E&OE..........................................................................................
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, heroin. Are there any circumstances under which you would
agree to the legal supply of heroin for rehabilitation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't had any put to me yet. In life you never rule
out such changed circumstances that you might, but I don't see
any prospect in the foreseeable future that I would change my mind
on that, no.
MITCHELL:
A number of the leading scientists in this city have been critical
today. Professor David Penington who of course ran the State inquiry
and Dr Campbell Aitkens from the MacFarlane-Burnett Centre. Professor
Penington says heroin is now cheaper, more readily available and purer,
stronger on the streets than it was when this inquiry all started.
And he said that...well, he's criticised you for rejecting,
trying a different...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, even if that were true, and I'm not saying it is not, I'd
have to get an independent assessment. But even if we accept that
that assessment were true, it doesn't follow from that that if
you adopt as the more permissive, the different approach, that you
would necessarily produce a better outcome, in fact, you may produce
a worse outcome. Now, I respect David Penington, I respect some of
the other people who put forward the other approach. I put against
that the very strongly held views of people in organisations like
the Salvation Army who are involved in picking up the pieces, who
are involved every day in the human misery of the drug traffic, who
are witnessing first hand the impact of it and a vast array of those
people are vehemently opposed to the sort of course of action advocated
by people like professor Penington...
MITCHELL:
... groups, I mean they are prohibitionists, they come ... with
alcohol as well. I mean they come...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but..
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
But hang on, but that's scientific. Are you saying that the only
people who are to be listened to on this are scientists? I mean, surely
drug abuse has a lot to do with human behaviour. So if we ever get
to a situation that we only ever listen to the experts in one discipline,
we run the risk of making very major mistakes. We have to listen to
the experts from all disciplines, and the fact that somebody may be
a prohibitionist, doesn't mean to say that on every issue he
or she is wrong.
MITCHELL:
True.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, at least they have the experience, at least they have the
life's experience of knowing how human beings react and how the
families of human beings react to individual situations. Neil, this
is an horrendously difficult issue, and whereas many people have the
freedom to advocate a course of action without having the responsibility
of deciding whether the circumstances should be potentially changed
for all time, somebody in my position or the Premier's position
and I think, with respect, I think Jeff and I probably have some different
views on this as we do on some issues but that's life. And I
think we are both the better for it but the reality is that I have
ultimately got to make a decision on this and I have got to wear the
consequences of it, I also have to wear the consequences of maintaining
a position that many people criticise. Now, I am not convinced but
the answer to your question is that you never say never in life but
I can't see my view changing.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept we are probably headed to yet another record level of
fatal heroin overdose?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we could be.....
MITCHELL:
There's a vast amount on the streets still despite the success
of the police operation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but there's no hard evidence around the world that dramatically
changing tack is going to make that situation better. I mean, there's
some evidence says it could make it worse.
MITCHELL:
Yes, but we are not only talking about dramatically changing tack
but just having a trial, a study, an academic exercise where heroin
is provided to registered addicts in a small group.
PRIME MINISTER:
But many people argue that that sends exactly the wrong signal. Many
people argue that doing that is the first step towards respectability
of the practice. Many people find it anomalous and strange that day
by day, bit by bit we are making it harder for people to smoke, and
making it progressively less acceptable to the point of attracting
penalties in certain circumstances, yet we want to go in the opposite
direction or so they would seem, or so it would seem to them going
in the opposite direction in relation to heroin.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe the heroin issue is a health issue as most of the professionals
suggest, are we talking about a health issue here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we are talking about...it's not just a health issue
it's, of course, as enormous, I mean, it has enormous health
dimensions but like many of these things the causes are not just physical
causes they are family environment causes, they are relationship causes,
there are all sorts of causes. That is why you can't just look
at it from a scientific point of view you have to also look at it
from a human behavioural point of view.
MITCHELL:
The MacFarlane-Burnett Centre or an official of it is suggesting that
you are, in fact, outside the Ministerial Council on Drugs Strategy.
The national drug strategic framework recommends that evidence based
research be carried out on the recommendation of such professionals
as himself and Dr Penington, and it being overruled by a Prime Minister
is not adequate.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, in the end the Federal Government will decide what the Federal
Government supports. I mean, what I have made clear is that the Federal
Government does not support these trials and we won't have any
assets and resources of the Federal Government used in it and that's
what I have said.
