E&OE................................................................................................................
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Good morning to the Prime Minister
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Tony, Leigh.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Prime Minister, the ETSA sale.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
I see that you that you have now effectively weighed into the debate,
saying yes, it should be sold. What's prompted you to be drawn
on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I was asked about it. And I believe that governments are better
out of commercial undertakings. There is plenty of evidence that consumers
benefit and there is a better deal all round if those sorts of assets
are privatised. So, I've had a very consistent view on this,
I've argued the cause of privatisation going right back to the
middle 1980s when it wasn't very fashionable and I've kept
steady support for the privatisation of government business undertakings
either at a Federal or State level.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
I think many South Australians, though, feel historically very nervous
about selling off what they see as the family silver.
PRIME MINISTER:
They shouldn't because if you look at the experience of the United
Kingdom and the experience of Victoria, you will find the consumer
gets a better deal. And the idea that if you leave everything in State
ownership, you never have any break downs, you never have any failures
is disproved by a century of experience. I mean that is the greatest
furphy of all about the maintenance of public ownership, this idea
that if you keep it in public ownership you never have any break down.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
You talk about the Victorian experience and I know that the Kennett
Government is about to issue or has issued a payback where households
in Victoria are receiving a cash amount back. But in terms of the
quality of the service and the price they're paying on an ongoing
basis, is it a better deal?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes it is. It's a better deal all round, and that's been
the experience in the United Kingdom as well. And the argument in
favour of privatising assets like ETSA is an argument about consumer
benefit, it's not, but there are also other benefits. The proceeds
of the sale would equal the non-commercial debt of this state. And
you can't ignore the probably $500 to $550 million a year that
would be save on an ongoing basis.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
So are you for the sale of ETSA because that's an ideology that
you would deliver [inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm for the sale of ETSA for the reasons I've just explained,
and they're not ideological, they're good common sense reasons.
Consumers benefit, as demonstrated in Victoria and the United Kingdom
and the State will benefit and this State does have a big debt.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Absolutely.
PRIME MINISTER:
And a lot of it was racked up a few years ago, you know how. And it's
really beholden on those who are responsible racking up that debt
to let this sale go through.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Was it fair to have a swipe at Nick Xenophon?
PRIME MINISTER:
What do you mean to have a swipe at him?
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Well to say that he doesn't have a mandate to hold this up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think anything that makes common sense and is beneficial for
the state ought to be supported.
TONY PILKINGTON:
Prime Minister, just on the getting onto the drug issue, you met with
FBI Director Louis Freeh I mean the result of those, that conversation,
you're still opposed to the idea of heroin trials?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but I, I didn't really form that opposition, or develop that
opposition as a result of talking to Mr Freeh. I listened to what
he had to say. He agreed with me that a heroin trial would be inadvisable.
He also said that the policing methods described as zero tolerance
policing methods had been successful in reducing violent crimes in
many parts of the United States and that it hadn't resulted in
the crime problem being shifted from one spot to another. There's
a mistaken view around that I've sort of suddenly developed views
on some of these things as a result of talking to Mr Free or this
or that person, I've really had these views for some time.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
What's your main objection to a heroin trial. Why don't
you think it would do anything to help the [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've got a number of reasons why I object to it. One of
them is that it would send entirely the wrong single to people. In
one sense you are saying to people, don't touch it, its absolutely
lethal, dangerous, and you could be an addict for life. And then in
the next breath you are, no matter how you dress up a heroin trial,
in effect saying, well look it's not really all that bad, we
are going to in fact supervise your using the drug. There is a, to
me there is an enormous conflict in that. The second observation I'd
make is that I understand that people who are, if you did have a heroin
trial you would probably be involving yourself in doses four or six
times a day in some cases. Methadone on the other hand is administered
once a day. From a practical point of view, you start having heroin
trials, what you've in effect got to do over a period of time,
if it expands if it's quote, successful, and it expands, you've
got to provide very, very extensive facilities. There will be pressure
for people to actually take the doses away from the administering
centre. Once that happens you have the problem that they can then
be grabbed and cut down and used and sold and so forth. But my main
objection is that if a substance is so bad that you from the beginning
you are encouraging people not to take it and then in the next breath
you are saying, well we will provide you with a safety net if you
decide to take it. I think that is sending a very conflicting message.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Is there, can I take you up on that, because a lot of people might
say, look, what we're saying is not it's okay to take heroin
and we'll help you to do that. But a heroin trial would recognise
that there are people for whom heroin is desperately unsafe and they're
taking it in unsafe surroundings in an unsafe environment that leads
to things like petty crime and low ...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, well, I mean, the greatest incidence of crime arising out
of drug use is when people commit crime to get money to buy heroin
or other drugs to feed their habit. So that's the crime element,
the greatest crime element.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
So if you've got a heroin trial where people ...
