PRIME INISTE
I1I December 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON. JOHN HOWARD, MP
INTERVIEW WITH ELIZABETH JACKSON 2CN
E& OE
JACKSON: John Howard was elected Prime Minister last March. We haven't had much of a
chance to catch up with him since then. But this morning we're happy to remedy that.
Prime Minister, welcome.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's very nice to be here Elizabeth.
JACKSON: Nine months down the track are you still relaxed and comfortable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I am. I feel as we come to the end of the parliamentary year that we can look
back on the last nine months and feel that as a Government we have made a good start.
I don't say that in any sense of complacency. We've worked very hard to keep in
touch with people. We've always taken the view that being the Government of
Australia is an immense privilege and that when governments lose a sense of humility
and acquire a sense of pride or hubris then that's when they start to go wrong. I've
endeavoured myself and I've tried to encourage all of my colleagues to remember that
we are there as the gift of the Australian people, as a gift from the Australian people,
and we certainly don't take that support for granted. We have to work hard to both
earn and retain the respect of the Australian people. And I feel after nine months, and
it's nine months to the day that we were sworn in on the I11th of March 1996, I do
think the building blocks have been put down. We have brought about some changes.
I know some of our decisions have been unpopular. I freely acknowledge that because
of some of the changes in the size of government they've had a differential impact on
the Canberra community, I regret that I'm sorry about that. I have to point out that
it's not as a result of us singling out public servants or the Canberra community. It just
happens that there is a proportionately larger number of Australians employed in the
public service in the Canberra community, some 48 per cent, than in any other part of
Australia. But I can assure you that there's been no hidden agenda. We're not an anti-
Canberra Government, we're a pro-Australian Government and Canberra is the proud
national capital of Australia and it will always be that way.
JACKSON: I do want to talk to you about those perceptions of you being an anti-Canberra
Government because I'm sure you've heard those suggested...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh they have and there's no point in my pretending that there aren't some of those
perceptions around and I want to acknowledge that in a forthright manner that there
are those perceptions around. I want to say that they are wrong and I want to try in
this interview and in other ways to reassure the people of Canberra that we care as
much for their future as we do for all Australians and that the decisions that we have
taken in no way exhibit a bias against public servants as such. I'm very proud of the
fact that we won the support of a lot of public servants in the last election. They are as
entitled to justice and fair treatment from my Government as any other section of the
Australian community.
JACKSON: I think the question that they're asking today is how much worse is it going to get?
Many of them have been, well, many of them have taken redundancy packages, a lot of
them are working in very insecure environments at the moment. They want to know is
it going to get worse?
PRIME MINISTER:
I suppose I should start to answer that question by saying that working in an insecure
envirornent is no new thing for many other Australians. One of the differences
between the recession of the early 1 980s and the recession of the late 1 980s was that
the first recession largely left people in the public sector untouched. And the
downsizing in government began at a State level years ago and in a sense what had
happened in Canberra in recent months is no different from what has happened in other
parts of Australia so far as the public sector is concerned over a number of years. I
also have to say in defence of my Government that a lot of downsizing of the Federal
Public Service commenced under the former Labor Government. I mean, the figures,
there were thousands and thousands of redundancies under the former Labor
Government. Now I'm not seeking to say whether that was good or bad. I'm trying
to put it into perspective and once again this idea that Canberra is being singled out for
some kind of discriminatory treatment is just not correct.
JACKSON: But what about the future, Prime Minister, what's going to happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we made certain announcements in the last Budget. We achieved savings of
some $ 7.2 billion over a period of two years. Now we are very keen to implement and
achieve those savings. We do want to put the Budget into underlying balance in year
three if we can. I mean, this things inevitably get affected by economic activity and
revenue flows and some of which are very hard to predict. But whilst I can't bind the
hands of the government in future budgets I can say that we saw the target of those
cuts in the first Budget, brought down in August, we saw that as the kind of target we
wanted to achieve. In other words, I don't have in mind another five or six billion
dollars of cuts on top or even another two or three billion dollars of cuts on top of the
