Fiax from: 16/ 10/ 96 10: 12 Pg: 1
(-3
PRIME MINISTER
October 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD), MP
INTERVIEW WITH KERRY O'BRIEN 7.30 REPORT
E& OE
O'BRIEN I'm joined now from Canberra by Prime Minister John Howard. John Howard do you stand rock
solid behind your Industry Minister tonight?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes and I don't believe that he's breached the guidelines but I think what that little commentary
demonstrated and what Brian Gibson's very unfortunate circumstances, demonstrated is the need
for me to examine the introduction into Australia of the concept of a blind trust. I mean, we get
into the situation where any body who has a substantial share holding is going to be fightened out
of going into politics through fear that quite easily, when you start talking in thousands of shares
and cross holdings and so forth, it's very easy to create the impression that there is chicanery
when there is not. And I'd like us to look at the situation whereby if you have a substantial share
holding and you go into politics and you become a Minister you can put that share holding into
the hands of tr-ustees. They do this in America, Canada and I believe also in Britain and you can
be kept at arms length from your share holding and you can do your ministerial job. You're not
involved every day in making a calculation as to whether you may or may not be in breach of a
particular obligation. Now, I mean, I've never had any shares since I've been a Minister. I
haven't owned shares for twenty years. But I don't expect to impose that attitude on other
people. At present if you own a farm or you own a block of flats you can keep them and you can
make money out of them and remain a minister. Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with
that. But if you own a parcel of shares, historically, Governments on both sides of politics have
Fax rom16/ 10/ 96 10: 12 Ps: 2
taken a different view and the guidelines that I'm operating now are the guidelines that were
operated by the Keating, Hawke and Fraser Governments.
O'BRIEN: Didn't you enhance them a little?
PRIM MINISTER.
Only in a little respect Kerry. I mean, the tragedy of all of this is that you've had two men who
have had to drop out because they haven't complied with the guidelines not because they've
earned a cent or a dollar or been dishonest or been duplicitous, but because they through
inadvertence and carelessness, and I have to say that, they didn't pay enough attention to the
detail of the Ministerial guide and they had to go.
O'BRICEN: Why is their carelessness any different from John Moore's position?
PRIME NE TR
Quite different because they were in technical breach of the guidelines and John's not.
O'BRIEN; Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because the guidelines say you've got to get rid of shares in a company that's operating in the
area of your portfolio responsibilities.
O'BRIEN; But what about the demonstration...
PRIME MINISTER:
No that's not, that's not, that's not operating in the area of the portfolio. He can't divest shares
in those high tech companies because he doesn't own any shares in them,
O'BRIEN: But he has a substantial share holding in a company that he founded which...
tax ram16/ 10/ 96 18: 12 Pg: 3
PRIME MINISTER:
But Kerry it's not the parent company. It's an entirely different matter from Boral and Boral.
O'BRIEN: Does or does not the company in which he has shares stand, potential, to benefit from the
successes of those companies in which...
PREIE MINITER:
No Kerry, look at the guidelines. I mean, we're talking here...
O'BRICEN:
Let's talk about potential conflict of interest...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, no, no. Well we'll talk about potential conflict of interest, we'll also talk about the
guidelines, O'BRIEN: You've made much, going into the election campaign, of public trust and restoring trust in
politicians... PRIE MINISTER:
I continue to do that and I am making the point that we need to look at the desirability of having a
situation where people who've got share holdings are not frightened out of going into politics and
I think it's very, very important that that be examined...
O'BRIIEN: Sorry before you go on can I please ask you couple of questions that relate specifically to the
issue of perceptions of conflict of interest? That is at the heart of this.
PRiMfE MINISTER:
Sure sure. Ab, yes.
n-an . jro 16/ 10/ 96 10: 12 Pg: 4
O'BRIFN: That is at the heart of it. John Moore has a substantial share holding in Bligh Venture Capital
Company. PRIME MINSTER:
Yeah, he has two to three per cent. I'm sorry, you call that substantial?
O'BRIEN: Well in terms, what are the values of the shares?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no I am told, I was told before I came on to this programme that there are seven million
issued shares in Bligh Ventures of which be holds 43,000...
O'BRIEN: So the principle relates to how much you've got, not whether you've got any or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm applying your standard of a moment ago. You were talking about controlling interests...
