MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, thank you for agreeing to this.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a pleasure.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, the health system's a mess, what are you going
to do about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't agree it's a mess. I agree it could be
better. But health care in Australia is at a higher level than in
most other countries in the world.
MITCHELL:
Mr Kennett has just said that elderly people were scared witless
by your changes on nursing homes. He said this on AM - scared
witless. And now they're bearing the brunt of what amounts
to Federal incompetence on health.
PRIME MINISTER:
[10 SECOND TAPE BREAK]...recognised and been fixed and they won't
be repeated. But I don't think it helps very much for anybody
in authority to just slag the health system. The average Australian
has access to better quality, cheaper health care than does the
average British citizen or the average American citizen. If you
get sick in the United States and you're not well off, you
can be in real bother.
MITCHELL:
But I put it to you - people in Victoria tell me they are concerned
that if they get sick they won't get the sort of treatment
they need. The hospitals are dirty, they're under-staffed...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that is a combined responsibility of both the State and the
Federal governments...
MITCHELL:
But we [inaudible] do about it. Jeff Kennett says it's your
fault.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it doesn't help in a situation like this for a Premier
to try and heap all of the blame onto the Prime Minister or the
Federal Government or, indeed, for the Federal Government to heap
all of the blame onto the State government.
What are we doing? Well, to start with we put about $500 million
a year into trying to stop the catastrophic fall in the number of
people in private health insurance...
MITCHELL:
Well it's failed.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it hasn't totally failed.
MITCHELL:
Well it's still going.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Neil, the rate of exiting from private health insurance has
slowed very markedly and it doesn't help for people in authority,
including State Premiers, to constantly publicly criticise the quality
of private health insurance. The other observation I would make
is that - you say, what are we doing - in the new Medicare agreement
we are offering the States an agreement that involves a three and
a half per cent increase, and that is in a climate of zero inflation.
On top of that, we are offering them a guarantee that for every
one per cent, if it were to happen, more people leaving private
health insurance, there will be another $83 million added to the
money that the Commonwealth pays to the States. On top of that,
we are giving them a further guarantee in relation to the operating
costs of hospitals.
We are offering them more money. We are prepared to play our part.
It doesn't help the patients of Victorian hospitals for the
Victorian Government to say: well, it's all the fault of the
Federal Government. That is the kind of mindless buck passing which
the Australian public is fed-up with. I would not insult a State
government by saying it is all their fault. I do not think it helps
the citizens of Victoria for the State Government to, in effect,
suggest it's all my fault. It's not and the Australian
public knows that. What they want the Premier and the Prime Minister
to do is to work together sensibly.
MITCHELL:
Well, hopefully that happens today at the Premiers' Conference.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we've made a very fair offer and we hope the Premiers
will accept it.
MITCHELL:
Well, they're already saying no, aren't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we'll wait and see.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Another issue - guns. And again, Jeff Kennett says Australia
went over the top at the time of Port Arthur. We went over the top.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't agree with that. I don't think Australia
went over the top at all. It was an appalling tragedy - an appalling
tragedy - and out of that disaster came the hope of a safer Australian
community. We had some uniform gun laws. I received the cooperation
of all Premiers, of the Leader of the Opposition federally, and
I always thank them for that. I did not go over the top in my own
language or my own handling of that. But I believe that the Australian
public wants a maintenance in full of that uniform...
MITCHELL:
Well is that threatened by what Victoria's doing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're going to talk about it today.
MITCHELL:
You know what they're doing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't want any changes.
MITCHELL:
None at all.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't. I don't want any changes to the agreement.
MITCHELL:
Well what Victoria's doing changes the agreement, does it
not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I want to hear exactly what they're intending to do
because you sometimes get very mixed signals through the airwaves.
But my simple proposition is that I would like all of those at the
meeting today to reaffirm the commitment of their governments to
the uniform agreement.
MITCHELL:
Is it possible that there will be a financial penalty if Victoria
does change it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't raised the question of sanctions.
MITCHELL:
Would you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I want to have a sensible talk.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, but you're taking a firm line and Victoria's taking
a firm line.
PRIME MINISTER:
I am certainly taking a firm line but it doesn't help on something
like this where I'm optimistic that people will cooperate and
see commonsense. It doesn't help to talk provocatively in advance.
MITCHELL:
Fair enough. Would you like the Federal Government, though, to
take over if the States are given a power over all gun laws, make
it a Federal responsibility?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hope that doesn't become necessary.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Now...
PRIME MINISTER:
But can I just it make it very clear - my bottom line is, I am
against any watering down of the uniform agreement.
MITCHELL:
All right, now, hopefully that will be resolved today.
PRIME MINISTER:
I hope so.