7.2. So that is about the best way in which I can answer...
JACKSON: The worst is behind us in other words?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I believe that if we can consolidate what we announced in that Budget, if we can
achieve what is needed to be done to realise those savings of $ 7.2 billion over a period
of two years then we will have achieved our medium term fiscal consolidation goal. I
choose my words carefully because I don't want, later on, somebody to say well you
promised this and you haven't delivered that. I don't want to be in that situation. If
we can achieve those savings then I think it is possible for me to say to the Australian
public ' we have made a very solid fist of fixing up the Budget problem because we
have achieved the savings that will put the Budget on target for an underlying balance
in year three of our first term in office'.
JACKSON:
Prime Minister, there's a perception in this city that when we hurt here the rest of
Australia doesn't care very much. In fact, there's a perception that they actually clap
their hands and smile and think it's a good thing. There's also a perception that you
don't care much either for a range of reasons. I think you've already acknowledged
that perception does that concern you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it does because it's wrong. I mean, I don't clap my hands about anybody having
a redundancy. I don't clap my hands about any decision that governments take that
have adverse effects on individuals. I don't like it at all, I don't enjoy it for one
second. Anybody who thinks that I get some kind of pleasure, or my Government gets
some kind of pleasure out of reducing the size of the public service for the sake of
reducing the size of the public service is wrong. And any other Australian who does
get that kind of pleasure won't get any comfort out of me. I do believe in the private
sector very strongly. I am a great exponent and proponent of the cause of small
business and that's very important to Canberra's future and I'd like to say something
about that later on. But my passion for the private sector Is not borne out of hostility
to the public sector. It is a belief that it is through private sector investment,
particularly in small business, that you have the greatest possibility throughout the
whole country of generating jobs. But there is nothing punitive, malicious or
prejudiced in the attitude of my Government in the decisions that it takes towards the
public sector. We value the contribution of a professional public service. I reiterated
that when I opened the new Foreign Affairs and Trade building a couple of weeks ago
I do so again. It's an integral part of the fabric of our community and the
professionalism of public servants in Canberra is something which we should be rightly
proud. JACKSON: Okay, I'm just aware that there are a couple of issues I do want to move through.
There's even been a suggestion that you've advised the local Liberal branch not to run
a candidate in the by election for the seat of Fraser because you're worried you're
going to take a bath in Canberra.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the question of what happens with that is something that will be decided by the
Party organisation. I've obviously had discussions with them about it and political
organisations take decisions on whether they run candidates or don't run candidates in
by elections in relatively safe seats held by their political opponents for a whole variety
of reasons and...
JACKSON: Would you like to see them run a candidate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a matter for them to decide and I believe very strongly in the relationship
between the organisation and the Parliamentary Party where the organisation decides
where the candidates are run. Obviously the organisation talks to the relevant
parliamentary leader and that's me because it's a federal by election and then takes a
decision but I would point out to you that if the organisation were to decide not to run
a candidate, it wouldn't be the first time that a party has done so in a by election. I
mean, the Labor Party didn't run any candidate when Mrs Bishop came from the
Senate into the seat of Warringah or when Michael Mackellar retired and Tony Abbott,
I'm sorry, Mrs Bishop went into Mackellar and Tony Abbott into Wamrngah. The
Liberal Party didn't run a candidate in Blaxland earlier this year when Paul Keating
retired so there's a bit of a pattern to that and I don't think you should draw any
particular inferences but that is a matter for the organisation to decide. Obviously my
view has been sought and I've expressed it.
JACKSON: What was your view?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a matter for the organisation, my view it was privately expressed to people
in the organisation and it's a matter for the organisation to take the decision and I'm
not going to publicly canvass something that rightly ought to remain between myself
and the Party organisation. The Party organisation has an important role. I respect
that role. I've always accepted the understanding that the Parliamentary Party is
supreme in policy matters but in organisational matters, whilst they should listen to the
views of the Parliamentary Party, it's their prerogative to take the final decision.
