PM Transcripts

Transcripts from the Prime Ministers of Australia

Howard, John

Period of Service: 11/03/1996 - 03/12/2007
Release Date:
28/05/1999
Release Type:
Interview
Transcript ID:
11147
Released by:
  • Howard, John Winston
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP RADIO INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY CORDEAUX – 5DN

E&OE....................................................................................................

CORDEAUX:

Good morning, sir.

PRIME MINISTER:

Good morning, Jeremy, good to be with you again.

CORDEAUX:

Good to talk with you. I can't believe that all of these talks

with the Democrats have gone on and I see this morning that they're

now prepared to negotiate. What have they been doing up until now?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, we've had a lot of talks and people are still talking.

And you'll excuse me, given that, for not wanting to go into

a lot of detail. Obviously the Democrats have some ideas on issues

in this package which are different from ours. And when you're

in a discussion or a negotiation of something like this you have to

try and see what common ground you can reach and have a look at that

against your own taxation principles. Now, it's difficult for

me to really say any more than that, Jeremy. We want tax reform. We

believe the country needs it.

CORDEAUX:

You've got a mandate for it.

PRIME MINISTER:

We got a mandate and we can't at the moment get it through the

Parliament because we had hoped that it might have been possible to

enlist the support of Senator Harradine and that did not prove possible.

We are now and have been for some days in discussions with the Australian

Democrats. Now, I respect the fact that on a number of issues they

are coming from a different point of view but in other areas we have

some common ground. And it's really a question in a process like

that of being patient and trying to see what common ground you can

reach and then asking yourself, well is that the sort of common ground

that is sufficiently consistent with our starting point to still be

able to say, well we have a plan, we have a package that we're

comfortable with. And I guess they're in the same situation.

Now, that happens in these positions and clearly our preference would

have been for the Parliament, the Senators, all of them, the Labor

and Democrat and so forth, to have said, well, even if we don't

like it, the public voted for it and we'll let it go through.

That would have been the sensible thing for the Labor Party to have

done but that hasn't happened and we're talking now. I can't

really say any more than that. I remain very committed to tax reform.

And you know how important a number of elements of the package are

to me – the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations

and personal income tax cuts for middle Australia, I think that's

very important, and reforming the indirect tax system in a big way,

and a whole lot of things. And making sure that the bush is looked

after. These are goals. I understand, of course, that consistent with

some of that the Democrats also have goals.

Now, I may not agree with their policies, they don't agree with

mine, but you have to be pragmatic as well as idealistic and explore

the maximum extent to which you can find common ground and then examine

how that stacks up against your going in position. And they will be

doing and are doing the same thing. Now, that's the nature of

a negotiation. I have to say that I've found the negotiations

to be cordial and forthright. I find her a person who is good to deal

with. Her views on a lot of things are different from mine. I accept

and respect that. Clearly on a number of things she comes from a very

different position but I have found her very direct and candid in

the discussions and that's always useful. I don't find any

games being played in the discussions. It's a question of saying,

well, I want this and I'm not prepared to agree to that. Well,

you then move on and talk about something else. So, it's a long

process.

CORDEAUX:

Yes, it seems to me that they're trying to get you to bargain

away Australia's future.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, Jeremy, we took a package to the last election that we thought

was fair and balanced and progressive and very good for Australia.

And we obviously are not going to agree to something that destroys

the basic integrity of that package.

CORDEAUX:

So you are prepared to, if they want too much, walk away from that

tax?

PRIME MINISTER:

Oh look, in any of these negotiations if you get to a point where

one side wants you to go a bridge too far then the negotiations stop.

Now, we are still talking. It is, has been, and it remains a very

complicated issue. I am a patient man but nobody's patience is

every inexhaustible but, as I say, we're still talking and we

continue to talk. And I've always been fairly cautious in the

views I've expressed about the possibility of getting support.

You may remember in relation to Senator Harradine. I only ever said

I was hopeful. I was never over-confident. And I just think you keep

trying and you keep talking and we are certainly doing that. And,

as I say, I've found them very constructive discussions and I

have found her a forthright, direct person with whom to deal and that's

very valuable.

CORDEAUX:

Some are saying that you could do a handshake deal on it today, do

you think that's possible?

PRIME MINISTER:

Oh look, Jeremy, I think all I can say is that talks go on and I hate

this – I'll take that back, you have a perfect right to

ask that question – but I would rather say no more than that.

CORDEAUX:

Another headline I saw this morning was, ‘I want more, says Harradine.'

Senator's demand for, what was is it, a billion dollars for the

extra bit of Telstra for sale?

PRIME MINISTER:

Yeah, I saw that. I didn't listen to all the details of his press

conference but Brian Harradine, who along with Mal Colston, continues

to hold the balance of power in the Senate until the 30th

of June.

CORDEAUX:

But isn't that extortion?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, he wouldn't see it that way. All of these things, in the

end, involve value judgements. We would like to privatise the whole

of Telstra. We took it to the people at the last election which, incidentally,

we won and we obviously are – if it has to be, we will privatise

the rest of Telstra in two bites. Our policy is, sell another 16 per

cent, then have a public inquiry as to whether all of the community

service obligations, particularly for the bush, are being delivered

and then, if you've done that sufficiently, then you go ahead

and sell the rest. Now, at the moment it looks very hard to see where

we're going to get the extra votes for selling the whole lot.

There's a possibility that we could get support to sell another

16 per cent. And what Senator Harradine, as I understand it, is saying,

‘well, I don't really like this but I might go along with

it if I'm satisfied that out of the proceeds of the sale of Telstra

there are benefits provided to the community, particularly the community

I represent.'

