Subjects: Warren Entsch, taxation reform, self-employed retirees,
pre-wedding counselling, Kosovar refugees, Kirribilli House security
incident
E&OE....................................................................................................
CORDEAUX:
It's with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome the Prime Minister,
John Howard. Sir, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, how are you?
CORDEAUX:
I was just musing about the trouble that people seem to have with
the guidelines that you've set down to look after conflicts of
interest. Why do people find it so hard to just follow them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think anybody has established that there's
been any actual conflicts of interest. There have been some examples
where people have, through inadvertence or otherwise, neglected to
complete to the last detail the declaration of members' interests.
And it's fair to say that that's occurred on both sides
and is probably still occurring on both sides of the House. But that
does not, of itself, constitute what I call a hanging offence. I mean,
anybody can inadvertently leave out a reference to a directorship.
What really is the purpose of these declarations both to the Parliament
and in the case of Ministers to me is to put the public and me in
particular, in relation to my Ministers, in full possession of people's
assets or the knowledge of those assets so that the judgement can
be made whether there's a conflict of interest. Now, in the case
of Warren Entsch, nobody's been able to demonstrate yet that
he's done anything wrong. I mean, he did lobby, he did publicly
argue for something to be done about some contaminated land in his
electorate but that was his job. And this has been a difficult problem
in the Cairns area for a long time. And the fact that he owns some
property some, what, eight, nine, ten kilometres away and it's
remotely possible that some time in the future, if a whole lot of
other things happen over which he's got no control, that his
land in common with the land of a lot of other people might increase
in value if the first mentioned land is developed, to suggest that
that in any common sense meaning of the word, and the expression is
a conflict of interest, is the equivalent of saying that a rural member
who argues for a highway upgrading which if granted might improve
the value of all of the properties including his own farm, that that
man's involved in a conflict of interest. I mean, you are pushing
the meaning of that expression to absolutely demented lengths.
CORDEAUX:
Yeah, yeah, but these people must know how important it is to you.
I'm surprised they don't err on the extreme side of caution
just so that you're not put in this position where you have to
defend them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we live in a very nit picking, adversarial world of politics
and Oppositions grab hold of anything, particularly when they don't
have alternative policies. I mean, right at the moment we are changing
the tax system. We're privatising Telstra. We're changing
the environmental laws. We're launching new initiatives in relation
to families. We're getting on with the job of governing the country.
Our opponents don't have alternative policies so I suppose if
you can throw a bit of mud, you can make some allegations, you can
nit-pick. It is true that in relation to some examples that have been
brought forward that people have not completed to the last letter
the forms that they should have. And that, may I say, there's
evidence of that on both sides. But that of itself does not constitute
a hanging offence. These are guidelines. They're not meant to
be death sentences. And if you have a situation where you throw a
person out of a responsible position because he neglected, for example,
to declare a directorship of a property that can't possibly be
in any kind of political contention or can't involve any kind
of suggestion of a conflict of interest then I just think we're
wasting our time on trivia. Now, if somebody could come along and
demonstrate to me that either of these people have been guilty of
fraud I mean, if the allegations being made against Entsch
or Heffernan were that they've been guilty of fraud, well, that
would be a very serious matter. If the allegations were that they
had actually gained in direct and personal sense from the use of their
parliamentary position in a wrongful way, well, that's a different
matter. But nobody's suggesting that. I mean, to suggest that
a bloke who takes up the cudgels for his own constituents, and because
there's the remote connection I described a moment ago, what,
is he not meant to do that? Is he meant to sell the property he had
when he became a Parliamentary Secretary? Do we want people in Parliament
who know nothing about business, who own no assets, who have none
of life's experience? I mean, we won't have any of these
allegations but I think we'll have a greatly deprived Parliament.
CORDEAUX:
Well, I was going to say to you that maybe the guidelines if I play
devil's advocate, maybe the guidelines are such that they will
prevent the very people you want in Parliament from getting there.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not if they're looked at in a common sense way. If you
look at the guidelines as being guidelines and not death sentences
which are required to provide information so that proper assessments
can be made about conflicts of interest, if both sides of politics
recognise that from time to time their political opponents are going
to make inadvertent errors about recording information and I think
it's fair to say that in the past, probably our side of politics,
nit picked on this too.
CORDEAUX:
Yep.
PRIME MINISTER:
And we've both been guilty of it and I think the whole situation
now is reaching a position where nit picking is not helping either
side. If there's any genuine allegation of fraud or conflict
of interest, something of substance, well of course that should be
investigated. And if people in positions of executive responsibility
are guilty on either side they ought to be stood down. But nobody's
established any fraud or conflict of interest in relation to either
Entsch or Heffernan. I mean, it's just sheer nit picking.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, this High Court decision with regard to Heather Hill.
Now, how do you see that, is that good news for the republicans or
good news for the monarchists? I mean, how could it possibly be that
we need a referendum?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think it's irrelevant to the debate on the republic.