MITCHELL:
Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources, should he sell his shares?
PRIME MINISTER:
Senator Parer, so far, has not been involved in any conflict of
interest. The question of whether his family trust disposes of shares
in a coal mining company is a matter that will have to be decided
by the people who run that trust.
MITCHELL:
Would you advise him to sell his shares?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am in constant communication with Senator Parer regarding
the untrue allegations that have been made against him...
MITCHELL:
Well, is it true that the company's involved in a dispute
over native title?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if it is, I don't know. That's not Senator Parer's
fault, is it?
MITCHELL:
Well, no. But his company and he's the Minister for Resources
and he's speaking on native title.
PRIME MINISTER:
But what is wrong, what is wrong with...
MITCHELL:
Because he benefits directly.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry, but that's the equivalent of saying that Peter
Costello should resign as Federal Treasurer when interest rates
came down because he has a housing mortgage and he benefited from
his action in bringing about cuts in interest rates.
MITCHELL:
But not it's not, with respect, Prime Minister...
PRIME MINISTER:
Why isn't it?
MITCHELL:
We're talking about $2 million worth of shares. We're
talking about discussions with Japanese companies as a share holder
when he's Minister. And we're talking about a native title
claim from which his company could benefit.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think his company would benefit from the native
title claim. I think quite the reverse, in fact.
MITCHELL:
All right, I take your point.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I mean, for heaven's sake.
MITCHELL:
Which company would benefit [inaudible]...
PRIME MINISTER:
He didn't initiate the native title - but you see, Neil, with
respect, when something like this happens you get an hysteria and
you get allegations made that have absolutely no evidence of bad
faith or bad conduct. I mean, look at all the allegations that have
been made this week, that he played golf and spoke to his former
business partner who's his family lawyer. I mean, I defend
Senator Parer's right, I defend the right of any of my Ministers
to maintain social contact, to have meals with, of course. I mean,
how anybody could argue against that is beyond me.
MITCHELL:
But Mr Howard, he has spoken on the Native Title Act and
opposed it.
PRIME MINISTER:
What's wrong with that?
MITCHELL:
Well because his company will benefit if his stand goes through.
Surely that's a conflict of interest.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not. That's the equivalent of saying that a
farmer can never be Minister for Primary Industry. What is the difference?
MITCHELL:
The difference is that the Minister should be declaring it and
hasn't.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, hang on, no, he has declared it to me.
MITCHELL:
When?
PRIME MINISTER:
He declared it to me ages ago.
MITCHELL:
And you've been comfortable with it all along.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no, I tell you what I did. I sent it all off to the Secretary
of my Department, as I've sent all the pecuniary interest forms
that have been given to me by my Ministers. And the Secretary of
my Department went through it and he certified in writing to me
that it was in order.
Senator Parer has behaved in good faith from the very beginning
on this. He made full disclosure to me of his family trust's
interest in this company. He made full disclosure to me of other
interests that he had. He had been checked. He believed in good
faith that he complied with the guidelines and until any evidence
is produced to me that he has been involved in an actual conflict
of interest - I mean, an actual conflict of interest would be if
Senator Parer as Minister for Resources took an act that specifically
benefited his company or a small group of companies in the resource
sector, in the same way that if a farmer is the Minister for Primary
Industry and takes action that specifically benefits his farm. But
if he's involved in a decision which benefits the generality
of farmers or the generality of coal producers or the generality
of mortgagees, as in the case of Peter Costello with falling interest
rates, to suggest that they should resign or there's a conflict
of interest would render it impossible to have anybody with any
business acumen to be a minister in your government. Australia would
be the loser as a result.
MITCHELL:
He says that he is considering selling the shares. Would you advise
him to do so?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am in discussion with him about a number of matters and
I don't care to say anything more than that except to repeat
that he has not done anything dishonest. He made full disclosure...
MITCHELL:
I don't think anybody's saying he's done anything
dishonest, there's a conflict of interest.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there isn't.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, but the Ministers you've sacked in the past didn't
do anything dishonest, they had a conflict.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, can I go through the three that were affected by these guidelines.
In the case of both Brian Gibson and Jim Short, they took specific
action relating to a company in which they held shares. Now that
is different from Senator Parer's case. In the case of Mr Prosser,
claims were made that Mr Prosser was involved, however innocently
in his mind, he was involved in lobbying for and advocating the
cause of his business interests whilst being Minister. There is
no evidence, at all, that Senator Parer has done that.
MITCHELL:
What about his meeting with this Japanese...
PRIME MINISTER:
But that Japanese company has literally hundreds of millions of
dollars invested in the entire coal mining industry in Australia.
