E&OE...................................................................................................
JOURNALIST:
Is the heroin trial an option at all...(inaudible)... constructive
alternatives?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I am looking for constructive alternatives but the views that
I have on a heroin trial have not changed. And those views are based
not on some kind of old-fashioned knee jerk reaction of a heroin trial,
they are based on examining what has happened in relation to those
trials around the world. They are also based on a concern I have that
there's always a danger in our society that when a problem looks
as though it may be extremely difficult to solve then a rather instinctive
reaction of some people is to say, well, let's try this, and
maybe that'll solve it without thinking through the consequences
of trying that alternative. And there are many people who believe
that the conduct of a heroin trial would send a very bad signal, would
say to the community that it represents the first step down towards
a far more liberal approach to the drug activity and to the drug trade.
And they are some of the reasons why I don't support a heroin
trial. Could I also say that I think it's important that the
issue of a heroin trial whether you are for it or against it is not
really the major issue. The major issue is to have an effective strategy
in those three areas. So much of the debate now is either about a
heroin trial or the law enforcement side. Now, the law enforcement
is very important but so is education and so is rehabilitation. And
we have put more resources than any Federal Government of the past,
and I don't say that critically of former federal governments,
I am not interested in pointing the finger at former federal governments
or indeed of any State governments. We have put more resources into
rehabilitation through the programmes I announced progressively through
1997 and 1998 than any federal government.
JOURNALIST:
What do you think of the comments last night of the New South Wales
[inaudible]...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't agree with him nor I notice does Mr Carr and nor
I notice does the New South Wales Coalition. I don't believe
that the community supports the sort of approach that Mr Cowdery outlined.
I respect his view. I mean, one of the difficulties in this issue
is that everybody who is styled as an expert has a different point
of view. And people say, let's have a meeting of experts. That's
fine, the problem is you won't get a united view out of the experts.
Some people who work in the field have a very different view from
others. I have talked to many parents who have lost children from
drug overdoses and one of the perplexing, difficult tragic things
in those discussions apart from the personal hurt so many of them
feel understandably, and the sense of desolation that they feel, is
that they too have very different views. Some of those parents have
a view that no response can be tough enough. Others have a completely
different view and what that really means is that in the end you have
got to use your best judgement as a human being and you can't
just say....it's not just a medical problem, it's a behavioural
problem. Of course people start substance abuse and drug taking because
of unhappiness and depression and a sense of personal failure and
a lack of self-esteem. There are a whole variety of personal reasons
as to why people start and, of course, it's right when people
say the way you stop it is to attack the causes. But successfully
attacking the causes of itself is not a good enough response to the
community. No community will accept a government that goes soft on
people who are making money out of other people's misery and
death. And any government that even breathes of that is a government
that is failing the community but equally we have a responsibility
to help the victims of drug abuse. And when I talk about zero tolerance
I am talking about zero tolerance on drug traffickers, I am talking
about zero tolerance in schools but I am also talking about having
an understanding of people who have got a problem and helping those
people through rehabilitation programmes.
JOURNALIST:
Those proposals that you are taking to the meeting.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I am not going to even talk about the detail of them yet
but obviously they'll be proposals that are constructive. And
I am deliberately going to have the meeting....the meeting's
on the 9th of April that's after the New South Wales
election and I think that's the right time to have it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, will there be any diversion [inaudible]....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's an ongoing thing and you need to take...to have
fresh proposals or variations of proposals all the time. But I am
not going to, at this stage, foreshadow what's going to be in
them. I am simply going to say that I'll go to that meeting keen
to discuss the issue with the State Premiers keen to ensure that what
we are already doing collectively is understood by the Australian
community. I am not interested in a polemical debate about, you know,
who is, sort of, keener on tackling drug abuse and whether one person
is more active than the next. I am just interested in working together
and I'll have some new ideas to put on the table. But they certainly
won't in any way derogate from or undermine or be contrary to
what we have already proposed. Because what we have already proposed
is really a very, very strong programme.
JOURNALIST:
Do State governments need to increase police numbers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I don't want to get into...look, I mean, I think one
of the last things that should happen in this debate is that States
should be giving the Federal Government a, sort of, unsolicited generic
advice and that the Federal Government should be giving the States
unsolicited generic advice. I would say to any State Premier of Australia
who is seriously interested in co-operating with me and in co-operating
with the Federal Government, let us sit down first of all in private
and have a serious discussion about it, otherwise it simply becomes
a captive of the normal political exchange that goes on between Premiers
and Prime Ministers. And frankly this is too serious for that sort
of issue. I am not interested in saying who is right or who is wrong
at a State level. I don't care what their politics are but I
am interested in having a serious discussion with the elected Premiers
and Chief Ministers of the States and Territories of Australia on
the 9th of April. But until then I am not going to be found
to be criticising any State Premiers and frankly if they are interested
in working with us they shouldn't be seeking to, sort of, demonstrate
that they are more interested in fighting the problem than somebody
else.
JOURNALIST:
Do you see that the drugs issue will become a.....issue in the
State election campaign?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that is a matter for the parties. Look, it should be talked
about, it should be debated and the policies of the two parties should
be presented and should be decided upon by the people of Australia.
