Fax from 62/ 12/ 96 11: 51 Pg:
PRIME MINISTER
2 December 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
. THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
INTERVIEW ON AM PROGRAMME WITH FRAN KELLY
E& OE
KELLY. Prime Minister, News Limited Chief Executive, Ken Cowley, says the Government's
got to stop using the Senate as a scapegoat and you've got to go faster with your
reforms. Do you accept that criticism?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that criticism's quite inaccurate. Mr Cowley and others must understand that in
the Australian political system to get a law passed you've got to pass it through both
Houses of Parliament. We were given a majority of 45 seats in the House of
Representatives but we were not given the majority in the Senate. If we had been
given the majority in the Senate the industrial relations law in its original form would
have been passed months ago. One third of Teistra would have already been sold.
The budget in its entirety would have now been passed. The migrant waiting period
legislation in its entirety would have now been passed. Much in all as businessmen out
there and I can understand their sense of frustration would will it otherwise, we
have to operate within the constraints properly laid down in the Constitution of
Australia. Running the Government is not quite like running a business. In business
you can often order obstacles out of the way. In Government, particularly when you
are dealing with the Senate you have to sit down and talk to them and try and persuade
thein.
Now actually we have done quite well, given the difficulties. We have passed in an
amended but still very strong form, the industrial relations legislation. We have got the
appropriation bills through. We have got many of the other supplementary budget bils
through although there are one or two very important ones coming up this week. We
have got our family tax initiative through. In the next couple of weeks there will be a
crucial vote on the Teistra legislation. Now if we can get it through, and that is a big
if, and I really don't know, I honestly don't know at this stage. The relevant Minister
Fax from~ : 21/ 6 115 g
is still discussing the matter with the relevant Senators who hold the balance of power.
We have to do that. They haven't signed off on it so to speak in entirety, so these are
just the conditions under which you must operate a government in Australia in the
1 990s because the way the Senate is now structured with an even number of Senators
retiring every three years, and this is the key thing for people to understand, it is
virtually impossible for either the Labor Party in Government or the Coalition in
Government to get control of both Houses of Parliament at an election, no matter how
strong the vote and the vote could hardly have been stronger in March.
KELLY:
Well as you say, the vote could hardly have been stronger in March, given the chorus
of criticism and frustration there is now coning from business leaders arnd given that if
that all builds in the community, how tempted are you to go back to the polls to try
and get a stronger mandate in the Senate? I mean, is the climate approaching where
that would be a temptation?
PRIE MINISTER.
Fran, I wouldn't accept that there is a chorus.
KELLY: Well there has been criticism from the Business Council of Australia and others about a
number of factors...
PRIME MNIUSTER.
Well hang on, just let me answer the question. Please, can we conduct the interview...
you asked me a question. Can I please be allowed to answer it. I don't think there is a
chorus. There are some people, and I am pointing out to those people now that they
have to understand the way the system operates. They might look around certain State
Governments and say, oh gee, they're going at a faster rate. They're going at a faster
rate because they might control both Houses of Parliament. Now you have to live with
the result that people give you. That is called democracy. Now obviously, there are
devices available under the Constitution in the fullness of time for there to be a double
dissolution if that's what the Government wanted. I have said repeatedly that I don't
want to have a double dissolution. I would want the Parliament to run its full term.
That doesn't mean to say that we won't, as Peter Costello and I both indicated last
week, we won't be reluctant if the Senate rejects a piece of legislation to put it back
again within the time periods that are laid down in the Constitution, but as I also
indicated last week, we arc not spoiling for another election. We are not spoiling for a
double dissolution but ultimately, we will do what is necessary to get our program
through, but when you look at the main things that we were elected to do to reform
MR to relieve some of the tax burden on small business, to get rid of the unfair
dismissal law, to sell one third of Telstra, to bring in a strong but a fair budget and to
bring in a family tax initiative. 02/ 12/ 96 11: 51 PS: 2
Fax from 02/ 12/ 96 11: 51 Pg: 3
Now the only two things that are swinging out of those five commitments in the
election campaign are one third of Telstra and some of the related budget measures.
