E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………….
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello there, Neil, how are you?
MITCHELL:
Well, thank you. Can you guarantee that university fees won’t go up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can guarantee that we’ll stick to the policy that we announced in May of last year when the West Report came out. It was repeated by Dr Kemp. That’s what I can guarantee.
MITCHELL:
What does that mean to fees?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it means that we’ll not have deregulated fees. In other words, the Government will always maintain a control over what the level of the fee is. And we’ll also not be providing a voucher system and we won’t be introducing the HECS charge for TAFE courses. They were the three major commitments we made in the wake of the West Report.
MITCHELL:
Well, will you be introducing real interest rates on the HECS charges?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that is an issue that needs to be considered. I’m not going to rule things in or out beyond what I said yesterday and what I’ve just repeated. That would be silly because we’ve got a Cabinet submission coming up very soon and we’ll look at some of these other things. Now, one of the things that Dr Kemp is canvassing, and I think it’s very sensible, is a device to provide more assistance to some of the people who now miss out on university to get in to university. I don’t think anybody could possibly object to that. This is a difficult area. Everybody wants to increase the provision for higher education but no government can afford to pay it all. Well, I mean, we did have free, allegedly free, university tuition introduced by the Whitlam Government and it was a Labor government, with our support in Opposition, let me say, that introduced a change to that through the HECS system.
MITCHELL:
The academics, I saw several of them saying yesterday, we’ve finally got HECS bedded down and working properly, why change it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that’s quite a good argument and I think you’ll see coming out of the discussions we have very soon that HECS is not going to undergo any fundamental change.
MITCHELL:
Well, with no fundamental change to HECS, where will the change be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, HECS doesn’t provide for people who miss out on the funded places, does it? And there are a lot of people who miss out on university and at the moment there’s a limited capacity for universities to look after those people if they pay full fees. Now, that was opposed by the people who were demonstrating yesterday. I mean, one of the strange things about the student demonstrators is that they have, many of them, consistently opposed ways and means of getting more students into universities. It’s a juggling act. As far as the Government is concerned we will always have at the core of the system the funded places whereby we provide money to the universities for a certain number of places. If there’s a HECS charge made you can either pay it upfront or you can pay it back when you start to earn a decent income. Now, that is a good system.
MITCHELL:
I guess the basis to it, the basis of the problem, is whether people who want to go to university and should be able to go to university will be able to afford to go to university.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they will always be able to afford to go university under this government. I think there’s a general consensus in the community that they’ll always be able to afford to go to university but there’s also a consensus in the community, if they can afford to do so they ought to make some contribution to the cost of their university education. I mean, I have a couple of children at university and my kids have all gone through university, if you can afford to make some contribution you should. I mean, I don’t believe that people on my income or incomes much lower than mine, that their children should have a completely free university education. It’s just – no country can afford that.
MITCHELL:
Well, who should have a free university education?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, people who are genuinely in very, very difficult circumstances the HECS system allows them to get essentially a free education, they really do. And, I mean, let’s not lose sight of the fact that that is the current situation and that’s not going to change but there are obviously things that can be done to make the situation better. We do have to get more private money into universities because there’s a limit to how much you can increase the government money into universities. And that, in a sense, the balance between those two is what this debate, in many respects, is all about. We’re not about to embark upon another cut in university funding. Our universities made a contribution three years ago when we had a $10.5 billion deficit and they made a contribution to that, I acknowledge that, and I know there was a lot of resentment in the sector over that. So, we’re not about to ask them for another contribution.
MITCHELL:
You’re not going to ask people for a contribution but are you going to ask the parents or the students for a larger contribution?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can go back to what I said at the beginning. The ..(inaudible).. in that is that we’re not going to walk away from the current system and I don’t foresee any fundamental change. If you’re saying to me, will fees remain at a particular level forever, nobody can guarantee that but I can guarantee we’re not going to have $100,000 university degree courses. We’re not going to deregulate university fees. We’re not going to introduce a voucher system. We’re not going to have HECS charges for TAFE courses. And if we ever get to a situation where you can’t have some kind of debate about improving a system without hysteria – that $100,000 figure incidentally is not in Dr Kemp’s submission.
MITCHELL:
But if we’re not going to do any of these things, why has a submission out them up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are a lot of things in that submission.
MITCHELL:
Are they recommendations?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Dr Kemp has outlined a number of options and he’s expressed his preference for a particular course of action…
MITCHELL:
So, in a sense, he’s put it up but you’ve overruled it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we’re having a discussion in Cabinet about it but I’ve made it clear, because of the public debate that certain things are simply not going to occur and so has Dr Kemp.
