay and lesbian festival in Perth. Now that was a plebiscite of the people, it was conducted by the Electoral Commission; it was paid for by the Perth City Council. This sort of thing happens all the time. The difference here is because the Queensland Government is behaving in such a dictatorial fashion, the state rolls that are normally used for local government elections are not available, physically not available, and secondly the Queensland Government is making it an offence for people to do the sort of things that local councils from time to time do with the assistance of the Australian Electoral Commission. So what we're doing is really preserving the fair status quo. We are striking down, or purporting to strike down the undemocratic arbitrary Queensland legislation and on top of that, to make the point, we are saying in this case we will bear the cost of the conduct of the plebiscites. Now in relation to other matters, you talk about something, local councils can now negotiate with the AEC on a fee for service basis for those things to be conducted. Now whether we would pay in future for other ballots, well, would depend on the circumstances, but as a general rule I don't want people to think we're going to fund any and every expression of opinion sought by a local council. I mean there is a big principle involved here. It's not the principle of merger, it's the democratic plebiscite principle that if people want of their volition and at their own cost to conduct a plebiscite, to express a view, it is outrageous that any level of government should say in effect that's a crime and we're going to punish it with dismissal and with fines. I mean that's what we're railing against.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, if the plebiscites are held and there's overwhelming opposition to mergers, would you be prepared to further legislate to reverse mergers that Peter Beattie's enforced?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let's deal with things a step at a time. We have not given thought to that. What we are trying to do is create a situation where people can express an opinion. It would be my hope that if as a result of this plebiscites are held in a number of areas in Queensland and there is overwhelming opposition expressed, that Mr Beattie would listen.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look that's several stages down the track. I'm not going to speculate about that.
JOURNALIST:
But aren't you offering people false hope then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're hardly offering them false hope when we're overriding the Queensland legislation which is denying them any hope.
JOURNALIST:
Would a High Court challenge.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Could we have somebody from....
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, would you be hoping that the voters of Queensland would look upon you kindly in the approaching Federal Election because of your decision to fight this jackboot politics by Peter Beattie?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, that's asking me for a piece of commentary. I hope that I will always do the right thing by the people of Queensland. I have endeavoured to do that in the past but whether they form a favourable view of me or not is something I leave to them, they have good sense, I admire them greatly, but that's a matter for them.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister after the plebiscite you still can't give a guarantee that you can stop any merger...
PRIME MINISTER:
What I guarantee is that we will use the proper limits of our Constitutional power to let the people of Queensland speak. That's the obligation I have, and what I object to most strongly on this issue is not individual mergers, I don't have a strong view either way because I am not sufficiently possessed of all of the facts in every case, I don't pretend to be, but I know enough about public affairs in this country to see it as absolutely outrageous that a local council should be threatened with dismissal and people should be threatened with fines for merely wanting to organise a vote on whether their citizens agree with something. I mean that is what is at stake here, a very simple principle and this is the behaviour of a very arrogant Premier, it's the behaviour of a Premier who has a huge majority. I mean they talk about the Federal Government, he's got one house of parliament. Queensland has been a unicameral state for what, since 1923, I think the upper house was abolished in Queensland, if my memory serves me correctly, and he's got a huge majority and this is Labor in the raw, you just trample over people's interests. It's also a reminder that if you had a federal Labor Government in office now, they wouldn't be doing this. If Mr Rudd were now Prime Minister he wouldn't be doing this because he wouldn't want to offend the Labor Party in Queensland.
JOURNALIST:
Has this extension of democracy led you to reconsider the closure of the federal roll? Wouldn't putting it back to the old dates allow more people to have a say as you are allowing here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a different issue.