JACKSON: The Prime Minister, John Howard, is my guest this morning. We're talking at the
moment about issues affecting Canberra specifically. In a moment we will move on
and talk about some other matters. Prime Minister, everyone that I have spoken to
including our Chief Minister, Kate Carnell, believes that your decision not to live
permanently in the Lodge sends out all the wrong messages, messages that you don't
care about Canberra. I know we've already addressed this question. Will you
reconsider your decision not to live permanently in the ACT?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I won't. I'm aware that it is an unpopular decision in Canberra. I must say to you
that it has not been criticised in other parts of the country and I obviously am the Prime
Minister of the whole of Australia. I'm not just Prime Minister of Sydney or Prime
Minister of Canberra or Prime Minister of Melbourne. I'm Prime Minister of the
whole of Australia.
JACKSON: Even Malcolm Fraser went fishing here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I tell you that the perception that I don't spend any time here is completely
wrong and that comment about Malcolm sort of implies that I don't even do that. I
haven't got the final figures because they change every day obviously but my
perception is apart from the time that I've spent travelling to other parts of Australia or
overseas since I became Prime Minister, I've spent about 60% of my nights in Sydney
and about 40% in Canberra. Now that can hardly be categorised as the behaviour of
somebody who doesn't even go fishing in the ACT. The reality is that my family is
based in Sydney. When Parliament is sitting of course I am always here. I am always
here for extensive periods when Parliament is not sitting. We spend as I say roughly
about 40%, the only measure is where you spend your night, in Canberra. Now the
suggestion from that that I am unfamiliar with the Canberra community, the suggestion
from that that I am in some way retaining nothing more than a nominal association
with Canberra is wrong. Now I know it is not popular here. I accept that. The best I
can do is to explain the facts which I have just done which rather refuites the idea that I
just sort of blow in occasionally. I mean, that is ridiculous. I plainly don't.
JACKSON: And you've spoken about your children's education too and the importance of
maintaining the family home in Sydney but what about, I mean, they're not at primary
school any more. The children are getting older. Once they've completed their
education, would you then consider moving to the ACT permanently?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not going to, I am not going to commit myself to what might happen in
years three, four, five or six. Our own circumstances may change, our own views may
change. I took a decision and I believe it's not only, it's not only a decision based on
famidly consideration because I acknowledge that a lot of people don't have that luxury
and I know a lot of people in Canberra their families are separated because if they are
in the diplomatic service, they may have to go overseas but equally, if they have the
opportunity for their family to stay together. well they would take that opportunity and
I don't think anybody would suggest otherwise but I also took it for reasons of
wanting to maintain as well as my contact with the Canberra community, which I
believe I do retain because I spend a lot of my time in Canberra as the figures I've just
spelt out demonstrate but it's also by spending some time in Sydney as well I am able
to maintain very direct contact with the business community in that city. It's not the be
all and end all of the business community in Australia but it's a fairly sizeable chunk of
it and I think there is value in spreading oneself around.
I think there is value in recognising that whilst Canberra is the national capital and
Canberra is the political, admidnistrative and legal capital of Australia, it is not the
commercial heart of this country and that we do need people in Government who have
a broad understanding of the whole country and there is a danger, no matter how well
intentioned you are, if you spend all of your time in Canberra mixing with the same
group of people, reinforcing one particular view of life, it is possible, however well
intentioned you may be and the people with whom you converse may be, it is possible
to end up being a little out of touch with views in other parts of Australia. So I put a
very positive light on the decision that I have taken. I think you have the advantages
of a Prime inister who understands and is in touch with the Canberra community but
also understands and is in touch with a very big community in the largest city in
Australia and I think that is an advantage and I think it gives me an insight and an
understanding that with respect, I think my predecessor lost and perhaps some of his
predecessors may have lost.
JACKSON: Prime Minister, let's talk about the Kevin Andrews' Bill. How do you answer
concerns of Canberrans that we have effectively now got a lame duck Assembly.
They're our democratically elected representatives but if they legislate something that
you don't like, you overrule it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I make two comments about that. The first is that the euthanasia issue was a
non-party issue so it wasn't Government policy to support the Andrews' Bill. I voted
for it because as John Howard, Federal Member for Bennelong, I generally supported
the principles of the Bill. You raised the question of States' rights or territory rights.