It would be extraordinary in the extreme if, on a ministerial visit
to Japan, he did not talk to the executives of that company. What
would have been wrong would have been for Senator Parer to have
said to the executives of that company: I would like you to do something
specific for the company in which my family trust has an interest.
Now isn't that a difference?
MITCHELL:
Yes it is.
PRIME MINISTER:
And that is the key difference. While he is acting generically
in the interest of the coal industry and that involves talking to
major investors in the industry in Australia, he is not doing anything
wrong.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, may we take a call?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MITCHELL:
Mark, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning Neil, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I am an average Australian and I am a citizen and I suppose I'm
still undecided about the Telstra sale and I was wondering why should
I support it and why would I be better off if it is sold?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you could buy some shares in it and I don't know whether
you are in a position to do that. I don't know your financial
position on that, and that of course is your business. Another way
you would be better off, of course is, that we will be able to reduce,
by 40 per cent, the total Federal Government debt of Australia and
I will tell you how that will directly benefit you. That will help
to keep interest rates down and they, in fact, over time, with other
circumstances lead to a further reduction in interest rates.
MITCHELL:
Are you surprised that the poll done here in Victoria yesterday,
are you surprised that commentators said the Telstra thing was a
masterstroke, the public doesn't seem to be going along with
it overwhelmingly. I mean, in the polls you have seen so far.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it depends a bit Neil on the question that you ask. If you
say to people, are you in favour of selling Telstra, the natural
reaction of a lot of people is to say: no. If you say to them are
you in favour of allowing the men and women of Australia to buy
the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, the answer can be very different.
MITCHELL:
OK. But you appeal the public is with you on it, despite the polls..
PRIME MINISTER:
I do. I do.
MITCHELL:
Isn't it a bit risky. I think I have mentioned here before,
the calls that we get are very negative.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. You have got to take some risks in politics. I mean what is
the point of being a Prime Minister of this country if you never
take any risk, you just sit there and do nothing.
MITCHELL:
But I would have thought when you introduced, when you went this
way on Sunday that you would have thought, now this is what could
win the election for me. You might say it is the right thing to
do but this will popular. (Inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
We will wait and see.
MITCHELL:
That's fair enough. Speaking of an election. What criteria
will influence you in deciding on an election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it is, you make a political judgement as to the correct
time. You also take very much into account having it at a time which
will, sort of, not cause any disruption of the community. I mean,
normally elections don't cause disruption but you have got
to keep those things in mind but all Prime Ministers try and choose,
I guess a right time, not only in a political sense, but also in
the sense of the national interest.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
MITCHELL:
And we are with the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, we'll
take some more calls in a moment. Mr Howard the poll I mentioned
a moment ago, that same poll showed Kim Beazley ahead of you in
Victoria. Could you go into this election an underdog?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know. You see one of things that I try not to
do, as Prime Minister, is to double as a political commentator.
I mean naturally everybody likes to always read polls that are favourable.
Sometimes they are not so favourable and we live in a more volatile
political climate, and I have said repeatedly to my political colleagues
that they can't assume that we will automatically win the next
election with ease. I believed that from day one because we are
living in a different world. People bounce around in their political
affections a lot more freely and easily these days than they used
to.
MITCHELL:
Okay Doug, go ahead please for the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Prime Minister, I am in favour of a GST like the John Hewson plan,
just before the last election, but I wonder why don't you market
it so laymen people, like myself can see the benefits. I am a sales
rep and when GST was last opposed I was talking to a lot of businesses
and they all said that they would hire between two to five people,
these are medium sized businesses.
MITCHELL:
That's an interesting point on marketing Prime Minister. I
have in fact been following a newsletter Peter Costello is sending
out to his electorate which is an introduction to it, which is all
about tax.
PRIME MINISTER:
We are sending that to as many electorates as possible around Australia
and it is building a case for tax reform. On Doug's point I
guess my answer, Doug, is just give us a go. When we release the
policy I believe the marketing of it will be superior to the marketing
of taxation changes in the past. I know it is always difficult to
embark upon major reform but I deep down believe we need a better
tax system because the present tax system is unfair and increasingly
unworkable and I am prepared to have a go. If the Australian people
reject me as a result, well I will accept that with the best of
grace. I will be disappointed but I believe I owe it to the Australian
people to try an implement a new, modern tax system for the 21st
Century.
MITCHELL:
While we are on tax, will be reviewing negative gearing?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Negative gearing is not something that is on our agenda.
MITCHELL:
It is on the Labor Party agenda. It was reported today. There have
been rumours in the accounting community that you, the Liberal Government
would review negative gearing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think. Look, the problem with getting rid of negative gearing
is that you would push rents up very sharply, very sharply indeed.
