18 August 1999
E&OE………………………………………………………………………………
LAIDLER:
I was thinking, in all the years you have been leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister I don’t think we have ever spoken before.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there’s always a first time and the pleasure is mine.
LAIDLER:
Thank you for making yourself available. I was trying to think then what I could, sort of, refer back to and I remember you launched a friend and sometimes colleague on this programme’s book. Brian Costa who is an associate professor in politics at Monash University. I remember you giving a speech when you weren’t in Government saying even then the two big items you thought faced Australia as we went into the next century were tax reform and further labour market flexibility. Are you half-way there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Three quarters.
LAIDLER:
Three quarters.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I do remember that. It was a book of…which had several contributors. It was an interesting publication and I do remember that occasion.
LAIDLER:
I wasn’t going to remind you it was about why John Hewson lost, I think.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, it was, I remember. And it had a photograph of a group of us on the frontbench, on the front page. I think we are about three-quarters there. We still have to implement what the Parliament has passed on tax reform and we still need to make decisions and implement business tax changes. And we are right in the middle of that now. Cabinet has started looking at the Ralph Report and it’s very complicated. It’s very good. It’s a very integrated document. There will be changes to the capital gains tax system because we need to make changes there. But we still have a distance to go because it’s a very complex subject. And we have come a long way with industrial relations reform. There are still some further changes to make. We would like to get our unfair dismissal laws through the Senate and we would like to entrench junior wages in the system. And I hope we can make progress particularly on the latter one because the Industrial Relations Commission has more or less agreed with our view that getting rid of youth wages would probably imperil the jobs of a lot of young people. So we’d like to make further progress on that.
LAIDLER:
I spoke to Meg Lees the other night and she said if there were any further changes to go through the Senate they would involve strengthening the role of the Industrial Relations Commission. Is there compromise to be had there? Can you envisage a strengthened Industrial Relations Commission in return for some of the things you are arguing for?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it depends, I guess, on what she means by a strengthened role. We generally prefer moving more and more down the path of allowing people to make their own bargains at the workplace subject to a proper safety net. We don’t believe in getting rid of the safety net and we won’t get rid of the safety net. I don’t believe in going down the American path of having no effective minima. I think that’s wrong, it’s not the Australian way and we are not going to do that.
LAIDLER:
It’s hard to see the role for an umpire in a bargain or a contract isn’t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, people can have a choice and we think you get better outcomes if people bargain. If they don’t want to do that, well, they shouldn’t be compelled to. But we have made a lot of progress in this area over the last few years. Our labour productivity has gone up a lot and we have got a lower rate of unemployment. Youth unemployment now is 5.8 percentage points lower than what it was when I became Prime Minister. Now, I am really pleased about that because you are really dealing with something that matters to the community and matters to your listeners and matters to you and me, and that is young people getting work.
LAIDLER:
I haven’t heard you comment, you may have, on Bill Kelty’s announcement of his intention to stand down. Has he been a significant union leader in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I think anybody who has held that position for a long time has been a significant union leader. But look, I don’t bear him any personal ill will. We’ve obviously had a lot of different views and we have obviously disagreed over the years. But he has made the decision to move on and I think Peter Reith has, sort of, put his role in the right historical context and I don’t know that I want to add to that. I don’t bear him any malice.
LAIDLER:
You wouldn’t concede that he’d been significant in actually achieving some wage restraint even, beyond sort of….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think you are inviting me to, sort of, go into a lot of….
LAIDLER:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
….and I am not wishing to be negative. I don’t believe in being gratuitously negative. On the other hand, he hasn’t, sort of, look I don’t want to say….
LAIDLER:
All right. Fair enough. The health system is also on the agenda at the moment. The Premiers’ asked for an inquiry. You said no to an inquiry.
PRIME MINISTER:
No to a productivity inquiry.
LAIDLER:
The Senate’s going to have one anyway.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well, that is very much a political exercise and I don’t think that will be taken all that seriously. We are not saying that the present system is perfect but we are saying for all its faults the Australian system is probably better than any in the world. If one is a battler it’s better to get sick in Broadmeadows than in the Bronx for example. And I think we can make improvements nonetheless and we are quite happy to sit down and talk to the States about ways in which consistent with the maintenance of Medicare…I mean, we are absolutely determined to keep Medicare. But there are things that can be done to improve the system. We are making a bit of progress with private health insurance.
LAIDLER:
There’s two bits of it though isn’t there? The bit that the Commonwealth administers itself which is the insurance….
PRIME MINISTER:
….and the overall Medicare system….
LAIDLER:
And going to the doctor….
PRIME MINISTER:
And things like medical research. We are doubling the funding in that. And we also have a role in giving the States money to supplement their efforts in the public hospitals.
LAIDLER:
But the bit that doesn’t seem to work though, or the States claim doesn’t work is the public hospital system which is too stretched they say.