The ACT is not a State. The Northern Territory is not a State. The law of Australia
allows the Federal Parliament to pass a law overriding a territorial law. Now until the
ACT, or if and until, and I have to say that, if and until the ACT becomes a State and
there is certainly no proposal for that on the horizon, that while ever the ACT remains
a territory, then the argument that in some way it's rights are being denied because of
the existence of this under the law of Australia is just not correct. I mean, I deal in,
and you have to deal in the legal reality. The law of Australia expressly allows the
national Parliament to pass the euthanasia law, or the anti-euthanasia law so far as it
affects a territory and if the ACT were a State it would be a different situation and
there's a good historical legal reason for that because the Commonwealth of Australia,
the national Parliament came out of the federation of the States and the understanding
at Federation was that there would be States and there would be a Commonwealth
Government and they would have certain powers. Now the powers given to the States
at Federation were not given to the territories so there's nothing wrong or illicit or
unfair or illegal about it. I mean it's just what the law allows and it was always
intended by the Australian people that that should be the case.
JACKSON: It certainly is the law, no one would dispute that, but I think it would also be fair to say
that a lot of Canberrans feel that it is unfair. I mean, we elected these people, we
elected them to make...
PRIME MINISTER:
I have had very I have to say I have had very few complaints from people living in
Canberra on this issue. I mean, I've had complaints about other things but not on this
issue, and after all, something which goes so directly to the kind of society we are,
whatever your views are and I voted in favour of the Andrews' bill but I do
understand the conscientiously held views of a lot of people who voted against it and I
don't try and ram my own view down other people's throats.
I've quietly reached a conclusion myself that there are some absolutes in life that ought
to be maintained and respect for human life and every effort to maintain it is one of
those absolutes, but it is not a view that I seek to ram down anybody's throat from
some kind of moral high ground. But after all, that kind of issue does go very directly
to the kind of society we are and inevitably if it happens in one part of Australia it will
have an influence on what happens in another part, and surely if the national Parliament
is worthy of its name it ought to be able to express a view on and pass a law about
such an issue.
I mean, I just have to say as an Australian, the idea that being a member of the
Australian Parliament I am denied the capacity to cast a vote for or against something
as fundamental as this simply because, according to some theory of the division of
powers it is something that belongs to the territories and not to the national
Parliament, can I say I find that quite unacceptable as an Australian. I mean, I am an
Australian before I am anything else, and most Australians feel that way. I'm an
Australian before I am I don't feel a New South Welshman I am an Australian first
and foremost and that is how a lot of people have reacted to this when I've had
discussions with them.
They feel very strongly that this is an important issue. People hold strong views on
both sides of the argument and what a joke it would be for the national Parliament to
be told you can't express a view on this because according to some view of territorial
rights you have no business expressing a view. Now, I know that puts me at odds
with some of my colleagues at a State and Territorial level but as you can see it is a
view I hold quite strongly.
JACKSON: There is some concern in Canberra though that this might be the first domino. All
right, we've seen Euthanasia, what about the X-rated video industry, are we going to
get rid of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if you are talking about dominoes in respect of things were clearly the power lies
with the territorial legislature, well there are no proposals to cause those dominos to
fall. As far as particular things are concerned, well obviously in areas where the
Federal Government still has a role and still has a legal ight, well the capacity to act
must be reserved if the Federal Government in future were to decide to do it.
JACKSON: Prime Minister, we could talk about Pauline Hanson. I don't know about you but I
suspect a lot of people like me are getting pretty sick of her giving one liners.
PRIME MINISTER:
I suggested some weeks ago that sections of the Australian media were becoming
obsessed with the issue and as days go by I'm more and more convinced that I was
correct. And I was quite interested to read in the Sydniey Morning Herald this
morning an extract from an editorial in the Far Easterni Econiomic Review. This is a
journal whose writings were used against me several weeks ago by some of my critics.