JOURNALIST:
If Queensland, and Premier Beattie has signalled that he would challenge any attempt in the High Court, would that put your legislation on hold pending the decision of the High Court?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it would because normally, unless they, and I would have to take some advice on that, but I would imagine unless they were able to get an injunction restraining the holding of the plebiscites the answer would be no. The mere fact that there is a challenge all that means is that the law remains valid until it's struck down by the court. So the answer to that is no, unless you can get an injunction, and you would have to have special grounds for getting an injunction and, look, I am not the Solicitor-General, even the Attorney-General, but that is very much a kerbside opinion, but I think it's probably a, you know, probably fairly safe opinion.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, can we have Mr Shanahan and then Mr Coorey, we've had Mr Coorey, I mean we will have him again but...
JOURNALIST:
Mr Nairn, as Minister of State and the Member for Eden-Monaro would you prefer to see councils and state governments conduct plebiscites on issues such as marine parks rather than surveys in the future, do you think you would get a better feeling from the public?
MINISTER NAIRN:
Well I don't think I would be strongly supporting a whole variety of plebiscites on every small thing that came up. I mean generally speaking, you know councils and state governments are elected to do a particular job. You refer to the marine park in New South Wales which was sort of announced and then they decided to negotiate and talk to the locals which I had a major problem with obviously the way in which they went about that, the process for sure. New South Wales has an upper house and they have to do legislation through both houses. I think there is a comparison with Queensland, with its one house, it does seem now, or the longer Beattie stays as Premier it seems that he wants to be, sort of, more powerful, and you know the word emperor is now being used by lots of people in the way in which he is going about that.
PRIME MINISTER:
There's only been one emperor in Queensland and that was the emperor of Lang Park, Wally Lewis.
JOURNALIST:
Do you deny any political motivation in this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if giving people a say is a political motivation, I don't deny it. Of course I want to give people a say. Could I just make the other point in relation to the question that was just asked of my colleague, and that is that what's involved here is whether or not individual councils should continue to exist. So it's of (inaudible) of issue, far greater than just an individual decision of a local council or an individual decision taken by a state government. I mean it's collapsing structures of government and could I make another point that undoubtedly Mr Beattie will have something to say about my announcement and he will say I am interfering with the affairs of the sovereign state of Queensland. Well let me remind people that we have an enormous direct financial interest in Queensland local government. We are providing this year to local government in Queensland $403.5 million in general purpose and Roads to Recovery specific road funding. We have this curious notion that federal governments have no right to say or do anything about local government except provide money. I think the fact that we are providing all of that money to local government in Queensland gives us a right to require state governments to give the people of those local government areas a right to speak. Queensland itself asserts that it spends about $780 on local government, so we spend, if you accept the Queensland figures and I am not disputing them for the moment, we spend more than half as much as they spend on local government; well surely that gives us some right to speak in relation to local government issues in that state.
JOURNALIST:
Rather than expecting taxpayers of Western Australia and other parts of the country to subsidise plebiscites in Queensland why wouldn't you consider, for example, getting, looking at the Specific Purpose Payments and the GST revenue flowing to Queensland to recoup the cost of these plebiscites?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the flow of GST is governed by an inter-government agreement and I think there would be some allegations of bad faith from the other states even in relation to the way you put it if we did that, and I don't think the amount of money involved is of a sufficient magnitude to justify such as fundamental re-making or the re-making of such a fundamental agreement.
JOURNALIST:
Wouldn't it very efficient to hold the plebiscites on the same day as the Federal Election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the question of when the plebiscites are held is not a matter for me. Well, no, no, because the problem is if I express a view like that it could be seen as purporting to give a direction to the AEC and I respect the independence of the Australian Electoral Commission and I am therefore declining to answer the question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you say want to give Queenslanders a voice on this issue, in effect are you trying to shame the Beattie government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't mind if the Beattie Government is shamed, of course not. I am, you know, I plead guilty because I think what they are doing is outrageous and most people do. I mean this fellow has really got carried away with his most recent electoral victory. He's obviously going, although he keeps sort of chopping and changing on that, but I mean why would get up and say you are going to consider it all, and I find it quite extraordinary and it is very arbitrary and it is very dictatorial.