The rest of it, despite the fact that we don't have the numbers in the Senate, despite
that fact, the rest of those commitments in the election campaign have been achieved.
Now.. KELLY: So given that then, would it be fair to say that we don't have an Oppositionist Senate,
given that you've got that raft of things through? Is that fair to say?
PRIME MJINISTER:-
I think you have a Senate which is different on each measure. You certainly have an
Oppositionist Senate from the Labor Party. The great distinguishing feature between
the Labor Party and the Coalition is that when we were in Opposition, we made it
possible for the Labor Party to bring about any of the economic reforms for which it
was responsible. One of the great ironies of this debate about the privatisation of a
third of Teistra is that it was the combined votes of the Australian Labor Party and the
Coalition that facilitated the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. It was the combined
votes of the Labor Party and Coalition that facilitated the sale of Qantas, the
Democrats I have to say at least to their credit, if you can call it that, voted
consistently against privatisation both under a Labor Government and now under a
Coalition Government, the people who have really turned oppositionist in relation to
things like privatisation, the Labor Party, I mean, how a party that told the public it
would never sell the Commnonwealth Bank but did in frl, they'd never sell Qantas but
did in fll, how they can lie straight in bed, opposing the sale of a measly one third of
Teistra when they know themselves that if they'd have got back at the last election
they'd have sold the lot, so they are oppositionist. I think the minor parties, look, the
Democrats helped us on industrial relations. They negotiated with us and I thank them
for it and I thank the Independent Senators in different ways for the way in which they
have helped some of our bills through. Whether I have cause to thank them and some
others at the end of the next two weeks, time alone will tell but I think people have got
to understand that however much they might wish it away, a Senate controlled by
others in the Government is a fact of life. I don't think the public wants to be racing
off to an early new election but equally I don't think the public wants the program,
important elements of the program of the Government delayed indefinitely.
think it's just a question of taking things in a measured, sensible, orderly fashion and
it's also a question I think of looking at what the Government has already achieved. I
mean, I ha ve to go back to those five things that dominated the election campaign
small business, family tax, unfair dismissal, industrial relations reform, sWe of one third
of Telstra, fixing up the financial mess that we ultimately inherited. Now, with the
exception of Telstra and elements of the budget package, we have done very well, we
have done exceptionally well given the constraints under which we operate.
KIELLY: Exactly, and given those things, these sections, Telstra and some of your budget bills...
Fax from 02/ 12/ 96 11: 51 Pg: 4
. PRIME MINISTER:
They're very important.
KELLY: Very important things....
PRIM MNISTER:
And a lot of money, I mean if they don't go through then there will have been a very
heavy hit made by the Senate on the bottom line of the budget. I mean, nobody should
be in any doubt about that.
KELLY: And if they don't go through then would you go back to the.,..
PRZIE MINSTER:
Look Fran; I am not going to, you see, this is the difficulty if I may say so, of trying to
communicate with the Australian people. I am trying to say to the Australian people
very directly and very clearly, we want to serve our three years. We have no desire to
be racing back to early elections and I don't think the public wants another election but
we also, we want to get our program through and we are prepared to talk to the minor
parties in the Senate and we are prepared to be reasonable but not surrender important
principles. That's what we did with the JR bill. We made changes. It wasn't it) its
original form but it is still essentially what we wanted. Now that was good. We were
able to do the same thing with some of the other pieces of budget legislation. I am
delighted we got the new schools policy change through last week. That is going to
give new freedom of choice for low income parents to send their children to
independent schools. It is not a measure that is going to help the elite GPS schools of
Australia. It is a measure that is going to help low income people say in the western
suburbs of Sydney, to exercise the option of sending their children to a low fee paying
independent school, a measure incredibly enough that was opposed by the Australian
Labor Party.
KELLY: On another issue Prime Minister, do you agree with Senator Alston that fixed share
limits, as in the current cross media ownership regime, are too inflexible and difficult to
administer?
