MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello, Neil. It's good to be here.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for coming in.
MITCHELL:
Will this model go to a referendum?
PRIME MINISTER:
I expect so, but we have to wait and see what happens today. But
I'm quite optimistic that out of today the Convention's
job will be done and that we will be able to put something to the
Australian people at a referendum.
I want a referendum. We made a promise that there'd be a referendum.
The Australian people are owed the opportunity of expressing a view
on this issue. There's not much doubt to me that amongst the
republican models, the one that has most support at the Convention
is the two-thirds one. It's been changed a bit and it's
been altered to accommodate a miscellany of views.
MITCHELL:
Will it be supported by the Australian public? Do you think it
will become...
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know. I think it's too early to say that. Neil,
there are a lot of views on this in the community. I know that some
commentators, not yourself, but some others are sort of almost expressing
a frustration at the fact that there's such a variety of views
at the Convention. That mirrors the community. There's a feeling
in the community that the time for change is coming and that it
ought to be, at the very least, considered. There's still,
though, quite a segment of the community, for a combination of reasons,
that doesn't want change. There are some who don't want
change because they're nostalgic about the past. There are
others, and I guess I put myself in this category, who think the
system we've got is so good. I mean, I don't have any
nostalgia about the past, but I do think the system we have at the
moment is so damn good that you have to think very hard before you
change it.
MITCHELL:
Well, if it does go to a referendum, as you expect, will you campaign
against it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the Government's position at a referendum is that there
won't be a government yes or no position. Everybody will be
allowed a free or an open vote. Now, the extent to which individuals
in the Government, myself included, involve themselves in the campaign
is something that I will not be deciding until next year.
Can I say, Neil, that once this convention is over it's back
to things of immediate concern to the Australian people. I mean,
this is an issue which interests the Australian people. This convention
has generated a great deal of public interest. But it's not
as important as taxation reform. It's not as important as job
generation. It's not as important as further reforms that will
further protect us against the Asian economic meltdown. So it is
back to business. Back to the things that immediately count and
affect the quality of lives of men and women in Australia after
today.
MITCHELL:
Some of the monarchists are saying this will not get through the
people. They see it as a victory, what's happened here. And
they say: well, John Howard set up this convention for exactly this
sort of result to maintain the status quo. What's your answer
to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I didn't. If any monarchists or, indeed, anybody else
is saying that I have deliberately set up this convention to stop
change occurring, that is absolute nonsense. I made a promise before
the election that I would have a convention. And I also made a promise,
which some people have forgotten but I repeat it, that the Australian
people would have a vote on this issue before the year 2000 and
I intend to keep that promise.
MITCHELL:
A lot's been made of your comment that you wanted a clear
consensus, a clear view, a clear majority. What do you mean by that?
What do they have do...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not going to define it in numerical terms. We're
close to the final vote and I'll obviously be saying something
this afternoon.
MITCHELL:
How will you be voting?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will vote as I said I would vote at the beginning of the Convention.
I said that I opposed a republic for the reason that I didn't
think any alternative system was better. That remains my view. It
may not be a fashionable view. It may not be a popular view. But
it has consistently been my view. And I think the Australian people,
first and foremost, are entitled to demand of me that I be honest
with them. I said, of the alternatives to the present system that
the McGarvie one was better than the other two. I thought the two-thirds
in turn was better than the direct election. But I thought the two-thirds
was vastly inferior to McGarvie.
MITCHELL:
What do you think of this model that has come through? It's
been described as a camel, do you think it is?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's marginally better, in my view, than the original two-thirds
proposal because it removes the requirement that a president can
only be removed with a two-thirds vote of the Parliament.
MITCHELL:
You've got a sense, obviously, a sense of public opinion and
you see the polls. Do you think the people of Australia want a republic?
Do you think you're out of step with them?
PRIME MINISTER:
I might be in a minority on this, yes. But must a Prime Minister
and a leader always just put his finger up in the air and say: well,
I'll do exactly what the polls tell me?
MITCHELL:
No, of course not.