MITCHELL:
The Olympics, Sydney Olympics. Is there a possibility of any more
public money for the Olympics? I see Holden in particular seems to
be making pretty nervous noises about sponsorship.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I don't know what you mean, any more public money?
MITCHELL:
Well, I mean, we are $200 million short, some of the sponsors that
are already there are getting nervous about it. How much public money
will go in and will it be increased if necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we would hope that the sponsorship will come good and I think
it's a little premature to be saying that there is a serious
threat to sponsorship. The publicity in the last couple of months
has been very bad, we all recognise that. But the preparations to
the Games are excellent and they will be a huge success and they will
bring enormous credit to Australia and my hope and expectation is
that by the time they come along the memories of the last, the events
of the last couple of months well and truly will have receded. As
far as the Commonwealth is concerned, we have already given very generously
and I don't see the circumstances in which we should be expected
to give more. I mean, after all, the problems have not been generated
by the Commonwealth Government. Those responsible for organising the
Games particularly at an international level must look to themselves
and their affiliates in Australia for the first line of responsibility
as far as these difficulties are concerned. I mean, the Federal Government
and State governments, generally speaking, but certainly the federal
Government in relation to the Olympic Games does not run them. I mean,
it has been made very clear that the Games in Australia are being
run by SOCOG. We are keen to help [inaudible] Australian event and
we have given very generously but I don't think anybody should
assume that any sponsorship shortfall is going to be automatically
picked up by the Federal Government. But let's not start talking
about sponsorship shortfalls at this stage.
MITCHELL:
Do you think the image has been tarnished by what's gone on particularly
with Phil Coles having stepped down?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, give the man a fair trial. I mean, he has made a response. I
didn't think he helped himself by his blatantly partisan political
comment earlier this week, I thought that was a very foolish remark.
But in relation to the allegation, there has been allegations made,
he has emphatically denied them. He is at least entitled to his day
in court before I make any judgement on that.
MITCHELL:
What about the Commonwealth Games for Melbourne?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, terrific if it looks as though Melbourne will get them. Wellington
has pulled out, I can't see anybody else. Congratulations again
to Ron Walker for his success again in getting a major event to Melbourne,
I think it's fantastic.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, why were you not a banker?
PRIME MINISTER:
A banker?
MITCHELL:
Bob Joss from Westpac. He is here six years, he is going home with
bonuses worth, well you can believe, somewhere between $36 and $45
million in bonuses. This is in the era when we are all screaming about
bank fees and bank costs but it's a bit over the top isn't
it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, you ask me why I wasn't a banker, well I guess because
I prefer to go into politics in the public service. But they certainly
are well paid. It's always hard for somebody in my position to
make a definitive judgement on something like this. On the one hand,
when people are handling billions of dollars a year you need the best
talent around. And Bob Joss has been a very good Managing Director
for Westpac. He has pulled it around. Westpac had a lot of troubles
when Bob Joss took over and it is now doing a lot better. So leaving
aside the exact amount he's got he has had a very good track
record at that bank and I think that ought to be acknowledged. By
the standards that you and I are used to it is big money. By the standards
that the average person is used to it's huge money. But where
do you draw the line?
MITCHELL:
Well, it's $1.4 million salary and he is going home with $6 million
a year bonuses. It's very generous.
PRIME MINISTER:
I agree with that. I agree it is very generous. I suppose all I can
say to you in that situation is that the more competition you have
in the financial sector the more likely you are to have greater transparency
and greater scrutiny of those sorts of things. But you will never
have a world in which there are some people whose remuneration is
not looked upon with a degree of envy and a degree of, "gee,
that sounds too much".
MITCHELL:
Yeah, you'd be a bit crook if your Westpac fees had gone up though
wouldn't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you would be but your Westpac interest rates have gone down
a lot. And if you were a Westpac shareholder you would say thank you
to our Chief Executive who has turned the fortunes of the bank around.
Look, I am not here to answer for Westpac. I don't control it
and heaven forbid that the Federal Government should try and control
wages and remuneration of people be it in the banks, in the media
or anywhere else. But it does sound a lot of money and I don't
think you can bring in a system where those things are controlled,
I really don't.