JOURNALIST:
Should he give an iron clad commitment to stay for the full term?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Mr Beattie should listen to the people.
JOURNALIST:
Would the relationship between the Federal Government and local councils be clearer if they had a recognition in the Constitution, have times changed since that was last visited??
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not sure that that's directly relevant. I am not arguing for there to be a fundamental re-casting of the relationship, what I am arguing for is that the State Government should not behave in such a dictatorial fashion. I am not arguing against council mergers as such, it depends on the merits of each individual area. What I am arguing against, the Government is quite emphatic about this, is the Beattie Government punishing people for wanting to express a view and that's what all of this is about. It's not about saying that the mergers in north Queensland should go ahead, and that other mergers should not go ahead, I know there is a variety of views. It is not a hugely strong issue in the City of Brisbane for the very obvious reason that it's one large council area. Clearly there is divided opinion on the Sunshine Coast, there are differences of view, apparently, in Townsville compared with the views in Cairns. It varies and there is very strong opposition to it in the western part of the state, but support for it in other parts of the state. Now that is fair enough and I am not going to say that this or that council merger should take place, but I am going to say on such a fundamental principle, it is outrageous of the state government to punish people for wanting to express a view and we are using the limit of our constitutional power to prevent that occurring.
JOURNALIST:
Should it be driven by the views of the particular people in the area or should it be driven by legislator's opinions on what's best for the overall region or the states?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think at the very least, Michelle, the legislators should be informed by the views of the local people. That's at the very least. Surely if they are to have some regard for the democratic process, they should at least be informed because you are collapsing and re-making a structure of government. I am not saying that the Queensland Parliament doesn't have power to do this and this bill is not designed to prevent a merger taking place. I mean we keep getting the two things or some people keep getting the two things confused. This bill is about facilitating an expression of opinion by people if they live in an area where the council wants that opinion expressed.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you think you should have a plebiscite on the Devonport Hospital?
PRIME MINISTER:
Why?
JOURNALIST:
To get what the local feeling is?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're not talking there about collapsing a government entity, we're talking about an intention by the Federal Government to help a local community. I mean you're talking here about the existence of a structure of government, which the further you get from the CBD of a state capital is increasingly important to the daily lives of people. Local councils in remote areas of Australia bulk far larger in the daily lives of people than they do in metropolitan Sydney or Melbourne. If people are exhausted on this subject I have two other matters I want to mention.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the legislation Mr Howard for this, when are you going to...
PRIME MINISTER:
We're going to introduce it today if possible and we would obviously pass it when we come back in a few weeks' time.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just picking up on Andrew Probyn's point, why should the taxpayers of the entire nation fund an issue which is isolated to one state?
PRIME MINISTER:
But Jim there are a lot of things that are isolated to one state that are funded by the Federal Government, it happens every day. I mean there's no difference between this and the decision of the Federal Government to build a road in South Australia or to build a road in Western Australia or to fund a hospital in Devonport, or to fund the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. I mean all of these things; I mean that's what Federal...
JOURNALIST:
But they're part of broad national programs. This is not a broad national program.
PRIME MINISTER:
But hang on, this, I mean the possibility of us funding in other parts of the...if on the merits there were a case to do it, might arise in the future. Now could I just mention two other matters and that is to draw attention to the interview of Julia Gillard on radio this morning in which she put the kybosh on Mr Rudd's apparent desire to soften aspects of the industrial relations law. She made it very clear, and this is bad news for small business, that there will be no change at all in Labor's hardline determination to bring back the unfair dismissal regime which is so despised by small business and you've got an emerging pattern. Mr Rudd, the policy contortionist on these matters is trying to give the impression to business that he might do some softening at the edges and as soon as word gets out, Julia Gillard races on to a radio program and says “no that's not going to happen. We're sticking to the hardline”. And I think you're seeing a clear emergence of a different approach between the two of them. Julia Gillard has made it quite clear that Labor will bring back the unfair dismissal laws. If that happens then that will threaten the 33-year low in unemployment that Australia is enjoying at the present time. The other matter I would mention is that if the Labor Party is going to quote things in advertisements from remarks I have made, it would be a very good idea if they gave the quote in full and not chop it in half.