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I mean, all I can do is say what my honest view is. My honest
view is that the system we have works extremely well and I don't
think that an alternative one would be as good. I think the links
between Australia and the British Crown are emotionally a lot weaker
now than they used to be. I don't think it is a question of
choosing between the Queen and some new system. It's a question
of choosing between a current system, which effectively has the
Governor-General as the Head of State of Australia and a new system.
MITCHELL:
Is there still a possibility of a plebiscite or do you think it
will be a referendum on the...
PRIME MINISTER:
I would strongly suspect there'll be a referendum. But I obviously
have to wait and see what the Convention does today. But I don't
want a plebiscite, to be perfectly frank. I think that would be
an unwanted, additional injection into the whole process.
MITCHELL:
Has the Queen been kept informed officially, through the Australian
Government, about what's happening?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the Governor-General, presumably, would have communicated
from time-to-time to her. The channel of communication is the Governor-General.
But I can assure you, from what I've been told, she is following
the thing very closely and but taking the view that it's our
business. It's no secret that she indicated that to me. She
indicated it to Paul Keating. She is a 20th Century democrat and
understands that the role of the Crown in Australia rests entirely
in the hands of the Australian people. It has for almost 100 years.
MITCHELL:
I understand there a number of meetings at the Old Parliament House
today by people discussing the events and you are part of those.
Are you willing...
PRIME MINISTER:
Today?
MITCHELL:
Yes, this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I've come straight from - I had breakfast at the Lodge
and I've just had a half hour meeting with Gatjil Djekurra,
the Chairman of ATSIC, and we've talked about indigenous affairs.
MITCHELL:
So nobody's been in your ear overnight?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have not had meetings with anybody. I mean it is amazing what
you are attributed with at these sort of gatherings. I have got
to say it has been a great experience.
MITCHELL:
Well I wanted to ask about that. Has it been constructive, is Australia
a better place for it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is the spirit, the mood is fantastic. And it is unique in my
experience in public life. There has never been anything like this
before in my experience and I don't think the experience of
anybody at the convention. To sit down at something like that and
to have every age cohort in Australia represented.
To have representatives of the indigenous people, to have a whole
variety of names, they are not all just English, Irish and Scottish
names. To have people who are, what I would say extreme directly
elect the president republicans right through to very conservative
republicans. To have Liberals who are republicans and to have Liberals
who are not republicans and Liberals who are sort of in between.
To have the contribution of church leaders like Archbishop Pell
and Archbishop Hollingworth and to have media personalities and
sporting personalities, the whole bit. I think it has been a terrific
gathering. And people have approached it in a very constructive
way. There has been very little real acid. I mean there has been
some flamboyant outbursts, some chiacking, but I haven't noted
any real underlying bitterness.
MITCHELL:
Did it say something about this form of community consultation
on other issues?
PRIME MINISTER:
It might, it might say that. It could easily say that, now, who
knows. I have been very encouraged by it. I had morning tea on Wednesday
with all of the delegates who were under 25 and we spent about an
hour together in the old Cabinet room, and they, of course, have
found it a tremendous experience. And people who sneered at the
idea of having appointed delegates, can I point out, unless we had
had some appointed delegates you would never have had too many people
under 25 elected.
MITCHELL:
Ok, so Australia is a better place for what happened in the past
two weeks.
PRIME MINISTER:
I am greatly encouraged from this that whenever there is a vote
on this I think it will be conducted in a non-acrimonious fashion.
I don't believe the debate on this issue would cause any deep
fractures in Australian society. I think if out of the referendum
there is a clear majority of people in favour of change those who
oppose change will accept that with great goodwill. Equally, if
there is an opposition to change then I think the people who want
change will say, well we have failed on this occasion. They will
come back and it is quite possible that you could have one or two
referenda on this, I don't know.
MITCHELL:
So what is your timetable? You would have a referendum next year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Before the end of next year. And the idea being, if a majority
of people vote for it then it can come into operation on the 1st
January 2001. Equally, if people don't accept it then it is
off the agenda, not for ever, because I don't think it will
be, but it will be off the agenda for the celebration of the Centenary
of Federation. In other words we can celebrate that without an ongoing
debate about the issue.
MITCHELL:
Would it be off the agenda for your time as Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know, I don't know how long that is, that is
up to the Australian people, isn't it?