MITCHELL:
I think [inaudible] Federal Government does attempt to argue the wages
of people and wage cuts.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but you are talking there about awards and you are talking there
about minimum wages, you are not talking about anything over and above
it if they are negotiated at the enterprise level.
MITCHELL:
Sure. Now, the GST. I notice the welfare lobby suggesting we're
right down the other end of the scale here suggesting that
they would trade-off some of the tax breaks if you would lift the
GST on food. Is that worth negotiating?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't. We've been down this track before. It's
very interesting that ACOSS, in particular, is finding...really
taking a slightly different tack. But in the end our position has
always been that you put it across the board and then you provide
compensation for low-income earners. And the problem with just taking
some items of food out, for example, is that everybody gets the benefit
of that. Bob Joss and Neil Mitchell and John Howard get the benefit
of that as much as the lowest paid person, if I may put it like that.
MITCHELL:
Is there any room for that sort of shuffling?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not if it involves breaking down the sort of unified application of
the GST on food. I mean, we thought long and hard about this in the
months leading up to releasing the policy. We talked to ACOSS for
months. We heard all the arguments and we decided that the best and
fairest thing to do was to apply it across the board and then give
special weighted additional compensation to low-income groups and
that's what we've done.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
MITCHELL:
We're taking calls for the Prime Minister. Let's be quick
there's several issues that have to be raised. Simon,
go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yes. I'd like to talk about the heroin situation. I'm a
patient at Dr Cosmenski...
MITCHELL:
I should tell Mr Howard he's a GP in Melbourne who specialises
in treating drug problems.
PRIME MINISTER:
Right.
CALLER:
Now, I get medication and...
MITCHELL:
What, are you an addict?
CALLER:
I was. I've been clean for about eight days now and I'm
still a little bit...not at the best of health. But anyway, the
medication is $200 a bottle for 30 tablets. Now, why is it so much?
MITCHELL:
Is that Naltrexone?
CALLER:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
You're asking me why is it so much I guess...
CALLER:
It's been in the country, it's been in the world for 15
years and we have to pay...I'm struggling, I don't have
a job...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's certainly...that's a fair question. I can't
give you all the reasons off-hand as to why it is that expensive.
It's obviously related, I guess, to the unavoidable fact that
relatively new drugs in this country are often expensive. I will get
some further information about that and convey it back through the
programme. I don't have it at my fingertips, I'm sorry.
I hope you continue to be successful and supported in your treatment.
And I think that's a fair question of somebody in your situation
to ask.
CALLER:
Thank you very much.
MITCHELL:
Simon, could I just ask you quickly we were talking earlier
about legalised supplies for addicts, what's your view of that?
CALLER:
I think it should be given a go because at the moment it's totally
out of hand. The newspaper reports saying that they've got it
under control, that the police are doing a good job, is a load of
rubbish.
MITCHELL:
How much were you paying for heroin?
CALLER:
Well, it depended whether you scored it off the street or you got
it through a dealer, as in like...
PRIME MINISTER:
Is it more expensive than the medication?
CALLER:
Well, it's different when you're on drugs because you manage
to do things like...I turned into a maniac and I did anything to
get my hit for the day and I'd steal and do anything for it.
Whereas, when you're not on it, you're a totally different
person. I've changed in the last seven days. I've changed
to a...I'm a different person. I think that it should be given
a go because what you're doing at the moment's not working.
MITCHELL:
Simon, thanks for calling. Mr Howard, thanks for that. I mean, to
me that's one of the best things that any leader can do is talk
directly to the people...I mean, a heroin addict you don't
bump into heroin addicts everyday in your role in life, do you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I've bumped into quite a number of people who've had
big problems with drugs and I've certainly spent a lot of time
with parents whose children have died as a result of drug abuse. I've
spent a lot of time with quite a number of parents over the years,
including my time as Prime Minister, and even with them you get vastly
different attitudes. I mean, some of them I've spoken to are
vehemently opposed to any kind of heroin trial, others have a different
view. It reflects the divide in the community. I don't imagine
that everybody associated with the sort of heroin abuse and drug addiction
has the view that what I might loosely call the let's give
it a try' view.
MITCHELL:
Simon, thanks for calling. Keep in touch and let us know how you go.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, good luck.
MITCHEL