MITCHELL:
I’ve suggested, Mr Howard, that rather than students barracading themselves in offices and getting arrested they give you a call. We’ll take some. Vicky, hello, go ahead.
CALLER:
Yes, hello. My question to Mr Howard is, I’m a 35 year-old single mother who’s gone back to university to get a degree in Melbourne and I’m concerned that I’ll be in debt for the rest of my life.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as a result of what.
CALLER:
As a result of what you’re trying to, or what you’re…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you won’t be. I mean, that is just not going to happen.
MITCHELL:
Okay, Stan, hello, go ahead.
CALLER:
Yeah, good morning, Neil, good morning, Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I’m just inquiring about the comparison between university students and the Australian Institute of Sport. We have these students that go through the Australian Institute of Sport become top athletes, that’s at taxpayers’ expense, and a lot of them go on to become multimillionaires through sponsorship. Why isn’t it that there’s some type of fee placed upon them where they make a contribution back to the institute so therefore it relieves the taxpayers’ expense?
MITCHELL:
That’s an interesting one.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can understand some people feeling that. We don’t have any plan to do it but I can understand why some people would take that view and you’re really underlining the point I made a moment ago that no country, no government, Liberal or Labor, can afford to have free universities. We just can’t. And it’s a question of what is the right balance and I think the balance at the moment is about right. I’m not looking for a major increase in the contribution from students or their parents, I’m certainly not. On the other hand, if the Labor Party runs around saying we’re going to cut the HECS charges and we’re going to do this and we’re going to do that, I simply say, well, you’ll do that at the expensive of other things or through higher taxation. So you’ve got to strike a balance. But you make an interesting point and you highlight the other side of this debate and that is if students don’t make a contribution then clearly the rest of the community has got to pick up the tab or there’ll be fewer places. So we have to keep a degree of realism.
MITCHELL:
Just to get back to the point of commercial interest rates on the student loans put on HECS – is that still a possibility?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what I’ve done is I’ve made it clear that when we look at the submission we’ll do so against the background of certain commitments. And it’s silly of me to respond in further detail beyond that.
MITCHELL:
But you’ve ruled several things out. You’re not ruling this one out.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what I’ve done is to reiterate, repeat, the promises that have already been made and to say that those promises will be honoured in full. As to the rest of it, we’ll have a look at the submission and announce our decision. So people shouldn’t assume that everything else that is in the ether is going to be accepted. So at this stage I’m not willing to deal with the submission on your or anybody else’s radio programme. I’ve said, look, we’ve got certain promises, as far as I am concerned, and I’m sure as far as the Cabinet is concerned, those promises are sacrosanct. As to the rest of the submission, we’ll deal with it on the merits when it arrives on the Cabinet list.
MITCHELL:
Okay, we’ll take another call. Sarah, hello.
CALLER:
Hello. I have a 19 year-old student at university at the moment doing biomedical science who then wants to go on and do medicine and then a PHD in genetics and do medical research. She’s extremely concerned about the debt that we’ll have at the end of all these courses and yet she’s the sort of student we should be encouraging to stay in this country and not go overseas where she has had offers. If we want to keep Australia the clever country we need to have these students doing these sort of very involved, long degrees. What sort of bill will she have and can she guarantee that won’t be changed now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I agree with you that that sort of thing is what we should encourage. And might I incidentally point out, you talk about medical research, my Government in the last budget announced that it was going to double, double, the amount of government money going into health and medical research in Australia over the next four years. We have, in fact, done an enormous amount for that. But your specific question is that, once again, it’s a balance. What you have described is a hugely valuable asset to Australia but it is also a very long course of instruction.
MITCHELL:
Sarah’s also opened an interesting point there. If once the student enters into the degree, as her daughter has, under an existing scheme, would you change that on them or once they’ve entered it are they locked into that? So, do you – if you make a change to the scheme, does it apply as from now or does it apply from…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can’t give you a blanket answer to that until Cabinet has had a look at the submission and I don’t want anybody to infer from that that we have those sort of proposals in mind. But, I mean, it’s just not sensible of me on the run to say, yes and no.
MITCHELL:
No, fair enough but…
PRIME MINISTER:
But the general point the lady raises is really my point of balance. I would say in relation to her daughter that somebody who has the aspiration and the ability to do that, it should be affordable for her and she should not be burdened with an impossibly large debt when she has finished. But, equally, if at the end of the day she earns a very good income there’s nothing wrong with the rest of the community saying, well, you make a contribution out of your very good income towards the cost of your long university education. Now, surely that is a fair balance.