MITCHELL:
Well how long do you want to stay around?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am feeling very fit and healthy at the moment, very fit
and healthy.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard if I could change the topic. Iraq, Moscow today has directly
warned the United States that this could escalate into a significant
international conflict, could it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think that is likely. I think that is the sort
of thing that from time to time you would expect the Russians to
say. I hope we can still settle it peacefully. I am a little bit
encouraged, although what they offered was not acceptable, I am
a little bit encouraged that the Iraqis are offering something.
That is at least a signal that they are focusing their minds on
the fact that denying inspections of these presidential and other
sites is just not a goer any more. I am still very hopeful, without
being overly optimistic, that we can avoid any resort to military
action.
MITCHELL:
Is this about economics or about morality? Is it about oil or is
it about dangerous weapons?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am sure it is not about oil. It is not about oil.
MITCHELL:
It is about morality?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is about security, which is tied up with morality. But it is
about security. You are dealing here with very, very dangerous weapons
and if one person can get away with manufacturing and storing them
and retaining the capacity to indiscriminately deliver them. You
are talking here about material that can kill millions of people
with a very small quantity. I mean, it is in some respects it is
quite elementary material but it is very lethal.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe that Australia is at risk because of our involvement,
that there could be action on the Australian people?
PRIME MINISTER:
There are no missiles in Iraq aimed directly at Australia, but
just as there were no guns in Germany in 1939 aimed directly at
Australia or indeed at the United States. But we have long-term
and fundamental interest in there being a secure Middle East and
a secure world and if Saddam is able to get away with this others
will say, we can do the same and those others may, in the fullness
of time, turn out to be closer to Australia.
MITCHELL:
I think that there has been open speculation that it could make
us a target for terrorism. I did hear Mr McLachlan talking about
the possibility of chemical weapons or biological weapons being
dropped in water supplies and things like that, is that a serious
option, serious danger to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have certainly had no indication that that is likely to happen.
I don't think it significantly increases our vulnerability
to terrorist attacks, but in the nature of that sort of activity
a terrorist attack is always unexpected. It is often disproportionate,
or irrelevant to the relationship between those being terrorised
and the terrorists, they are often very indiscriminate things.
MITCHELL:
Have you had any discussions with the New Zealand Prime Minister
about this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I have.
MITCHELL:
Are you hoping they will come on board?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for her to decide. But she is coming to Australia
next week and I guess we will talk about it again. But I would think
some contribution from New Zealand is likely, but that is a matter
for them.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard you mentioned the economy earlier, the Asian melt-down.
I was talking to the National Australia Bank earlier this week,
they have already increased some of their fixed interest rates and
they expect an interest rate increase, well they are predicting
around one and a half per cent in the variable rate this year, is
that a possibility?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't, as you know, speculate either direction about
interest rates. Can I say in relation to the NAB, their forecast
has tended to be a bit at the pessimistic end, compared with outfits
like Access and others that have tended to be more bullish about
the capacity of the Australian economy to withstand the Asian, change
in the Asian melt-down.
The Australian economy is still very strong and the thing that
really influences interest rates is inflation and inflation is still
very low and if we, as we intend to do, produce a surplus in the
budget in May, that will be a ball-point for interest rates. I mean
that will be a real ball-point for interest rates. We will deliver
the first budget surplus for years and we will have turned a $10.5
million deficit that we inherited two years ago into a surplus of
perhaps, $2 to $2.5 billion.
MITCHELL:
The Asian melt-down must be threatening that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Obviously we would have all been better without it. The real test
over the next year, 18 months, will be the extent to which the Australian
economy can take it in its stride and still continue to grow strongly.
And the indications are that we can and we will, although there
will obviously be some impact.
MITCHELL:
If I may ask a couple of other things, health insurance, I noticed
from figures the today that the incentives aren't working,
people are still dropping out at an alarming rate. What can you
do about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the rate of decline over the last six or nine months, has
certainly slowed. Neil, the real problem in this area is that something
should have been done about health incentives six or seven years
ago, when we still had the critical mass of 38 to 40 per cent of
people in private health insurance. It was 47% in private health
insurance in 1988 and it is now, what, 31.6.