JOURNALIST:
Which is?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am referring to the ALP radio script.
JOURNALIST:
Well what is the full quote?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the full quote is, if we had not worked together closely for 11 years we would not have the successful economy we now have. It is impossible, if you don't have harmony between a Prime Minister and a Treasurer for the economy to the properly managed. What the Labor Party has done with its ad is to take the second sentence and leave out the first, which is just so deceitful and dishonest. I mean my very proposition was that Peter and I had worked together closely and they just left that out. But I am not surprised, but I thought it should be drawn attention to.
JOURNALIST:
So will you guarantee that the Liberal Party won't be doing that with any Labor Party statements between now and the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will not be distorting the true meaning of what was said.
JOURNALIST:
PM, do you actually regret saying what you said about working families in Australia never...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I think generically speaking, working families have seen their situation improve, but I make it clear on a regular basis that I accept that not every individual family is sharing to the full the bounty. But if you look at the generic measures, working families have...
JOURNALIST:
But they're hammering you on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they hammer me on a lot of things. But I mean Matt, Matt, don't ask me to be a commentator.
ends
hONEST jOHN TO THE rESCUE\\\\\
this WILL cost rudd the election
bEaties Labor nazis threaten to arrest Councilors who oppose
Queensland Local Government amalgamations
Subject:
Queensland Local Government amalgamations; uranium; advertising; workplace reform.
E&OE...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen Mr Nairn and I have called this news conference to announce that the Joint Party Room has approved the introduction, immediately, of an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which will be styled the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Democratic Plebiscites Bill 2007, and this bill will have two purposes. Firstly, to authorise the use of the Commonwealth electoral rolls for the conduct of plebiscites in local government areas where the use of state rolls are not immediately available or facilitated, and secondly, and very importantly, the law will also provide that any state law, such as the law in Queensland that penalises, discriminates against or interferes with local councils or other people being involved in plebiscites, is invalid. And what we're effectively doing with this legislation is to strike down the penalties being imposed by the Queensland legislation on the people or councils who might decide to conduct a plebiscite as to whether a local government merger will take place. We are not expressing a view as a Commonwealth as to whether or not an individual merger should occur. We accept that in some parts of Queensland there will be strong support for particular mergers. We also accept that in other parts of Queensland there will be very strong opposition to particular mergers and we believe that the people should have the right to express an opinion and we believe very strongly that the arbitrary jackbooted fashion in which the Queensland Government has trampled on some basic rights of people to express a view by threatening fines, threatening council dismissals, that that is quite beyond the pale and we're going to act to prevent that occurring. And we have legal advice that we can do so and the bill will provide according. It's a very simple bill and there's a very simple proposition and a very simple message to Mr Beattie; let the people of your state speak, let the people speak, let them have a view, let them express that view. We will fund the conduct of the ballots, it's long been the practice of the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct ballots on a fee-for-service basis for local councils and that's happened for a very long period of time. The actually timing of the ballots, the conduct of the ballots and the arrangements for the ballots will be matters to be determined by the Electoral Commission. We're not directing the Electoral Commission when the ballots should be conducted or how they should be conducted, we're saying that they should be arranged and the cost and the details negotiated with the local councils who want them. We will reimburse the local councils the cost of the conduct of the ballots so they will not be at any expense, but whether councils have them is a matter for them, the outcomes a matter for the people. Whether individual mergers take place, well that will vary from case to case, but we're just intervening to uphold a very simple principle and that is if people want to express a view on something a government's doing, it is outrageous that any level of government should punish people for wanting to express a view.