MITCHELL:
Sure, I guess I’m just making the point of whether, you wouldn’t change the ground rules half way through. If you’re half way through a degree and you’ve…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it’s always undesirable, well, it’s certainly undesirable to retrospectively impose charges.
MITCHELL:
Hello, Les – well, it wouldn’t be retrospective, it would be just…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, well, we’re certainly not going to do that.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, but if you change – will it apply to somebody half way through their degree?
PRIME MINISTER:
We don’t have any plans to do that but don’t get me into a situation where I’m saying yes or no to every single question because, frankly, I don’t have Cabinet submission in front of me and I’m not really in a position to do that.
MITCHELL:
Okay, we’ll take one more call and then move on to some other matters. Hello, Les, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning, Neil, good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
Prime Minister, I’ve got two points. Firstly, I’m pretty satisfied with the HECS that I’m on at the moment.
PRIME MINISTER:
What are you doing, Les?
CALLER:
Law student at Deakin University.
PRIME MINISTER:
What year?
CALLER:
Second year. And my point is that I don’t see how any government can put a value on education, in that how can you say that we have to pay even more when other countries are striving to make their education systems free at tertiary level.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s not right. Other countries are not….I mean it’s certainly not free the tertiary level in most other countries. I mean the idea of free education at a tertiary level in Australia which was tried by the Whitlam Government was a total failure. And it was in fact changed by a Labor government. I mean let’s understand this that the modern concept of having a contribution from the student was introduced by a Labor government. Now we supported it in opposition because we recognised that the government couldn’t afford to have free education. And free education was not something working class people’s children get greater access. What is happening, what I’m arguing for and it’s basically what we have now, is a balanced system where the government and the general community makes a contribution, but tot he extent that students can afford to do so, they or their families make a contribution. Now that is fair. I don’t expect free education for my children and I don’t think anybody on comfortable incomes in this community should.
MITCHELL:
Sure.
[Commercial Break]
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard I raise this, reluctantly but I’ve had a lot of calls from people who are very angry about the attention your son was given when he appeared in court this week. Now it’s not his fault you’re his dad. Did you get a bit angry about the attention of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would rather it’d not happened, but the more I say about it I just run the risk of further publicity and I won’t say any more.
MITCHELL:
Fair enough. Okay, I felt obliged to raise it basically because there’s a lot of people concerned about it, and well angry about it.
PRIME MINISTER:
That’s nice of them and I appreciate that very much.
MITCHELL:
Now, Federal politicians, a pay rise being considered. Correct?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there hasn’t been one since the end of 1996 which was three years ago. So some adjustment would be quite fair and reasonable. Just what it will be and when or how it might happen is something to be discussed. But I know it’s not popular and I know nobody supports it, but the truth is there has been no increase at all since the end of 1996, and that’s almost three years ago. So surely some adjustment would be defensible and proper. And I don’t mind saying that. Just exactly how it would happen and whatever remains to be seen. But I don’t think anybody can say there’s been no rise since 1996 it would be unreasonable for there to be some adjustment.
MITCHELL:
Are any figures being discussed yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are some approaches, concepts, formulae being considered, and they would themselves produce particular figures. There’s a bit of sort of suggestions around in the media. Some of them are less accurate than others. But I’m not shy of saying that some adjustment would be quite justified. It’s a question of it being reasonable. I know it’s not popular but you asked me the question, that’s the situation. It hasn’t been touched since late in ’96. There’s no doubt that compared with equivalent responsibility born by others in the community outside politics, senior ministers for example, are not as well paid as their peers who don’t have any greater and in many cases less responsibility in business and entertainment.
MITCHELL:
Will it be voted on in Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends how it occurs. Whether it’s something done by way of a formula or whatever. The old system we had was that it was tied to a particular classification in the public service. And that disappeared because with enterprise bargaining you don’t have those clear classifications and different devices are being looked at. But it it’ll be no more than something that is reasonable and comparable to community standards.
MITCHELL:
Could it be backdated?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s too early for me to say that, whether it would or it wouldn’t. I think complete backdating would be hard to defend and I wouldn’t be arguing for it.