PRIME MINISTER:
I certainly hear them say that and people will have to make their own evaluation because they after all are responsible for the public hospital system. I mean, the…and we have provided a big increase in the money that they are going to get over the next five years. And we have provided a big incentive for people to go into private health insurance. And the more people who are in private health insurance so it should be that there is less strain on public hospitals. Now, over the last 10 years we have had a steady decline in people in private health insurance. For the last two months for the first time since the mid 1980s, I think, you’ve actually seen increases in the number of people privately insured.
LAIDLER:
But you know it’s a funny market, the hospital market. If you free up some services in the public system demand will expand….
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I mean, part of the challenge is that with modern technology being expensive, quite properly, people expect and should receive access to the latest to find out what is wrong with them. I mean, every Australian, in my view, is entitled to a high quality of health care. It’s not something that should be rationed according to wealth as occurs in the United States and in some other parts of the world. By the same token if somebody makes provision to have a private bed and all that sort of thing they are entitled to have it because they have paid for it. You have got to strike a bit of a balance between those two things. But basic health care should be available to all Australians. Good quality basic health care ought to be available to all Australians.
LAIDLER:
With some principles like that established though why not put it to the Productivity Commission to see whether the way we….
PRIME MINISTER:
We paralyse decision making for 18 months. What happens when you establish these big inquiries is that everybody says, oh well let’s wait till we get the Productivity Commission inquiry and you get a big bank up. The Australian public frankly elects us to make decisions, not to hold inquiries to tell us what those decisions are. Occasionally inquiries help but, I think, we in this country are a bit inquiry’d out. And it’s a bit the situation where people actually want us to make decisions.
LAIDLER:
It didn’t work with gambling did it? The Productivity Commission had an inquiry into gambling and people kept making decisions all the time that the inquiry was….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that’s true. I mean, that’s a fair point to make. We have never had an inquiry of that type go into gambling before whereas the health system has been inquired to death. I mean, it really has. We have had inquiry after inquiry after inquiry into the health system. We have never looked at gambling before.
LAIDLER:
Did the results of the inquiry into gambling surprise you?
PRIME MINISTER:
The general direction didn’t. I think the statistical particulars did. The fact that we had 21 per cent of the worlds’ poker machines frankly alarmed and shocked me. I think that’s an appalling world record for any country to have. I am not proud of the fact that Australia has that.
LAIDLER:
Can we unscramble the egg? I mean, the GST legislation gives a clear revenue strength to the States so we don’t need to be so dependent on gambling you would argue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we certainly, the States are less dependent on gambling once the….less dependent on their own resources for tax once –including gambling – once the GST is up and running, yeah.
LAIDLER:
Should there be some contraction of the gambling….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, these are decisions… I mean, I would like to see gambling contract in this country. I mean, I will be criticised for saying so. But I think it is….
LAIDLER:
A lot of people would support you…
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a social evil excessive gambling. I mean, it didn’t…I mean, there have been poker machines in New South Wales since the middle 1950s which is a very long time ago. But I think there are people now in this country who are paying very dearly for their gambling addiction. It’s just not enough for people to say, oh well, it’s the fault of the Federal Government, you haven’t given the States enough money, etc, etc – no, it’s not. That’s an easy way out. I think all governments have a responsibility to prevent the further spread of gambling. I mean, in a small way, at a Federal level, although we don’t control it very much, there was a suggestion not so long ago from the airlines that they be allowed to have gambling on international flights and we made it very clear we wouldn’t agree to that. Now, you might say that’s only a small contribution.
LAIDLER:
What about gambling on the net? I mean, Minister Hallam here today discussing and canvassing issues associated with Victorian operators offering it, the Queensland Government in some disarray because they got involved in it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, my view is that I don’t want to see an expansion of gambling facilities in this country. If possible I’d like to see them contract. Now, by the nature of the division of responsibilities in our country most of the responsibilities for that falls to State governments, very little to the Federal Government because we just don’t control the day-to-day operations of things like poker machines, casinos, etc, etc, etc…
LAIDLER:
With the internet you do and you might…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have a role there and we would not want to see the expansion of facilities.
LAIDLER:
Right. Victorians find it very hard, Prime Minister, I’ve got to put this very directly, I think, to understand why the Federal Government doesn’t consider the Melbourne-Geelong road to be a Road Of National Importance. I think if you asked any Victorian what’s the most important road in the State they’d say the Melbourne-Geelong road.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I understand that. Look, I understand the feeling of Victorians about this and the Victorian Government and specifically the Premier talks to me about it from time to time. And let me say this, we’re continuing to discuss the issue with the Victorian Government.
LAIDLER:
When the State government wouldn’t put up the funds I think there was some reason for the Federal Government saying, well, we’re not going to look at this issue either.
PRIME MINISTER:
We have put up money for other roads of national importance in Victoria and if you look at the long sweep of Federal contribution under both Labor and Liberal governments to road funding in Victoria, Victoria has not been unfairly treated. There are some roads which are very heavily used in other parts of the country which are still lagging behind many of the roads in Victoria. So, it’s really – these sort of comparisons very much depend where you start. If you go back long enough everything’s fair and even. But, look, I understand the importance of that issue and…
LAIDLER:
Well, what are the criteria by which a road gets classified a road of national importance?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it has to do with traffic volumes. It has to do with, I guess, the quality of the carriageway, the existing – the quality of the carriageway. They’re fairly loose. I mean, we have a responsibility for national highways and then we have with the States a joint responsibility for roads of national importance and then further down the States have total responsibility for other roads. And local government has a role. And we provide some money to the States to discharge their general responsibility. We have a responsibility for national highways and then these RONIs or roads of national importance…
LAIDLER:
Why not just say it, why not say that in the next budget the Federal Government will match State government funding?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you can’t say that on the run.