Australia has legally been independent of Britain for a long time,
emotionally and politically, and in terms of our national identity
we have been independent of the British for much longer than that.
That's not really the case at point. The decision didn't
surprise me in the slightest. I'm surprised at the surprise and
the interest being expressed by some in the media about it being a
landmark decision. I don't think it's a landmark decision
at all. I've always operated under the view that legally Australia
was independent of the United Kingdom and it's been so for decades.
CORDEAUX:
Well, there we are, I mean, wouldn't that save us a lot of money?
We're independent, it's a foreign country, why do we need
to go through a referendum to...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as you know, I am against an Australian republic and I will
be voting no in November.
CORDEAUX:
Will you be campaigning for the no' vote?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, well I won't be campaigning in a day-to-day sense, I've
made that clear, but people know my view and if I'm asked it
I'll express it. And I guess when we get to the campaign I will
explain why, in more detail, why I'm against a republic. I mean,
we are an independent country. We have a marvellously stable system
and through an historical accident, which I think is beneficial, we
have a way of delivering a non-political Head of State and for practical
purposes that is the Governor-General. I mean, why disturb something
that works so superbly well...
CORDEAUX:
It's a dash into darkness and the unknown if you ask me.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there's just no point. I mean, I don't think anybody
in Australia today could possibly feel that this country is lacking
in self-respect or self-esteem or a sense of its own worth and decency
and importance and capacity and achievement. And, anyway, it's
a democracy and I know there are many of my fellow Australians who
have a different view. And you say why are we having a referendum
we're having a referendum I guess to, for the time being,
resolve the matter because there are a lot of people who believe we
should become a republic and the fair and decent thing to do, and
a thing I promised to do before the 1996 election was to have a convention
and then if the model emerged then to put that to the people. Now,
I'm doing that. I promised to do it. I'm keeping my word.
But for my own part I'll be voting no.
CORDEAUX:
Well, as you say, it's a democracy and everyone has the right
to speak out. I see the Victorian Premier, Mr Kennett, is speaking
out and in fairly harsh terms about the compromises made on the GST.
What's your feeling?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think he's being very negative and I think he's
looking backwards. It's easy to be critical if you don't
get 100 per cent of what you want but few people get 100 per cent
of what they want in this world, particularly if you're a government
that doesn't control both Houses of Parliament and we don't.
We got 85 per cent of what we wanted and that is infinitely better
than zero and it's a lot better than the present system. And
those who criticise and nit pick and try and undermine the compromise
that's been agreed are really arguing for a maintenance of the
status quo. You can't, in a sense, have it both ways because
the option of 100 per cent of what we want just isn't available
because the votes aren't there for that. Therefore I've
got to decide, do I stick with the present system or do I try and
achieve a compromise. Now, it's much better to have a compromise
when it delivers 85 per cent of what you originally wanted.
CORDEAUX:
You know that original plan of a 10 per cent GST, 30 per cent rate
for the majority of people at personal income tax and a 30 per cent
corporate rate, I mean, how achievable is that corporate rate now
of 30 per cent?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we haven't set that in quite the same cement as we set
the other things. It's an option. How achievable I think
I'll be better able to answer that when I get John Ralph's
report in a few weeks time. There are arguments that you should have
a 30 per cent corporate rate and you pay for that by removing the
accelerated depreciation benefits that a lot of companies, particularly
miners and manufacturers and farmers have at the moment. Some of them
support that, others say no, we'd rather pay 36 or be liable
for the 36, a lot of them don't pay it because they have bona
fide concessions that reduce their tax bills and keep our accelerated
depreciation. Now, it will be a very interesting debate. As far as
the personal tax is concerned our commitment that 80 per cent of the
community would be on a top marginal rate of no more than 30 cents
in the dollar. That has been preserved in full and from the 1st
of July next year there will be $12 million in personal tax cuts and
another $2 to $2.5 billion of family benefits over and above those
$12 million of tax cuts. And that, I think, will increasingly be seen
as the real face of tax reform. The debate about the minutiae of the
GST will now fade an agreement having been reached on the assumption
it all goes through Parliament in the next few days which I believe
it will but we have to wait and see. I never take Parliament for granted
but I am confident it will go through. I think the focus then will
be on the personal tax cuts on the upside, the pluses, the good things
that come out of the tax plan rather than the nit-picking about salads
and thermometers and chickens, hot, cold or lukewarm.
CORDEAUX:
Something that came up on the programme the other day, it's just an
anomaly, do you know when people have said, well let's not have people
retiring at 65 let them go on working if they want to and many of
those people go on to being self-employed. Now, somebody who left
the workforce at the age of 65 set up his own handyman business, it
was going fine until he realised that he couldn't go and get from
anyone any accident and sickness insurance. They won't touch you once
you are over 65 and that, of course, restricts anything that a person
can do in starting up his small business. Is there anything you can
do about that because it really is discriminating against people just
because they are 65?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there's not a lot you can do about that. You can't force people
in a free enterprise system to provide a business service if they
don't want to. I mean,....