PRIME MINISTER:
You're talking here, hang on, you're talking here about
administering heroin to a small number of people in a trial. Now what
happens if that trial is judged successful. Are you arguing then that
it should be legalised?
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Well, I'm arguing then that maybe we have to look at the fact...
PRIME MINISTER:
No but hang on..
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
If those people involved in the heroin trial are not out knocking
off my house and pinching my TV and video, doesn't that suggest
that there is a link between the potential success of a heroin trial
and petty crime?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's not been a case in the world where a heroin trial has
been demonstrated to be successful. Even the much vaunted trial in
Switzerland. The evidence coming out of that at best very, very equivocal.
And I find it quite astonishing that there should be this enormous
focus on a heroin trial and yet there are a number of other substances
which, including methadone, which are a substitute for heroin, the
rapidity with which they must be administered, they don't need
to be administered anywhere nearly as frequently and you do not have
the conflicting message problem. I mean, there is something, you have
to ask yourself a common sense question. You are on the one hand saying
something is lethal and forbidden, verboten etc and it will destroy
your life if you take it. But then in the next breath you send a message,
well, look don't worry if you do get hooked on it we will provide
a more congenial environment for it to be used. I think that's
very conflicting messages.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
But if you talk about issues like methadone for example, I mean we've
had well yesterday we had an extraordinary number of callers saying,
look forget heroin if you get onto methadone, you cannot get off it.
Methadone is probably...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, in a sense that's an argument against a heroin trial isn't
it. Because what you're really saying ... I mean that is the
very point. I mean that is an argument against any kind. That is an
argument...
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
But if you're saying alternatives...
PRIME MINISTER:
That is an argument for having an approach everybody going completely
cold turkey.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
All right, if we don't have a heroin trail, and you're saying
there is an alternative or a number of alternative substances, such
as methadone, what do we do? Do we maintain the status quo? What is
the plan for those people who are currently addicted to heroin, much
and all as they don't want to be. Not those potential new users,
but the large group of Australians who are addicted to heroin. What
do we do with them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the first thing you do is you keep it in proportion. The percentage
of the population that has been touched by heroin directly themselves
in one way or another is less than two per cent, so you have got to
keep the thing in proportion. Now, that is still a very large number
of people, but I think we have got to keep this thing in proportion.
I don't believe that the answer is to embrace something which
has not been demonstrated anywhere else in the world to have been
successful and does involve sending that conflicting signal and in
the one breath saying to a person, well this is a very bad substance,
and you mustn't under any circumstances touch it, but don't
worry if you do there will be some kind of safety net provided. What
those who argue for a heroin trial have not demonstrated to me is
that there is any example around the world of this thing having worked
successfully.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Does that mean it couldn't work successfully here simply because
there's no precedent?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but what it does mean that before you take a leap into that unknown
with all of the drawbacks that are involved, you ought at least take
that into account.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
All right, well given that situation, what's the alternative?