JOURNALIST:
Does this legislation however go to local government throughout Australia so that if any local government area on whatever issue would like to hold a plebiscite that the Commonwealth today undertakes to fund that plebiscite? For example it could be on rezoning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it applies throughout the Commonwealth. It stands to reason, Paul, that the Commonwealth is not going to willy-nilly fund plebiscites. I mean there is a very important issue of principle involved here.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard are you asking Mr Rudd to back this?
PRIME MINISTER:
You ask Mr Rudd what he's going to do. I mean we are acting independently of and way ahead of Mr Rudd on this, but what Mr Rudd does on this is a matter for Mr Rudd. We will get the legislation through the Parliament. It has very strong support.
JOURNALIST:
Could you see an efficiency argument for holding the plebiscites on federal election day, given that.....
PRIME MINISTER:
No well when it is held, you know, I don't give advice publicly or privately which could be construed as a direction or an undue bringing to bear of influence to an independent statutory authority. When these plebiscites are held will be matters to be determined by the Australian Electoral Commission and I don't and the Minister does not seek to tell the Electoral Commission what to do.
JOURNALIST:
Do you see any difference between this amalgamation Mr Howard and the amalgamation undertaken by the Kennett Government which was also unpopular?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't examined all the details of the Kennett amalgamation, if my memory serves me correctly, I was not then Prime Minister, I was not even Opposition Leader at the time. I think the Kennett amalgamations took place in 1993 and 1994, just not long after Mr Kennett was elected. I don't remember whether there was any consultation with the local councils but I don't recall, and your memory may be better than mine Michelle on this, I do not recall the Kennett government passing legislation to penalise people who wanted to have an expression of opinion. So if my recollection is correct then the circumstances are quite different. What we are railing against is the denial by the Beattie Government of the right of the people of Queensland to express a view. That's what this is directed against. You asked it in the context of the amalgamations, that's not what.....that's not the principal target of this legislation. The target of this legislation is the outrageously undemocratic punishment of local councils for daring to want to express a view, that's all.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just get this clear, does the legislation authorise any council, anywhere in the country, that wants to have a plebiscite on any issue that you will allow that and subsidise that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, well it happens now.
JOURNALIST:
But will you fund it and....
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, this bill has got nothing to do....now let me make this clear to you Jim, this bill has got nothing to do with funding. Funding is an executive decision. I have said that the Government will fund the conduct of any ballots in the Queensland local government amalgamation context. Right now without any change to the law local councils regularly use the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a plebiscite. Julie Bishop, for example, reminded me this morning that the Perth City Council recently had...conducted...there was cooperation with the Electoral Commission, a ballot conducted regarding the holding of some, I think, a gay and lesbian festival in Perth. Now that was a plebiscite of the people, it was conducted by the Electoral Commission; it was paid for by the Perth City Council. This sort of thing happens all the time. The difference here is because the Queensland Government is behaving in such a dictatorial fashion, the state rolls that are normally used for local government elections are not available, physically not available, and secondly the Queensland Government is making it an offence for people to do the sort of things that local councils from time to time do with the assistance of the Australian Electoral Commission. So what we're doing is really preserving the fair status quo. We are striking down, or purporting to strike down the undemocratic arbitrary Queensland legislation and on top of that, to make the point, we are saying in this case we will bear the cost of the conduct of the plebiscites. Now in relation to other matters, you talk about something, local councils can now negotiate with the AEC on a fee for service basis for those things to be conducted. Now whether we would pay in future for other ballots, well, would depend on the circumstances, but as a general rule I don't want people to think we're going to fund any and every expression of opinion sought by a local council. I mean there is a big principle involved here. It's not the principle of merger, it's the democratic plebiscite principle that if people want of their volition and at their own cost to conduct a plebiscite, to express a view, it is outrageous that any level of government should say in effect that's a crime and we're going to punish it with dismissal and with fines. I mean that's what we're railing against.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, if the plebiscites are held and there's overwhelming opposition to mergers, would you be prepared to further legislate to reverse mergers that Peter Beattie's enforced?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let's deal with things a step at a time. We have not given thought to that. What we are trying to do is create a situation where people can express an opinion. It would be my hope that if as a result of this plebiscites are held in a number of areas in Queensland and there is overwhelming opposition expressed, that Mr Beattie would listen.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look that's several stages down the track. I'm not going to speculate about that.