MITCHELL:
Do you….I agree with you, I think politicians are underpaid…
PRIME MINISTER:
This is an eternal dilemma and whenever it gets raised I think oh, this is outrageous because if you look at our salary compared with average weekly earnings it’s still a comfortable income but it hasn’t been increased for three years. There are other people in the community like that, there are other people in the community who have had regular cost of living rises. I mean, if we’d have had just an ordinary cost of living rise over the last three years the incomes would have been probably $10,000 or more ahead of what they are now and that would have just happened normally and there wouldn’t have been any questions. But when you have a delay like this any sort of adjustment is, sort of, a bit bigger than normal because nothing’s happened for three years and then you get the hoo haa, it’s terrible, they are getting paid all of this and etc. Now, you can never solve this, this is a dilemma for any government, any Prime Minister. But you can’t ignore it, I mean, members of Parliament have families, have bills, mortgages like everybody else….
MITCHELL:
What about you as Prime Minister do you feel underpaid?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I never complain about what I get. I didn’t go into politics for the money. Nobody goes into politics for the money.
MITCHELL:
Do you know how much it is?
PRIME MINISTER:
Me? I think it’s somewhere in the order of $230,000.
MITCHELL:
The head of TABCORP, he gets $1.56 million to run a monopoly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well exactly.
MITCHELL:
Plus $70 million in share options.
PRIME MINISTER:
I certainly don’t have a monopoly. My job gets…is on the line every day. I am not saying other people’s jobs aren’t on the line and I respect the burdens that company directors carry. But I don’t think anybody could remotely suggest that the Prime Minister’s income in this or any other country is anywhere near what corporation chiefs get. Now, look, that’s the system. I don’t want…I am not asking for a pay rise, let me make it clear, I am not, I am not. I came into politics for other reasons and I have a comfortable income and I am well looked after and I am better off than most in the community and my concern is for people on $30,000 or $40,000 a year. But I can’t, nonetheless, deny the entitlement of the average Member of Parliament to a proper adjustment and Ministers and the whole system. A just ordinary, reasonable, comparable to cost of living adjustment would be more than satisfactory.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, banks. The Financial Union this week, the Financial Services Union, suggesting it was time for the Government to get involved because Westpac was cutting staff and planning to close branches and to an extent the Bank of Melbourne and Victoria. And I have got the head of the Commonwealth Bank in New York saying he doesn’t see why we need bank branches everybody should be on the Internet which is, in my view, nonsense. Is there a possibility of the Government getting involved and saying, hang on you have got to maintain a basic service with banks?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, in a way we have done that by resisting the push of banks to merge. And that’s, I mean, it’s pretty well known that there is a strong desire on the part of the major banks to remove what’s known as the four pillars policy which would allow mergers to take place and you would have fewer and larger big banks. We have resisted that and as a consequence of that I think you do end up with more branches. Now, they will argue that some of those branches are uneconomic, perhaps they are but there is more to banking than the bottom line just as there is more to governments than budget surpluses. You have got to have a mix. And I think modern banking is fantastic, it’s very much a generational thing. Younger people use electronic banking, they are up with everything. The idea of marching into a teller and pulling out your wad of notes and with your passbook and that is something many under 25’s don’t even know. But for older people it’s part of the enjoyment of a day. And I think there has got to be a mix and I think the banks have got to understand that there are social obligations. They have privileges. Australian banks are very profitable by world standards and they have obligations. We all have obligations and all of us in this age have got to understand that there’s a balance to be struck between efficiency and fairness, a balance to be struck between the economies of scale but also maintaining a basic infrastructure in the regional community. And those things have got to be a fair mix.
MITCHELL:
Can I just ask you very quickly, are you concerned by the political instability in Victoria? Are we still…
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, look, I am sure that it’ll get resolved. I mean, I think it would be a terrible shame if Jeff Kennett doesn’t continue. I mean, I have had my differences with Jeff, colourful differences on occasions. But he has been a terrific Premier and he has changed the face of Victoria for the better. And I just hope that that is something that people keep in mind. I mean, in the end if you are voting for Victoria’s future you should ask your self who has done the most for Victoria over the past few years and who is likely to give Victoria the better future and I come down 100 per cent to Jeff.
MITCHELL:
And could I ask you just finally are you a member of the Tattersall’s Club in Sydney?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I am an honorary member of City Tatts.
MITCHELL:
You didn’t get one of these Olympic ticket offers did you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, not that I am aware of. I mean stuff flows in and out, no, I am certainly not aware of that. Perhaps they don’t make that available to honorary members but I am not aware of it. It hasn’t to my knowledge crossed my desk but I’ll go back and check but I don’t think so. I mean, I do get a lot of stuff that, sort of, comes and goes but I don’t remember that, no.
MITCHELL:
I think it’ll fire up a lot of people….
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but I am not aware of that but I am not.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
[ends]