E&OE...............................................
MITCHELL:
Good morning. The Prime Minister is with me in the studio. He will
take your calls, as he does each fortnight. Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Neil. Good to be back.
MITCHELL:
An inquiry into gambling, an $80 billion industry and it looks like
Peter Costello and Jeff Kennett are at war again. Is that the case?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think they're at war again. Can I assure the Premier
that this inquiry is not a tax grab. It's got nothing to do
with grabbing tax. It's got a lot to do with exposing the ins
and outs of the gambling industry in Australia, it's social
and economic impact. There's no doubt within the community
there is some concern about the level and the incidence of gambling.
We are entitled as a national Government to know more about that.
The community is entitled through us to know more about that. That
is the basis of it and I very strongly support the Treasurer's
decision which of course he discussed with me before he made it.
MITCHELL:
Nobody discussed it with the states. Jeff Kennett said he was told
45 minutes after it was announced.
PRIME MINISTER:
Federal Governments aren't under an obligation to discuss in
detail everything they do in advance with the states any more than
the reverse applies in relation to the states. This is an activity
of the Productivity Commission and the Productivity Commission is
a body that is completely under the control of the Federal Government
and we believe there's a national interest in having this inquiry.
It is not, as I say, a tax grab. There is no sort of hidden motive
but my views and the views of the Treasurer and indeed, a lot of
people in the community about the level and incidence of gambling,
the economic and social impact, the impact on small business, the
impact on families, it's something that we have been concerned
about. We ought to know more about it and an inquiry like this will
help that process.
MITCHELL:
But how does the Productivity Commission have the expertise to inquire
into social impact? It's basically economists, is it not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Certainly they are largely economists but it is within the capacity
of the Productivity Commission when it does inquiries in particular
areas to recruit as ad hoc members of the inquiry people who have
a particular background or expertise in that area. When you make
an inquiry, the Productivity Commission must take social and human
factors into account. When, for example it was examining the footwear,
clothing and textile industry, the motor car industry, it had to
take the employment consequences of changes affecting those industries
and the impact of those employment changes on local communities.
MITCHELL:
Would you expect the Commission then to make recommendations or
is it more establishing where we stand? Does something come from
it, in other words?
PRIME MINISTER:
That will be a matter for the Commission.
MITCHELL:
It's a bit hard to reverse that position with gambling, isn't
it, because we seem to rely on it so much?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there is a community dependence on it or government dependence
on it and that's a worry that a lot of people have. However
there's always the case that if you can't reverse something
you can at least put an effective lid on it, an effective constraint.
We do need to know more about its impact on the community, particularly
on small business and we do need to understand better than we do
at the moment not only the dependence of governments but also the
way in which it affects the whole community.
MITCHELL:
Would the Federal Government have the power to put a lid on gambling?
PRIME MINISTER:
Direct constitutional authority rests with the states but national
governments have great persuasion in areas like that.
MITCHELL:
You've been very uncomfortable about the level of gambling
for some time, haven't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have, yes.
MITCHELL:
What's that based on?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's based on a feeling that it does wreak an enormous
amount of havoc on families who can't afford it. I mean, I
don't mind the wealthy in this country losing large amounts
at casinos. That troubles me not a jot and if wealthy people from
overseas want to come to casinos and lose a packet well, good luck
to them and good luck to us. That doesn't trouble me at all
but I...
MITCHELL:
They're not coming here any more, not as many.
PRIME MINISTER:
Not as much, not from Asia but they're still coming from other
countries and they may increasingly come from other countries because
of the currency fluctuation. It's partly based on my background.
I was, I guess I grew up in an environment that didn't encourage
gambling and it always struck me as something that was pretty wasteful
and pretty destructive. I am not trying to visit those views on
the rest of the community but I do feel uncomfortable about the
way in which gambling has cut a swathe through many small businesses
and the way in which gambling has affected families and has caused
a lot of misery and a lot of heartache within families, and it does
bother me.
MITCHELL:
Are you concerned that the letters between Mr Costello and Mr Kennett
will leak in the papers today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I suppose in the years that I have been in politics I've
seen leaks. I mean, I don't know where that came from.
MITCHELL:
Pretty nasty words, pretty tough words being exchanged there. You
have a Liberal Premier, particularly one as high profile as Jeff
Kennett and the Federal Treasurer taking shots at each other in
public is not good for you, surely.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Jeff's the sort of person who speaks his mind. Peter
speaks his mind. I speak my mind from time to time. I don't
think there's anything unhealthy about that.
MITCHELL:
Why an inquiry into gambling but say, not an inquiry into areas
of possibly even more importance like health?
PRIME MINISTER:
We did have a Productivity Commission inquiry into private health
insurance last year, a very detailed one. We have responded to part
of it and who knows, there may be further responses down the line.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept that the taxes on gambling are in fact a bit of a
GST because I assume there's a lot of black money going through
poker machines...