JOURNALIST:
But aren't you offering people false hope then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're hardly offering them false hope when we're overriding the Queensland legislation which is denying them any hope.
JOURNALIST:
Would a High Court challenge.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Could we have somebody from....
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, would you be hoping that the voters of Queensland would look upon you kindly in the approaching Federal Election because of your decision to fight this jackboot politics by Peter Beattie?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, that's asking me for a piece of commentary. I hope that I will always do the right thing by the people of Queensland. I have endeavoured to do that in the past but whether they form a favourable view of me or not is something I leave to them, they have good sense, I admire them greatly, but that's a matter for them.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister after the plebiscite you still can't give a guarantee that you can stop any merger...
PRIME MINISTER:
What I guarantee is that we will use the proper limits of our Constitutional power to let the people of Queensland speak. That's the obligation I have, and what I object to most strongly on this issue is not individual mergers, I don't have a strong view either way because I am not sufficiently possessed of all of the facts in every case, I don't pretend to be, but I know enough about public affairs in this country to see it as absolutely outrageous that a local council should be threatened with dismissal and people should be threatened with fines for merely wanting to organise a vote on whether their citizens agree with something. I mean that is what is at stake here, a very simple principle and this is the behaviour of a very arrogant Premier, it's the behaviour of a Premier who has a huge majority. I mean they talk about the Federal Government, he's got one house of parliament. Queensland has been a unicameral state for what, since 1923, I think the upper house was abolished in Queensland, if my memory serves me correctly, and he's got a huge majority and this is Labor in the raw, you just trample over people's interests. It's also a reminder that if you had a federal Labor Government in office now, they wouldn't be doing this. If Mr Rudd were now Prime Minister he wouldn't be doing this because he wouldn't want to offend the Labor Party in Queensland.
JOURNALIST:
Has this extension of democracy led you to reconsider the closure of the federal roll? Wouldn't putting it back to the old dates allow more people to have a say as you are allowing here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a different issue.
JOURNALIST:
If Queensland, and Premier Beattie has signalled that he would challenge any attempt in the High Court, would that put your legislation on hold pending the decision of the High Court?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it would because normally, unless they, and I would have to take some advice on that, but I would imagine unless they were able to get an injunction restraining the holding of the plebiscites the answer would be no. The mere fact that there is a challenge all that means is that the law remains valid until it's struck down by the court. So the answer to that is no, unless you can get an injunction, and you would have to have special grounds for getting an injunction and, look, I am not the Solicitor-General, even the Attorney-General, but that is very much a kerbside opinion, but I think it's probably a, you know, probably fairly safe opinion.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, can we have Mr Shanahan and then Mr Coorey, we've had Mr Coorey, I mean we will have him again but...
JOURNALIST:
Mr Nairn, as Minister of State and the Member for Eden-Monaro would you prefer to see councils and state governments conduct plebiscites on issues such as marine parks rather than surveys in the future, do you think you would get a better feeling from the public?
MINISTER NAIRN:
Well I don't think I would be strongly supporting a whole variety of plebiscites on every small thing that came up. I mean generally speaking, you know councils and state governments are elected to do a particular job. You refer to the marine park in New South Wales which was sort of announced and then they decided to negotiate and talk to the locals which I had a major problem with obviously the way in which they went about that, the process for sure. New South Wales has an upper house and they have to do legislation through both houses. I think there is a comparison with Queensland, with its one house, it does seem now, or the longer Beattie stays as Premier it seems that he wants to be, sort of, more powerful, and you know the word emperor is now being used by lots of people in the way in which he is going about that.