PRIMIE NMSTER:
I have been on the record for a long time as saying that I don't favour the cross media
prohibitions because in the first place they were conceived in malice. They were
conceived by the former Government in the 1980s to break up the then Fairfax media
Fax fraom 02/ 12/ 96 11: 51 Pg:
empire which not only included newspapers but also you will recall the Seven
television network and the Macquarie radio network, and also to dismember~ the
Herald and Weekly Times group. They have in any event been overtaken by
technology and that is the reason why in a world where you can beam something from
one part of the world to the other and it will, they don't take too much notice of the
geographical boundary between nations. We said before the election we would review
those laws and that is under way at the present time and..
KELLY: So do you favour using general competition laws with some special interest clause?
PRIME MINITER:
That is an option and all of those options are being examined. There is a share of voice
option, there are a series of options and we are going to look, we've had a lot of
submissions from different people and in the end you've got to achieve a sensible
balance between local ownership and also diversity. There's no doubt that if you only
worry about diversity, only, local ownership levels could well suffer. If you only worry
about local ownership levels then diversity could suffer and it's a question of getting a
right balance and I think I may have said it before, perhaps even on this program, that
no matter what you do in media policy, somebody there will say that you are favouring
one or other media proprietor. We are going to try very hard to make our reforms
non-mogul specific.
KELLY: So you would, in fact, then disagree with Ken Cowley from News Limited who said
yesterday that he believes the Government has its ear closer to the Packer end of
town? You reject that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course I do. I have very regular contact with Mr Cowley as he knows, and as Mr
Lachlan Murdoch knows, and when the boss visits town he normally wants to see me.
KELLY: So why did Ken Cowley make that...
IPRIME NMSTER:
Well look, I think in this, you know, they all sort of like to get a few runs on the board
and to make it clear they're in there punching for their side of the argument. I
understand that, just as on occasions past I can understand why Mr Packer and the
spokesman for Mr Packer under the former government have said certain things.
Look, we...
Fax from : 21/ 6 1: 1 P
KELLY: You're not trying to rectify the balance here?
PIM MINISTER;
I'm just trying to be fair to Australia. And the good outcome for Australia is to have a
balance between those two considerations. And you've got to recognise that in a
nation of 18 million people then it's unrealistic to say you should have no foreign
ownership at all. It is equally unrealistic to say that you can have unlimited diversity.
It is a question of striking real balance and it's a question of taking care to ensure that
you don't penalise the local home-grown media organisations, that's a very important
consideration. KELLY: On another issue the Republic. It's reported that the Government's completely
dispensed with its promise to have 50 per cent of the People's Convention delegates
elected and you're working entirely on an appointed model, Is that true?
PRIME NMSTER:
Well, we're looking at a range of options. I want to say on that subject that we are
going to, as we said during the election campaign, involve the Australian people in the
process from the middle, the beginning and the end, I have not altered my
commitment to ensure that the Australian people have a vote on this issue before the
end of the century, nor have I altered my view that if the Australian nation is to
become a Republic it should become a Republic in circumstances that unite rather than
divide the Australian community. In my judgement, the worst possible outcome on
this issue would be to have a referendum, say in the year 2000, which was defeated by
51 per cent to 49, or for that matter, carried 5 1 per cent to 49. It's one of those things
where if we are going to change, it's got to be something that the overwhelming bulk
of the community are taken along with, feel part of, feel committed to, and even
though in the case of some them they may not have wanted it, have thought:-well,
we've had our say, the thing has been fully discussed, it hasn't been rammed down our
throats and it hasn't been steamrollered.
KELLY:
But if people aren't elected to it, if it's all Government appointed to the Convention,
doesn't that cast a pall oven..