CORDEAUX:
It just seems like they have colluded to....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't...well, I understand why people would say that. But
this is an example of what is called market failure that there's not
a market for this because people don't think there's a good enough
risk to provide the insurance. Or if they do provide the insurance
the premium they charge is so high that nobody would want to take
it out. Now, the only alternative that a government has got there
is for the Government to provide some kind of scheme but, gee, where
does government start and finish? Are we....I think a lot of people
are saying to us, well, we don't want the Government getting involved
in everything and every time the Government provides a service it
means that it has got to find the revenue to pay for that service.
And that means it can either increase taxation or not reduce it as
much as it would like to.
CORDEAUX:
But shouldn't Government jump in there where the private sector doesn't
or can't do something?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it can but I am not sure that it always should because if it
doesn't, if it keeps plugging every gap well there is no end to what
you are asking the Government to do. This is the difficulty.
CORDEAUX:
Well, here's somebody who is at the age of 65 who is now looking to
going on social security. It'd be far better to have him as a taxpayer.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it would be better to have him as a taxpayer but it's not just
a simple question of expressing our preference, it's also a question
of what is involved in the Government scheme to provide insurance.
And once you provide a Government scheme you will then have a lot
of people in the private insurance sector saying to the Government,
well, we would like you to underwrite the more difficult risks we
have. If you are prepared to intervene and fill this gap therefore
you accept that some underwriting is more risky than others why don't
you extend your guarantee and your underpinning into some of the more
risky areas of our business and before long you'll have the potential
for the Government to really control the insurance industry. And I
think it's a difficult issue but there are limits beyond which governments
shouldn't go if you basically believe that this is a free enterprise
community.
CORDEAUX:
Well, the public servants have to retire at 65 don't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am not sure about what the situation is in all of the States
but that age limit is being removed at a federal level. And I understand
it has been or it's in the process of being removed at a State level
although I am not sure of the progress in each individual State.
CORDEAUX:
By the way, thank you for following through on that other anomaly,
the business of the bone density drugs being free to women and not
to men. Thanks for that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well I remember that very well and I am glad you have got the
information.
CORDEAUX:
Yes, absolutely. Engaged couples will receive vouchers for free pre-wedding
counselling in an effort to slash the $3 billion a year cost of marriage
break-up. Why not just scrap the family court because that's the main
problem, people just walking out of their relationships?
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand the emotion, and I understand the view of life that would
lead me to say that and I've got a lot of sympathy for it. I
don't think it's realistic though to get rid of the family
court because most of the disputes the family court deals with of
course are disputes relating to property and custody, and when marriages
break-up decisions do have to be made about the division of property
and the custody of children and you do need somebody to make that
judgement. And I say that as somebody who way back in 1975 did not
vote in favour of all the major provisions in the family law act when
it was brought in. I mean I had some reservations about some aspects
of the changes but that's a long time ago now and that's
history and I'm dealing with the here and now. But we don't
pretend that what we announced yesterday is going to make a dramatic
impact but it will make a contribution and it's a recognition
that although governments can't legislate to make people be nice
to each other and to support each other, we can recognise that maybe
if people had a little better understanding of the character of relationships,
the obligations they bring, the obligations of marriage and so forth
they might enter those associations more carefully and some of them
might last longer and they might be a lot more positive. And that
is why we're going to trial this voucher system and see how it
works. I think there's a greater willingness on the part of Australians
now to talk more openly about their relationships in an appropriate
environment, particularly on the part of men. I think that's
a very welcome thing and if we can perhaps encourage people to think
a little more carefully then the costs down the track could be reduced.
Now our ambitions are modest but our commitment is very genuine in
this area and it's part of a, I think a strategic approach to
marriages in our community recognising that really marriage is one
of those core enduring institutions of Australian society and that
we should be prepared to go an extra mile and provide an extra margin
for marriage within our society because it is still the cornerstone
of the most important relationships we develop and it's something
that where appropriate and in a practical way should be supported.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, just quickly, what are you going to do if a large
percentage of the Kosovar refugees want to stay? Have you thought
about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I have thought about that. Our belief is that the great bulk of
them will want to go home. We of course have the right legally to
require all of them to go back at sometime in the future. They are
here under special safe haven temporary arrangements and none of them
has any automatic right to stay in Australia and no right to sort
of go to court to establish a right to stay here. However we're
not going to send them back in circumstances where they would be....there
lives would be at risk. The circumstances of Kosovo are changing but
it will still be some time before it's safe for refugees to return.
There are some horrific stories of people losing their limbs and their
lives because of bombs exploding and land mines that have been left
behind by the retreating Serbian army. So it will be some time yet.
I think we just have to handle that Jeremy in a practical compassionate
way when the challenge, if it is to come does in fact come. I suspect
in the end most of them, if not all them will go home. But let's
deal with that down the track.
CORDEAUX:
Thank you for your time sir. Just a couple of minutes before the news.
Let me ask you about security. The people looking after you were found,
well, not exactly on the job the other day, and somebody managed to
get in and throw a pie in