What are we doing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the alternative... well, first of all I don't accept
that a heroin trial is a demonstrated alternative. It would be an
entirely different matter if it had been demonstrated elsewhere to
have really worked and to have really improved the situation. But
I think you have a situation where people are saying because we're
concerned about the present situation let's try something else
just for the sake of trying something else. And I've listened
to some of the advocates of a heroin trial and they've never
really taken the argument any further than that. They've all
said, oh, well look, we might as well try it. Now, I don't agree
with that sort of approach, particularly when there is no field evidence,
practical evidence around the world, and particularly when there is
very, very conflicting messages sent by embracing the trial of something
which ten seconds earlier you were saying is the foulest substance
in the world.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Well, obviously you are not a fan of heroin trial and I accept that.
TONY PILKINGTON:
What about Naltrexone as a substitute [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Naltrexone is now able to be prescribed by doctors. And it's
believed because of the trial and it's been very carefully trialed.
And it's regarded as very effective. Now, I'm not a doctor,
none of us are, and I have to rely on expert advice in areas like
this and that expert advice says that this is suitable for prescription
and it's been prescribed.
TONY PILKINGTON:
Prime Minister on a different tack alltogether when we're talking
about our drug problem, any though of increasing the number of federal
police in countries like Burma? Now [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
We have done that quite recently.
TONY PILKINGTON:
We have yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
One of the ...
TONY PILKINGTON:
We get about 97/98 per cent of the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Ninety eight per cent of it comes out of Burma. A lot of it comes
through China I am told. When we announced our Tough on Drugs Strategy
last year, which involved spending about $290 million over four years,
we included in that the recruitment and postings in Thailand and other
countries of a number of federal police officers. And I spoke to the
Federal Police Commissioner, Mr Palmer about that on Friday.
TONY PILKINGTON:
This is an increased number we're talking about here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
TONY PILKINGTON:
How many. I mean are we talking..
PRIME MINISTER:
I think off hand, you're talking about 16 agents located in different
countries. That figure may not be exactly right. But I'm, I'm
open minded about additions to that. The stationing of our own police
officers in source countries or near the source countries or transit
countries is a very important element of catching people who are importing
this stuff.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
I suppose that's what a lot of people might say. Look, we're
putting a lot of focus on the users, and many of them can't help
themselves, are we putting enough focuses, emphasis and attention
on the big boys, on the people who are bringing it in?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you need a three pronged approach. You need to spend money on
law enforcement and we are putting more into that. You need to spend
money on education, and you also need to spend a lot more money on
treatment. I mean, I am utterly and completely and totally sympathetic
to any person who is addicted to heroin or, indeed, any other harmful
drug. We don't have enough treatment facilities in this country.
It has traditionally been a state responsibility and I don't
think collectively the States have done a particularly good job on
this over the years, but I'm not sort of saying it in any political,
party political sense. And we decided last year for the first time
at a Federal level we would fund treatment programmes. And I get very
upset when I hear and read of people who can't get their son
or their daughter into a treatment programme. That is very distressing
and we want to try and do something more about that.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Prime Minister, just before we go to the break, I know coming up in
April, here in Adelaide, there is an Australian conference on drug
strategy. Now there is about 500 people coming along to that. And
I believe you can't attend that. Is that right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the date, the very moment they want me to address that is a
Cabinet meeting and, I'm trying to organise an alternative date.
I think it goes on over a period of two days and if they can accommodate
me some other time of the conference [inaudible] a different matter.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Because I think that they would be certainly very keen.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I understand that. But it's very difficult for Prime Ministers
to miss Cabinet meetings...
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Funny that.
PRIME MINISTER:
When he's meant to chair them when he's in Australia.
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
But obviously you know about it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I certainly know about it and if I can't go it will be
because the time they want me to address the meeting coincides with
the Cabinet meeting. Now I obviously have to give preference to a
cabinet meeting.
TONY PILKINGTON:
Our guest is Prime Minister John Howard....
[News break]
LEIGH MCCLUSKY:
Prime Minister, first call this morning is down at Netley from Chris.
Good morning to you.
CALLER:
Good morning everyone.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Chris.
CALLER:
Mr Premier....ah Prime Minister, sorry, I apologise.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's all right.
CALLER