] PREME MINISTER:
I suggest that you sort ofjust wait and see the outcome of a of that. There are a
number of options that can produce an outcome where a lot of people participate in
producing that outcome, But if we do have a convention process, I believe that that
convention process and I think it's very likely that we will have it because we said we
were going to have it that convention process will significantly aid public
02/ 12/ 96 11: 51 Pg: 6
Fax from 82/ 12/ 96 11: 51 Pg: 7
understanding. But very importantly it will ensure that people feel involved and that is
a very important element of this. Now, my own views personally are that I'm not a
republican,. but I have always said that I'm going to facilitate debate, facilitate process,
facilitate an expression of public opinion and proper ultimate decision making process
if that is what the Australian people clearly want. But I feel I have a responsibility as
Prime Minister to make certain that if this event is to occur it occurs at a time and in
circumstances that draws the Australian people together and they feel part of a new
phase in the life of our nation, they don't feel as though some of them that they've
had something they don't want forced down their throats without proper discussion
and with indecent regard to their sensitivity and their feelings.
KELLY: Just finally and briefly Prime Minister, the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Shane
Stone, has alerted you to the Larakia claim over large parts of undeveloped crown land
in Darwin. He's described it as a greedy money grab and an issue of national
importance that could be repeated across Australia, Are you concerned about it and
are you thinking of intervening?
PRIME NMITER:
Well, I hav en't been briefed on the details of it although the Chief Minister did alert me
to it on Friday. Am I concerned about it? I am concerned about the present Native
Title Act. That's why we are trying to reform it. Those reforms are in the Parliament
now-They will pass if the Senate lets them through. They won't pass if the Senate
doesn't let them through.
KELLY:
But if a claim like the Larakia people's claim, the traditional owners claim, is fair and
valid within the Hligh Court, is that fair enough then...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look Fran, I don't know whether it is or it isn't. We are waiting on the High
Court... . we are waiting on the High Court to take a decision or bring down a decision
on the Wik claim which will decide the status of a large number of unconditional
pastoral leases in Queensland. Now, that's a very important decision...
KELLY: Indeed, but it's not the issue here is that we want...
PRIME NMITER:
No, but it goes to the heart of the greatest concern that has been ex~ pressed to us
around Australia about the present Native Title Act. Fran, we support Native Title,
we support the High Court's decision in Mabo, we did not support the Native Title
Act in its present form, we are trying to amend it. The amendments are fair, they will
Fax from' 82/ 12/ 96 11: 51 Pg: 8
remove the legitimate grievances of pastoralists and industrialists without, without I
repeat undermining the basic rights that were given to the Aboriginal people by the
original High Court decision. Once again it is a question of us having proposed a
reform, an intelligent reform and that reform not having been implemented yet because
the Parliament hasn't passed it. Now...
KELLY: Back to the. Senate.
PRUEf MINISTER:
Well, it's the system, I mean, it is and we have to work with that as best we can. And
I understand that and I want the Australian community to understand it because it is
the system we have to live by. And years ago it was possible. The Malcolm Fraser
Government controlled both Houses of Parliament for five years. No government in
this country has controlled both Houses of Parliament since the I st of July 1981 which
is more than 15 years ago. Under the present voting system no government of this
country will, in its own right in my prediction, control both Houses of Parliament in the
foreseeable future no matter how strongly the vote that Party receives out of House of
Representatives selection. Now, that puts on the Government, obligations; it has to
work it has to pressure, it has to explain, it has to advocate, it has to demonstrate its
will, it has to be reasonable, but it also has to be tough on occasions. It also, may I
say, puts obligations on Oppositions. Most of the deregulatory reforms for which the
Keating Government is, from time to time, praised, would never have been realities if 1,
in particular, as Opposition Leader and economic spokesman for most of the time of
the then Opposition, I had opposed those measures. I mean, privatisation of the
Commonwealth Bank and Qantas would never have occurred if it hadn't been for the
Liberal and National Parties. Yet now that the boot is on the other foot, despite their
own hypocritical track record on privatisation in government, the Labor Party is
turning the system on its head. Now that is the situation. We'll try and get around it
and I think we have done exceptionally well in getting around it so far, but the next
two weeks will be a very, very interesting test of not only our capacity but also the
degree of reasonableness, particularly of the Labor Party but not only of the Labor
Party in the Senate.
ICELLY:
Prime Minister, thank you very much,
PRIME MNITER:
Pleasure.