And obviously the people of New South Wales and obviously, I am in
practice you see, obviously people will make a judgement on it. And
I think the priority that has been given to crime prevention generally
is a very, very important priority because crime is an issue that
is of concern to people. But it is tremendously easy for the debate
to get picked up and sensationalised and trivialised and misunderstood
and I really don't want to myself get into a slanging match or
a debating exchange in public in this sort of general pointless way
with State Premiers.
JOURNALIST:
PM, will the .....take advice from any so called experts?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I have got an open mind about...look, you always get a,
I mean, I am getting advice...I get advice every day from experts
on everything and that's, you know, that's part and parcel
of political life. But in the end, the only people who can decide
policy change in this country are the elected leaders of the people.
And in the end, most of these issues involve a judgement by human
beings of goodwill who are trying to reach the right decision for
the benefit of the community. Now, I talk to police about drugs, I
talk to people who are working at the sharp end of the human misery
like Salvation Army officers. I talk to doctors, I talk to psychologists,
I am going to talk to the Director of the FBI on Friday. Now, it's
not for any other reason that I think it's important. He was
always going to see me anyway. But I think it's important that
a man like that you listen to, he'll no doubt give me some run
down on what's happened in the United States that doesn't
necessarily mean I am going to say, well let's do all of that
in Australia. I am never one for slavishly copying what is done in
the United States or indeed anywhere else. But you draw your information
from a whole variety of sources but in the end, you have got to make
the decision. And in the end I accept that once I am unwilling to
take political decisions and be seen by the public as accepting responsibility
for them, that is the time to give politics away and that time has
not arrived.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't use the expression give-away. I think it's
an excellent policy and can I, I'm glad you asked me that question
because it allows me to say something about privatisation. I mean
there's one big difference between the Coalition and the Labor
Party at both the State and the Federal level on privatisation, and
that is that we are up front and honest about our position. We believe
in privatisation. We believe that there are economic benefits for
the nation, and in the case of New South Wales for the State, in privatising
those assets. We believe that people should get a return, a personal
return out of that privatisation which is what is being proposed by
the New South Wales Coalition. Everybody knows that Bob Carr and Michael
Egan were desperate to privatise the New South Wales power authority
and everyone knows they were prevented from doing it by the union
bosses of the Labor Party. And everybody knows that Kim Beazley, when
he was Finance Minister in the Keating and Hawke Governments loved
privatising assets like QANTAS, the Commonwealth Bank and Australian
Airlines. Now he's in Opposition he's hypocritically opposing
it. The unions rolled Carr and Egan and now they're hypocritically
attacking the Coalition. Now I think they just ought to stay out of
that because they have no credibility on it.
JOURNALIST:
Will you take the shares or cash?
PRIME MINISTER:
The shares or the cash? Well I haven't considered that yet. And
in fact I've been living in Canberra for the last month.
JOURNALIST:
What's your principal place of residence?
PRIME MINISTER:
What's my principal place of.....? Well I vote in the electorate
of Bennelong.
JOURNALIST:
Do you still have a power bill?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do have a power bill. I still have a power bill for 19 Milner Crescent
Woollstonecraft.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] benchmark for future privatisations? Will the Federal
Government [inaudible] on those kinds of give-aways or privatisations
you're planning to...?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think anything necessarily sets or doesn't set a
benchmark. I think it depends entirely on the circumstances. But I
think what Kerry has proposed in New South Wales is sensible, it's
clever, it's innovative, it brings home to people the value for
them of the privatisation.
JOURNALIST:
Is it a bribe?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it's not a bribe. How is it as bribe to return the benefit
of something to all of the people and that is what she is doing. She
is returning the benefit of the sale of that asset to all of the people.
I don't think that is a bribe. A bribe is something that you
give in totally different circumstances. I mean, of course the critics
of it are going to call it a bribe. I don't think it is at all.
I think it is a very novel, intelligent way of returning to the people,
and reminding the people of the benefits of privatisation.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, is it fair to link university grants to [inaudible]
union fees?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it is very fair for the law to prevent compulsory unionism
in universities as it does in the private workplace or in the public
sector. I find the claim being made by the Vice-Chancellors Organisation
this morning that in some way this is an interference in the autonomy
of universities. I find that quite extraordinary because if a private
company practices discrimination or compulsory unionism, under the
law of Australia they can't do it. Yet apparently the universities
are asserting the right to do it. I think it is entirely fair to ensure
that the law against discrimination is properly enforced.
JOURNALIST:
Is it fair to cut grants to universities?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it is fair to take whatever reasonable steps to make certain
that that law is enforced.
JOURNALIST:
You have spoken about the economy today. [inaudible] under threat
from Asia or over....?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there are good signs that the worst of the Asian economic
downturn has past us, although it will still be some time before the
economies of most of the Asian countries worst effected, that most
of them....it will still be time before they are out of the woods.
I think Australia has come through the Asian economic downturn remarkably
well and that is a credit to the Australian people first and foremost.
It also reflects very well on the policies of the Coalition Government.
The current outlook for the Australian economy remains very strong
and I haven't seen fundamentals in the Australian economy as
strong as they have been now since the late 1960s. You have to go
back to that time to find a period where the Australian economy has
been as strong.
JOURNALIST:
Is the worst over Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I never like dealing in absolutes like that because.....is
the worst over in relation to Asia? Look, the signs are that the worst
is probably behind us but I say that with a degree of caution.
Thank you.