LAIDLER:
It’s not exactly on the run, though, and I think there’s a cynicism out there in the electorate, seriously, that thinks you’re going to make that announcement in the context of a State election campaign.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you know, people are incurably cynical.
LAIDLER:
Another issue that’s come up on this programme on recent days is the question of a group of nurses who served in Vietnam as civilian nurses but often under fire and exposed to the same sort of risk as military nurses who went to Vietnam. I spoke to one of them just before the five o’clock news because it’s Vietnam Vets Day. And there’s about 120 of them. They’re not entitled to the same sort of repatriation benefits or veterans’ benefits that their defence counterparts are and are told when they have health problems to approach COMCARE. They say that’s what the voyager people were told too. Is there any way of getting the situation reviewed. It seems…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I’ve never personally looked at this to be honest. There could be reasons. I will have a look at it. I’ve not personally looked at it. I’m sure it has been looked at before. I haven’t. And without raising for a moment any expectation that it’s going to be changed, I will, as you’ve raised it, I will look at why this approach has been adopted. That’s, I guess, the only think I can say. I imagine one of the reasons is that if they’re not members of Army nursing corps, they weren’t subject to military discipline and all of those sorts of things. And therefore once you start saying yes to them you might have to say yes to a whole lot of other people. So there may be a hundred and one reasons why but I myself have never addressed them, so I will. But I may end up with the same negative response. But I will. I just don’t why. I’ve never turned my mind to it at before.
LAIDLER:
Were you concerned at all at the final rejection of your Government’s position by the committee for the elimination of racial discrimination who believe still that the changes the Government made to the native title regime, to get what you call certainty, has been made at the expense of the rights of indigenous people?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I’m not because I’m satisfied that the people who have authority to make laws in Australia, that’s the Parliament, were satisfied that those laws were okay and very much in line with a fair balance. I don’t believe that there was a balanced response by that committee. Given the whole background of that issue, and the compromises that were made along the line, I don’t think it’s reasonable of people, particularly who don’t really understand Australia. I mean I heard somebody speaking with great authority on the radio this morning. I don’t know whether he’s ever been to Australia or that he understands, and I must say I find it odd that people seek to interfere in our sovereignty. I mean this is a matter for Australia to decide, a matter for Australians. And after a lot of debate the Parliament of Australia decided what the balance was and I think most people think there was give and take. I certainly gave a lot in order to get a compromise and I think we got a fair balance. So the answer is no.
LAIDLER:
Satisfied with the final outcome of all the negotiations about the question to be put to the Australian people about the republic and also about the final preamble?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I am. I think we’ve got a good preamble and I hope people vote for it. As far as the republic is concerned I think we’ve got a very fair question. I hope people vote ‘no’ to it because I think we’ve got a very good system, and I support the present system because it works very effectively and I never believe in throwing out something that continues to work.
LAIDLER:
Funny to hear you though in two, you know, contiguous sentences arguing about the sovereignty of Australia and the sovereignty of the Australian….
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah. Well it’s interesting you should say that because some of the people who argue most passionately for an Australian republic would be perfectly happy to hand over to the United Nations control of some of these things. So in a sense they are defeating their own argument. Look, the republican issue does not revolve around sovereignty. This is an independent country whether you are a republic or a constitutional monarchy. Australia is an utterly independent country with total control over her own affairs. And if people want a republic, well they shouldn’t arguing for it on those grounds, they should be arguing on some other grounds. Nobody can suggest that this is not an independent country and that we don’t run our own affairs.
LAIDLER:
If the republic question gets up, what will you feel like? How will it be to be the Prime Minister who has to put into the place the mechanisms of the republic even though you’re opposed to it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that often happens in a democracy that you do things that you don’t necessarily [inaudible] or are involved in. But I always said that I would let the public decide this. They would know my view. I would put it. But I always said that I would put it to the Australian people and I told the Australian people that before I became Prime Minister. I promised them that. I also told them what my view was. I’ve never disguised my view and I won’t disguise my view but I accept that in the end this is not really something for me, or Kim Beazley, or Jeff Kennett or anybody else to decide. It’s really a question for all of the Australian people to decide and whatever they decide I will accept and be part of because I’m an Australian, and my total affection and allegiance is to this country and always has been and always will be. And if the Australian people voting together decide to do something, well I go along with that. But I think it would be better for the stability and the general good government of this country if we continue with the present system because it is a remarkably effective system which we’ve been endowed with by an accident of history. And I think we’d be making a mistake to put it aside.
LAIDLER:
Prime Minister, great to meet you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Ends]