PRIME MINISTER:
That's an interesting way of looking at it.
MITCHELL:
Well, this is being taxed, isn't it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you could put it that way, yes.
MITCHELL:
Would you like some of the tax slice?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the taxes out of gambling? No we are certainly not after those
but I want to make it clear, this has got nothing to do with our
tax agenda. We have a quite separate tax agenda and we will be presenting
our tax plan to the Australian public before the election. We have
worked very hard on it and the Treasurer and I have spent an enormous
amount of time on it over recent weeks. We continue to work on it
and we will be in a position to make it known to the Australian
public before the election.
MITCHELL:
The waterfront.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
Have you taken over control of the dispute?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven't.
MITCHELL:
The impression, you called a, well, I know you called a meeting.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I was involved in a meeting with Mr Corrigan and his lawyers,
yes but that doesn't mean to say I've taken over control.
In any of these sorts of things, from time to time the Prime Minister
will get involved. I get involved in the budget discussions. I am
heavily and directly and on a day to day basis obviously involved
in the policy formulation regarding taxation but that doesn't
mean to say I've taken it over any more than I have taken over
the waterfront. The Prime Minister has a role from time to time
to involve himself in any particular issue, particularly a high
profile one.
MITCHELL:
Is there any chance you could broker a compromise?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it's a question of brokering compromises. It's
a question of first of all waiting to see what the High Court decides
but also remembering that our goal has never been the destruction
of the Maritime Union of Australia. Our goal has never been the
destruction of unionism. Our goal has been twofold. We want to get
rid of compulsory unionism on the Australian waterfront. That is
an absolute fundamental, immovable requirement and we also want
reform on the Australian waterfront so that we can have world's
best practice.
Now they are the two things that we require.
MITCHELL:
Is there any reason why people who have been sacked could be, not
be re-employed at some stage to work on the waterfront, some of
them?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have never said they shouldn't be.
MITCHELL:
This could be a degree of compromise, couldn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
The compromise suggests that you move from one position you originally
had and you alter it and you say, well I am prepared to adopt a
softer position. We have never said that we want to get rid of the
MUA. All we have said is we want two things. We want voluntary unionism,
that's freedom of association on the waterfront and we want
world's best practice. Now if we can achieve those two things
then everybody is happy but most importantly, the country is the
winner. The whole purpose of this was not to have an ideological
battle. The whole purpose of this was to give Australia, which is
a trading nation, an island continent, a more efficient waterfront.
MITCHELL:
It's turned into an ideological battle, hasn't it. Do
you think the Government has perhaps not handled it as well as it
could have?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't agree with that.
MITCHELL:
What about Corrigan and Patrick? Have they handled it as well as
they could have?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am not going to give a running commentary on them but give
them their dues. They took advice, they took certain action and
we haven't heard the final comments made on the law.
MITCHELL:
There's been a hell of a lot of pain. Was this pain necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Nobody likes pain and difficulty but if you have a group of people
who refuse to sit down and talk reform, I mean, let us not forget
that Patrick's had been trying for three years, three years
to get improvements on the waterfront out of its workforce, three
years they were trying. They actually signed an enterprise agreement
back in the beginning of 1995 and they have been negotiating ever
since with the union to get the union to comply with the agreement
the union itself signed. Now, people seem to forget that. They now
talk as though the history of this dispute started on the 7th of
April. It didn't. It goes back years and I think people have
tended to be too dismissive of the efforts that Patrick's made
to get a reasonable response from their workforce.
MITCHELL:
Do you think really the waterfront has now changed forever regardless
of...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do. You will never go back to what it was a few months ago.
MITCHELL:
So have you almost achieved what you wanted to?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if we can get world
class productivity and if we can get voluntary unionism then we
will have achieved our two goals. I mean, we are not a stevedoring
enterprise. We are a government and our responsibility is to set
a national interest set of goals and the two national interest goals
are voluntary unionism and higher productivity on the waterfront.
If we can get those two things then whatever combination of workers
employed by whatever employers on the waterfront is a matter for
the parties to determine, not for us.
MITCHELL:
Are you interested in seeing the documents which allege to show
that an adviser to Mr Reith was involved in this?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's of supreme indifference to me.
MITCHELL:
Really?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
But I thought it would be important to have a look at them and see
whether there was any truth in them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if somebody wants to give me documents, I am always happy
to have a look at them but I think the whole thing is a little bizarre
and almost comical.
MITCHELL:
Do you know why Dr Webster met the ...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't.
MITCHELL:
Isn't it relevant?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know that it is.
MITCHELL:
Well it is relevant if you knew anything about Dubai.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he's denied any knowledge of Dubai. So has Mr Reith.