Graham Richardson, the former Health Minister in the Labor Government,
said in 1990, that if something were not done the process would
continue to deteriorate. Now we are doing our best to stabilise
it, and we'll continue to do that, but we certainly inherited
a very difficult situation here because, I think, the former government,
or some members of it, not Mr Richardson I have to say, because
he had a different view, but I think some former members of it really
just wanted to destroy the private health insurance system and they
just let it run-down.
MITCHELL:
I know you have to get away, the waterfront, they are back in court
today. If they are ordered back to work and it seems unlikely they
will go back, are we heading for the major conflict that is threatened
on the wharves?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Government doesn't want a major conflict.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, but is it going to happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
What is going to happen is that we're going to support the
law and the new law allows people to set-up in competition and if
they want to, to use non-union labour. We have no desire to destroy
the MUA. We have no desire to destroy union labour on the waterfront.
All we want is a competitive waterfront and that is exactly what
the National Farmers' Federation are trying to do.
We don't seek a huge national barney over this, we never have,
but we do seek a more competitive waterfront. I think it is very
interesting that the MUA is talking rhetorically, but when you actually
look at some of their deeds, they're being very wary. That
signals to me two things: A recognition by them that the law has
changed and it is a lot harder for them to play-up than used to
be the case and the second thing is that I don't know that
they are getting as much support from some of their union mates
as they might like.
MITCHELL:
This weekend, at Thredbo, you have what has been described to me
as a love-in.
PRIME MINISTER:
A love-in, yes, everybody says that, when you all go away for the
weekend.
MITCHELL:
What is the most titillating part of the love-in?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think, talking about the year. I mean, if it were just
a weekend of fun, but there will be quite a lot of work, Neil.
MITCHELL:
Tax?
PRIME MINISTER:
We'll talk about tax reform, yes, we will.
MITCHELL:
How close are we to getting detail on tax reform?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, closer than we were a few months ago, obviously. Look Neil,
we will tell the Australian public, in great detail, what our plans
are well before the election. And, we obviously will be talking
about the handling of that, strategically. We'll obviously
be talking about the year ahead. We'll be saying something
about, to our marginal seat holders, about marginal seat campaigning
because there is going to be an election in the next year. We are
into the third year, on the second of March, of the Government's
term and it is a damn good opportunity to get together and I also
hope, on a more, sort of, personal note, it is a demonstration of
solidarity and support for a community of Australia that had a very
hard time last year.
MITCHELL:
I wonder, if we can just go back to the health insurance thing,
quickly, because I still have that on the mind. Will you do something
else though, I mean it is not working, it is not working well enough,
what you are trying, are you have a look at different ideas?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is an area where, consistent with our commitment to Medicare,
that we are always looking at ways of improving the situation. I
don't think the task of health reform is ever completed. I haven't
known an issue on the Australian political agenda, over the last
10 years, that has ever, sort of been, so dealt with, that people
could say, well we don't have to do anything more on that front.
MITCHELL:
It has cost a lot of money and it is not working.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it doesn't cost, the expenditure on health in Australia
is not, by western world standards, as high as most other countries.
I mean, the United States spends far more of its GDP on health than
does Australia. And we should be very careful that we don't
always run the health system in Australia down. We have some very,
very fine hospitals, both public and private, in this country.
MITCHELL:
Public ones are stretched though because of exactly this.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, I have, I have seen the quality of both and there are some
that are stretched, yes, but the services they deliver are still
very, very high quality and the quality of our doctors and nurses
is extremely high. And it does worry me, that in the whole debate,
the impression is being created in the community, that in some-how-or-other,
we have a third rate health system in this country. That is not
true. You are still safer and better treated in this country than
in, say, the United States and in most nations of Europe.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, thank you for your time, given that it is a love-in
at the weekend, will the first lady be getting a Valentines Day
gift?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we met on Valentines Day.
MITCHELL:
Well it is an important day?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tomorrow is a very important day, in fact tomorrow will be the
28th anniversary of Janette and I meeting, so it is certainly, 14th
February 1970.
MITCHELL:
And, as a treat, you are taking her to a Liberal Party meeting?
PRIME MINISTER:
I knew you would say that. No we are looking forward to the weekend.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thanks.
[Ends]