And the editorial actually concludes that my remark that Australia is not made up of a
mob of bigots, is absolutely correct; that Australia has a record of racial tolerance and
racial understanding, which is an example to the rest of the world, and while we're not
perfect and while we have stains on our past, which we plainly have, we are a, in
relative terms, a strong achiever, if I can put it that way, in the area of racial tolerance
and racial harmony.
JACKSON: I was actually going to suggest that we give Pauline Hanson the flick this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good. JACKSON: Let's not talk about her, let's move on. The Teistra legislation is expected to go
through the Senate this Thursday. I'd like to just try to clear up one specific point.
Isn't it simply the truth that under the new legislation people in the bush will pay more
for their phone calls than people in the city and with the partial privatisation of Telstra
that the Government will have less control over that differential?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, the situation is that people, as a result of our measures, will not be worse off
and I believe, this is generally speaking, than they are now. They will not pay higher
charges. I believe the course of the deregulatory thrust, they more likely than not will
have lower charges and greater access. The regime that we are implementing so far as
the differentials are concerned is not different than the regime that was operated by the
former government. I mean, the people in the bush will be better off. They'll be better
off because we're going to invest $ 250 midllion into telecommunications infrastructure
in the regions...
JACKSON: But Prime Minister, is it not true that they will be paying more for their phone calls
than people in the city?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, that look, they will not be paying any more than they're paying at
present. The question of..
JACKSON: But will they be paying more than people in the city?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, people in the city will get and people in all parts of Australia stand to benefit
from competition. Now, you're asking me to sort of prescribe what may happen in
every part of Australia to telecommunications' charges. I can't do that. No sensible
person can. What I can say is that we will produce a regime which because of its
competitive thrust will deliver greater benefits than now exist. It will hold out the
prospect of lower charges around Australia than now exist. And because of our 9
investment in rural and regional telecommunications infrastructure access by country
people will be better than it is now and much better than it would have been if the
former government had continued in office, because they didn't have this commitment
to invest $ 250 million in rural infrastructure. I mean, they essentially voted against it.
They don't want us to upgrade the bush telecommunications infrastructure. And we're
going to put over five years $ 250 million into that. That's going to generate jobs, it's
going to ensure that people in regional and rural Australia have a world class
communications future and a communications future that is the equal of people in the
cities. JACKSON: Prime Minister we've only got three and a half minutes left unfortunately. I do want to
ask you about the future of the ABC. Bob McMullan was outside this building with a
petition yesterday, a petition that had been signed by 6,000 Canberrans. He says the
funding cuts to the ABC in his opinion will be a big issue in the Fraser by-election.
The ABC Board seems to be saying that we have now put our house in order with the
restructuring to save something in the vicinity of $ 27 million. Any further cuts they
say will certainly affect programming. Will, given that that's their position, will you
want insist on the full $ 55 million target for the ABC?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we've made our position about funding clear. haven't myself been involved in
any discussions with the ABC Board. I did hear an interview by Mr McDonald a
couple of days ago on AM about the changes that the Board had announced. And I
gathered from what he said that he wanted to talk to Senator Alston in the first
instance and perhaps to me about the ABC's plans. I believe if that is the case then I
will pay him the courtesy of hearing what he has to say because we don't want to be
unreasonable with the ABC. Equally we've made commitments and you'll gather
from what I said earlier that we're quite resolute in our commitment to maintaining the
savings that were put down in the Budget. But if Mr McDonald wants to talk to me or
to Richard Alston, we're happy to do so. I know these cuts are unpopular with the
ABC but although it may fall on deaf ears for ABC lovers in the ACT, we don't have
any secret agenda about the ABC. I think the ABC renders and enormous service to
this country and it's a very valuable part of the fabric of national life in Australia. That
doesn't mean to say I agree with every news emphasis of the ABC and it doesn't mean
that I don't remain of the view that on certain issues the spectrum of opinion in the
ABC is far too narrow, and if it had a broader spectrum of views on certain issues then
it might have broader community appeal.
JACKSON: Prime Minister, we do have to leave it there, we're out of time. Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.