The first I had heard of Dubai was when it was raised in the Parliament
by the Labor Party. Neil, one of the things that sort of puzzles
me amidst all of this is, would somebody please tell me what was
in any event, quite apart from the question of knowledge, would
somebody please tell me what was illegal or improper about Dubai
anyway?
MITCHELL:
Well, it would have been improper if the Government denied having
been involved in it.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, leaving that aside, I mean, obviously if governments or
anybody says something that they know to be incorrect then that's
an issue in itself, I accept that but I don't accept that that
has occurred but just leaving that aside for a moment, where was
the illegality...
MITCHELL:
I suggest it was very politically damaging to a government if the
government had been involved in organising army personnel.
PRIME MINISTER:
But if you just put that aside, just ask yourself, where was the
illegality in any event? I mean, it always struck me from the very
beginning, if there were some kind of, there obviously wasn't
an effort made by some people who had trained some people overseas,
now, whatever people think about the politics of the waterfront
and whatever people think about the MUA, for or against them, there
is nothing of itself illegal about a group of Australians trying
to do that.
MITCHELL:
Do you think that would have been legitimate?
PRIME MINISTER:
What?
MITCHELL:
It might be legal, but would it have legitimate?
PRIME MINISTER:
What do you mean by legitimate? But, I mean, it's not the
role of a government to go around and make a minute, micro moral
judgement on every act of every individual Australian. I mean, we
don't want big brother' government in this country.
But just for the record can I say again that I knew nothing about
Dubai, Mr Reith knew nothing about it. He's received assurances
from his staff to the same effect. And interestingly enough, the
Labor Party sort of huffed and puffed before Parliament resumed
this year that they were going ask a whole lot of questions about
Dubai and to date we've not had one which is very interesting.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, if you wouldn't mind - the headphones.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MITCHELL:
We'll take some calls for the Prime Minister now - 9696 1278.
Hello, Malcolm, go ahead.
CALLER:
Hello, Neil. Hello, Mr Howard, how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello, Malcolm.
CALLER:
Mr Howard, concerning the assistance for people under the new Job
Network.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes.
CALLER:
There was a time when people who weren't on a government pay-stream,
like social security benefits, could use the CES and register as
unemployed. That is no longer the case unless they wish to pay a
fee.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that's not my advice, no.
CALLER:
Why isn't it correct - could you answer that please?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's just not. We're not charging fees.
CALLER:
Well, okay, fine, there's no fee. People - working women,
women who are partners of working husbands who aren't eligible
for payment can no longer use the Job Network. How is that going
to help unemployment and how will it affect the unemployment...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there's absolutely nothing - there's no substance
in what you're saying.
MITCHELL:
On Job Net, Mr Howard, because today's the day, the computer's
still not ready. I'm getting messages that various providers
aren't ready, various organisations aren't ready to get
up and running. This could be a disaster.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it won't be a disaster. This is a very big, new approach
and a much better approach to job placement. It provides people
with greater incentive to help the unemployed and it gives the unemployed
a greater range of choices. Obviously in the early days of it there
will be some settling in, some adjustment problems but I ask people
not to make a snap judgement, certainly not to make a final judgement
on the basis of those things as Dr Kemp said yesterday. That sort
of thing is inevitable whenever there's some kind of change.
But it is a huge reform and I'll wager that in three months
time, when I'm being interviewed like this, one beautiful morning
in Melbourne, people will be saying what a huge success the Job
Network has been.
MITCHELL:
Thank you, Malcolm. Lyn, go ahead please, you're next.
CALLER:
Oh, Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I'd like to talk about the gambling issue and what's
happening. I'm just one example out here - and it's really
quite ironic that you're on today. We have lost $70,000 in
two years - my husband, not me. I don't gamble.
MITCHELL:
This is gambling or...
CALLER:
This is gambling on pokies. We are now going to lose our home.
He has got to the point where he's now stealing from me, because
we both work. I had a rather bad accident. I only got home from
hospital last week. He has cleaned me out. And I have actually sat
up for the last 48 hours in bed contemplating just ending it all
because I can't live like this any more. That's what's
happening in this country. And I know so many people in the same
position.
MITCHELL:
Well, for a start, don't do that.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, please, I mean, if there's one piece of advice and one
urging, that will achieve absolutely nothing and could I encourage
you to talk to the tremendous counsellors and others that are available
from organisations like the Salvation Army and others who do have
an understanding of these problems. And yesterday, could I say,
I took part in a service in Sydney to commemorate the lives of people
who'd committed suicide and I was surrounded by a large number
of these wonderful counsellors from the Wesley Central Mission there,
and their capacity to give people hope and everything is enormous.
Could I first, the most important bit of advice I could give you
is to get advice from people who are able to help in these circumstances.
MITCHELL:
And we can give you some numbers, and then if you want to hold
on...