PRIME MINISTER:
There's only been one emperor in Queensland and that was the emperor of Lang Park, Wally Lewis.
JOURNALIST:
Do you deny any political motivation in this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if giving people a say is a political motivation, I don't deny it. Of course I want to give people a say. Could I just make the other point in relation to the question that was just asked of my colleague, and that is that what's involved here is whether or not individual councils should continue to exist. So it's of (inaudible) of issue, far greater than just an individual decision of a local council or an individual decision taken by a state government. I mean it's collapsing structures of government and could I make another point that undoubtedly Mr Beattie will have something to say about my announcement and he will say I am interfering with the affairs of the sovereign state of Queensland. Well let me remind people that we have an enormous direct financial interest in Queensland local government. We are providing this year to local government in Queensland $403.5 million in general purpose and Roads to Recovery specific road funding. We have this curious notion that federal governments have no right to say or do anything about local government except provide money. I think the fact that we are providing all of that money to local government in Queensland gives us a right to require state governments to give the people of those local government areas a right to speak. Queensland itself asserts that it spends about $780 on local government, so we spend, if you accept the Queensland figures and I am not disputing them for the moment, we spend more than half as much as they spend on local government; well surely that gives us some right to speak in relation to local government issues in that state.
JOURNALIST:
Rather than expecting taxpayers of Western Australia and other parts of the country to subsidise plebiscites in Queensland why wouldn't you consider, for example, getting, looking at the Specific Purpose Payments and the GST revenue flowing to Queensland to recoup the cost of these plebiscites?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the flow of GST is governed by an inter-government agreement and I think there would be some allegations of bad faith from the other states even in relation to the way you put it if we did that, and I don't think the amount of money involved is of a sufficient magnitude to justify such as fundamental re-making or the re-making of such a fundamental agreement.
JOURNALIST:
Wouldn't it very efficient to hold the plebiscites on the same day as the Federal Election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the question of when the plebiscites are held is not a matter for me. Well, no, no, because the problem is if I express a view like that it could be seen as purporting to give a direction to the AEC and I respect the independence of the Australian Electoral Commission and I am therefore declining to answer the question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you say want to give Queenslanders a voice on this issue, in effect are you trying to shame the Beattie government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't mind if the Beattie Government is shamed, of course not. I am, you know, I plead guilty because I think what they are doing is outrageous and most people do. I mean this fellow has really got carried away with his most recent electoral victory. He's obviously going, although he keeps sort of chopping and changing on that, but I mean why would get up and say you are going to consider it all, and I find it quite extraordinary and it is very arbitrary and it is very dictatorial.
JOURNALIST:
Should he give an iron clad commitment to stay for the full term?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Mr Beattie should listen to the people.
JOURNALIST:
Would the relationship between the Federal Government and local councils be clearer if they had a recognition in the Constitution, have times changed since that was last visited??
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not sure that that's directly relevant. I am not arguing for there to be a fundamental re-casting of the relationship, what I am arguing for is that the State Government should not behave in such a dictatorial fashion. I am not arguing against council mergers as such, it depends on the merits of each individual area. What I am arguing against, the Government is quite emphatic about this, is the Beattie Government punishing people for wanting to express a view and that's what all of this is about. It's not about saying that the mergers in north Queensland should go ahead, and that other mergers should not go ahead, I know there is a variety of views. It is not a hugely strong issue in the City of Brisbane for the very obvious reason that it's one large council area. Clearly there is divided opinion on the Sunshine Coast, there are differences of view, apparently, in Townsville compared with the views in Cairns. It varies and there is very strong opposition to it in the western part of the state, but support for it in other parts of the state. Now that is fair enough and I am not going to say that this or that council merger should take place, but I am going to say on such a fundamental principle, it is outrageous of the state government to punish people for wanting to express a view and we are using the limit of our constitutional power to prevent that occurring.