MITCHELL:
So it is not on the agenda for you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are pretty good reasons for that. You push rents up
very sharply and you would also depress house prices and that would
have a very adverse affect on people, particularly in Sydney and
Melbourne. Could I just remind people, the Hawke Government tried
this in the mid 1980s and after 18 months they abandoned it because
rents went through the roof and it affected poor people more sharply
than anyone else.
MITCHELL:
Michelle, you are speaking to the Prime Minister. Go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning Neil, good morning Mr Prime Minister. I have a major
concern with the health insurance policies that are around. We're
a family on $35,000 a year. We have had top cover my whole life.
Last week I had to go in and lower it. In the last six months I
have had over $6,000 worth of medical bills, out of my own pocket,
and I can't afford my health insurance but at the same time
I can't afford to drop it, so I have had to lower it where
it is not enough to cover me.
PRIME MINISTER:
Michelle, you say you have had $6,000 of medical bills out of your
own pocket.
CALLER:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
You or your family has obviously had some very serious operations?
CALLER:
No, I have IVF treatment which is not covered because your Government,
that I voted in, has dropped...
PRIME MINISTER:
I am sorry what treatment was that?
CALLER:
IVF.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, yes. Well I sympathise with your position but whilst it
is a very, very important treatment and absolutely precious for
your own personal situation - I am glad you mentioned what it was
because it is not something that is occurring to everybody everyday
- but I understand the particular circumstances of what...
MITCHELL:
But the story of people being able to afford health cover is fairly
common.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah I know, but I don't think you can say that that particular
case is typical of the whole situation.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, there is a report in the Financial Review today
of a foreign affairs report to the Government on Indonesia, are
you aware of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have seen hundreds of reports on Indonesia across my desk
but that particular one, I am not sure.
MITCHELL:
It says Indonesia is breaching the IMF guidelines with expensive
family and cronie projects, now if that is the case why on earth
are we getting involved in helping them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we of course are not giving them any money, we are lending
them money and it is repayable and we are doing that because we
have a vested national interest in doing it.
MITCHELL:
But do you believe they are doing this...
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I have to acknowledge that standards on these sorts of things
in other countries are different from what they are in Australia
and that applies no matter who is in office and I acknowledge that
but you have to look at the broader picture. Is it in Australia's
interests to see Indonesia sink further down into social dislocation
and poverty and economic collapse? The answer to that is no. We
have markets in Indonesia. We sell products in Indonesia. We sell
services to Indonesia and it is in our selfish national interest,
if I can put it that way, to make sure Indonesia doesn't fall
over, and that is why we take the broader view that we do.
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Do I support cronyism? Of course I don't but unfortunately,
there are different approaches to these things in different countries.
MITCHELL:
Is it cronyism in Indonesia?
PRIME MINISTER:
For a person in my position in a delicate situation like this,
as you know words are bullets.
MITCHELL:
Do you, on a broader point, do you expect that what is happening
in Indonesia will lead to a flood of refugees in this country?
PRIME MINISTER:
I hope not. I believe that if wiser counsel prevails and an agreement
can be made with the IMF and if the rest of the world is appropriately
demanding of Indonesia but not unreasonable, then the situation
can be stabilised and major social dislocation avoided. But it's
going to be very difficult.
MITCHELL:
Okay, Christine go ahead please for the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Hello Neil, hello Mr Howard. I just wanted to say that I totally
support your stand on guns and I think it's terrific what you've
done so far. I totally disagree with the states who are trying to
weaken the gun laws. I don't want Australia to become like
the USA where every man, woman and child owns a gun. In fact...to
say on this one, Mr Howard, stick to your guns.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well thank you, I think you speak for the vast bulk of Australians
in saying we don't want to go down the American path. I am
sorry this issue has come up again. I don't want to have arguments
with the states about it but the Australian people demand the maintenance
of the tough gun laws we've got and I am personally very strongly
committed to them. I believe in what was done two years ago and
I feel quite emotionally committed to the maintenance of those laws.
MITCHELL:
Did you... I was going to ask you about that because I know you
followed the case of Walter Mikac very carefully and in fact I sent
you a tape of the speech he gave at the funeral. How did you feel
meeting him yesterday? Did you feel that he'd been let down?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't think he's been. I am still optimistic that
we will maintain the integrity of those laws because everybody feels
pretty keenly about this and I am pretty optimistic about what can
be agreed today. He seemed in quite good spirits. I have met him
on a number of occasions over the years. You just can't even
begin, of course, to comprehend what a man like that has been through
and naturally, how strongly he would feel about this issue.
MITCHELL:
Okay, we will take one more call. I think we've got time. Brian,
go ahead please.