O'BRIEN: I'm suggesting that there are many people in Australia who would find the value of that please...
PRIE MINISTER:
No, no, no, you please, you asked me the question.
O'BRIEN: You've made the point.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think you've allowed me to. Two to three per cent is hardly a controlling interest.
Fax from O'BRIEN: I'm not suggesting it's a controlling interest, I'm talking about the value of those shares and I
would suggest to you that for most Australians the value of those shares is substantial.
PRIME M1NISTEIL
Look, any share holding of that is substantial but that is not the point. The point is whether you
control the company in such a way that you can benefit. And if you bold two to three per cent,
which I understand to be his percentage, and bear in mind that he's been trying to sell them, he's
been trying to sell them since May. But I just go back again to the guidelines, the guidelines don't
require them to be divested,
LYNEHAM: I'm sorry, I understand that and you have made that point. Would you please let me just in return
ask the question, the clear question about conflict of interest. ' I would have thought it's not just a
question of control, it isn't a question of potential profit, I don't want to cast any aspersions on
John Moore...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hope you don't.
O'BRIEN:
But we're talking about perceptions.
PRIME MINSTER:
I hope you don't.
O'BRIEN: We're talking about the potential for perceptions. And in this instance does he not stand
potentially to profit via his investment in Bligh ventures from decisions that the Government is
making with him as the Minister that relate to bounties, and to other to research and
development assistance and so on?
PRIM M1MITER:
But you could equally say that somebody who has a superannuation policy with the AMP stands
to benefit if the Government takes a decision to give a tax advantage to a company in which the
AMP has invested.., and it is the same formal corporate linkage. Now, if you applied that
principle you'd be asking questions of a very large number of members of both sides of the
Farxo m16/ 18/ 96 18: 12 Pg: S
Fax from Parliament. I mean, that is why the guidelines are drawn in a way where what has to be looked to
is the shareholding of the Minister concerned. You can't, if you invest shares in a company which
in turn has minority holdings in other companies and you have only 2 to you can hardly be
said to have a controlling interest in those other companies. Nobody has produced to me any
evidence of a conflict of interest so far as John is concerned. I mean, the Opposition today were
talking about decisions taken in the R& D area, I mean, the only decisions that have been taken in
the R& D area are decisions which in fact have reduced the benefit. So if we apply...
O'BRIEN: The point about the computer bounty is that the computer bounty was retained for at least a year
in the budget where other bounties went in your last budget.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but there wasn't an additional benefit given.
O'BRIMN: But there was a benefit retained.
PRIME MINISTER:
But you could say to them if you don't remove a tax concession,... I mean, where does it end? I
mean what this exchange has really highlighted Kerry is the desirability of looking at the blind
trust. I mean, you said at the beginning you are not making any allegations about John Moore
and neither should anybody make any allegations against Jim Short...
O'BRIEN: There isn't a clear allegation against any of them. It's all the issue of perception of conflict.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I say there is no allegation against any of them of dishonesty or impropriety.
O'BRIEEN:
That's understood, that's understood.
PRIME MINISTER:
I have accepted the resignations of Short and Gibson because they breached the guidelines. I am
not requiring a resignation of Moore because I don't believe that he's breached the guidelines and
nothing the Labor Party has done today has demonstrated that to me. I have additionally said that
Fa rom16/ 10/ 96 10: 12 Pg: 6
Fa rom16/ 10/ 96 10: 12 Pg: 7
out of this whole exercise where I have enforced very very tough guidelines and some people may
even argue unfairly tough in relation to rm Short and Brian Gibson, but nonetheless I have, I
think out of all of it, one of the things that does need to be examined is this whole concept of
blind trust. Because if we get to the stage in this country...
O'BRIEN:
But the concept of blind trust has been around for a very very long time...
PRIME MINISTER:
But it has never been introduced.
O'BRIEEN:
But there are those who might say that if your ministers don't fit the guidelines then you change
the guidelines to suit the ministers.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't changed any guidelines but do you think it is fair...
O'BRIEN. But aren't you raising that prospect of introducing blind trusts?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am raising the prospect, I mean, they could be added to the existing guidelines.
O'BRIEN: Okay, John Howard, thanks very much for talking with us.
ends.
Fax from