JOURNALIST:
Should it be driven by the views of the particular people in the area or should it be driven by legislator's opinions on what's best for the overall region or the states?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think at the very least, Michelle, the legislators should be informed by the views of the local people. That's at the very least. Surely if they are to have some regard for the democratic process, they should at least be informed because you are collapsing and re-making a structure of government. I am not saying that the Queensland Parliament doesn't have power to do this and this bill is not designed to prevent a merger taking place. I mean we keep getting the two things or some people keep getting the two things confused. This bill is about facilitating an expression of opinion by people if they live in an area where the council wants that opinion expressed.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you think you should have a plebiscite on the Devonport Hospital?
PRIME MINISTER:
Why?
JOURNALIST:
To get what the local feeling is?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're not talking there about collapsing a government entity, we're talking about an intention by the Federal Government to help a local community. I mean you're talking here about the existence of a structure of government, which the further you get from the CBD of a state capital is increasingly important to the daily lives of people. Local councils in remote areas of Australia bulk far larger in the daily lives of people than they do in metropolitan Sydney or Melbourne. If people are exhausted on this subject I have two other matters I want to mention.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the legislation Mr Howard for this, when are you going to...
PRIME MINISTER:
We're going to introduce it today if possible and we would obviously pass it when we come back in a few weeks' time.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just picking up on Andrew Probyn's point, why should the taxpayers of the entire nation fund an issue which is isolated to one state?
PRIME MINISTER:
But Jim there are a lot of things that are isolated to one state that are funded by the Federal Government, it happens every day. I mean there's no difference between this and the decision of the Federal Government to build a road in South Australia or to build a road in Western Australia or to fund a hospital in Devonport, or to fund the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. I mean all of these things; I mean that's what Federal...
JOURNALIST:
But they're part of broad national programs. This is not a broad national program.
PRIME MINISTER:
But hang on, this, I mean the possibility of us funding in other parts of the...if on the merits there were a case to do it, might arise in the future. Now could I just mention two other matters and that is to draw attention to the interview of Julia Gillard on radio this morning in which she put the kybosh on Mr Rudd's apparent desire to soften aspects of the industrial relations law. She made it very clear, and this is bad news for small business, that there will be no change at all in Labor's hardline determination to bring back the unfair dismissal regime which is so despised by small business and you've got an emerging pattern. Mr Rudd, the policy contortionist on these matters is trying to give the impression to business that he might do some softening at the edges and as soon as word gets out, Julia Gillard races on to a radio program and says “no that's not going to happen. We're sticking to the hardline”. And I think you're seeing a clear emergence of a different approach between the two of them. Julia Gillard has made it quite clear that Labor will bring back the unfair dismissal laws. If that happens then that will threaten the 33-year low in unemployment that Australia is enjoying at the present time. The other matter I would mention is that if the Labor Party is going to quote things in advertisements from remarks I have made, it would be a very good idea if they gave the quote in full and not chop it in half.
JOURNALIST:
Which is?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am referring to the ALP radio script.
JOURNALIST:
Well what is the full quote?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the full quote is, if we had not worked together closely for 11 years we would not have the successful economy we now have. It is impossible, if you don't have harmony between a Prime Minister and a Treasurer for the economy to the properly managed. What the Labor Party has done with its ad is to take the second sentence and leave out the first, which is just so deceitful and dishonest. I mean my very proposition was that Peter and I had worked together closely and they just left that out. But I am not surprised, but I thought it should be drawn attention to.
JOURNALIST:
So will you guarantee that the Liberal Party won't be doing that with any Labor Party statements between now and the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will not be distorting the true meaning of what was said.
JOURNALIST:
PM, do you actually regret saying what you said about working families in Australia never...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I think generically speaking, working families have seen their situation improve, but I make it clear on a regular basis that I accept that not every individual family is sharing to the full the bounty. But if you look at the generic measures, working families have...
JOURNALIST:
But they're hammering you on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they hammer me on a lot of things. But I mean Matt, Matt, don't ask me to be a commentator.
ends