CORDEAUX:

Yes, it just seems that the average Australian, I'm sure, it

would get up his nose or her nose to sort of see the way in which

Parliament seems to be run by a handful of people. It doesn't

seem like it's democrat and it must be enormously frustrating

for you.

PRIME MINISTER:

Jeremy, I would much have preferred to have had a majority in both

Houses of Parliament from the time I was elected Prime Minister but

I haven't and I've had to live with this situation.

CORDEAUX:

You've got to work with that.

PRIME MINISTER:

And you do have to work with it and the community expects you to try

and make it work. They don't expect you to sell-out on what you

really believe in and I won't be doing that on anything. But

they do expect you to try hard and see if you can reach in relation

to a number of things. You take industrial relations legislation.

We didn't get everything in '96 that we wanted but, gee,

the industrial relations scene in Australia now dramatically different

and better from what it was three years ago. So we got quite a lot.

We got the great bulk of what we wanted. Now, that is the approach

that I believe the community expects you to try and achieve. On some

issues you can achieve it. On other issues you can't. But I don't

see, under the present arrangement, any prospect that the current

situation in the Senate is going to dramatically alter. I think it

very difficult to see the Coalition, no matter how well it does in

general elections, having a majority in its own right in the Senate

under current arrangements. And this is partly a consequence of a

decision that was taken way back in 1984 by the Labor Party with the

support then of the National Party to increase the size of the Parliament

which made it necessary to elect 12 Senators from each State and half

of them retire every three years. And it's very hard for there to

be other than a three/three division on each occasion between, sort

of, the broad left hand side of politics and the broad right hand

side of politics.

CORDEAUX:

Anything you can do to reform the Senate?

PRIME MINISTER:

Oh, well look, those things are possible but they're not on my agenda

at present.

CORDEAUX:

Yes, it just seems so strange that a States' house....

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, that was the original idea of it but we have a very rigid Constitution.

Now, the federal compact remember was about the smaller States agreeing

to enter the federation in return for guarantees they'd not be overwhelmed

by the population for preponderance in Sydney and Melbourne. So you

produced a single member House....single member constituencies

in the House of Reps on the basis of population and then a strict

division between the States. Now, that has been the federal compact

from the beginning. Where it's gone wrong is that the Senators have,

sort of, pushed aside the notion of a States' house. Now, anyway,

all I can tell you is, I mean, at the moment I am absorbed with taxation

discussions and so forth.

CORDEAUX:

I know. Let's go back to that. They are saying that what you are prepared

to offer, a GST free food, people earning more than $50,000 a year

to lose....

PRIME MINISTER:

I think you are reading from the front page of The Australian.

CORDEAUX:

I am, yes.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I don't want to, sort of, confirm or deny any of those stories.

Jeremy, I don't think I can and I don't wish to be impolite but it's

very difficult when you are continuing to talk to people, it's very

difficult to then, sort of, publicly respond to questions about those

discussions without the other side saying, well, you know, what's

he doing this for.

CORDEAUX:

All right.

PRIME MINISTER:

I do have to preserve the good faith of the discussions that have

been proceeding with the Democrats.

CORDEAUX:

Prime Minister, out of left field, maybe it's right field, I don't

know. I heard this morning that there is just a possibility that the

compromise could be that you would offer a five per cent GST on absolutely

everything and that the sums would more or less work out. Can you

give me any indication whether that has crossed your mind?

PRIME MINISTER:

Oh look, a lot of things have crossed my mind over the last couple

of years on this but look, I can't, I don't want to comment on that

either I am sorry.

CORDEAUX:

Okay. The...an interesting thing I saw the other day, I think,

in the Financial Review about some sort of a loophole in the

superannuation scheme looking like leading the coffers of something

like a billion dollars. The Taxation Commissioner coming out and saying

that he was going to close all of this down retrospectively, how would

you react or the Government react to that retrospective action?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, you can't retrospectively change the law without parliamentary

approval. I haven't read that story. Generally speaking we are opposed

to retrospective legislation. I have in the long distant past been

involved in some in relation to blatant tax avoidance schemes. I carried

quite a few scars from that experience back in the early 1980s but

I thought it was justified because people were rorting their fellow

citizens in the arrangements they entered into. But when you have

got something which is in the nature of a loophole then you could

have different circumstances. But quite frankly I haven't turned my

mind to that and beyond stating that principle it's hard for me to

say anymore. I'll have a look at that, I am glad you have drawn it

to my attention.

CORDEAUX:

There was a story around yesterday about a major breakthrough with

osteoporosis. What it is is a new drug that rebuilds bone density...

PRIME MINISTER:

Oh yes.

CORDEAUX:

...and we were talking to the Professor at a Repatriation Hospital

in Sydney, he said that he heard that I was talking to you today and

he said: you might ask the Prime Minister why it is that women are

given this drug tax free, or it comes to them on the free list, yet

men are not allowed to have it, they have to pay the full total, which

I think are quite high. The question is...

PRIME MINISTER:

I will investigate that. I didn't know that. That's the second thing

I haven't known this morning, I am sorry.

CORDEAUX:

He was just calling for a little even-handedness...

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, that's fair enough. I am very happy to have a look at that.

I might just say, if I can, you'll forgive the political commercial.

While we are on the subject of drugs and medical science I hope everybody

who is interested in this area knows that we have promised to double

the expenditure on health and medical research in this country as

one of the centrepieces of Peter Costello's Budget.

CORDEAUX:

Yes.

PRIME MINISTER:

And we are very proud of the fact that we will be putting this country,

once again, very much at the forefront of medical science and research

because we really do have quite outstanding people. And you not only

have those advances of which you spoke but many of the other advances

in relation to arthritis and so forth are just terrific.

CORDEAUX:

Prime Minister, did you catch up with this business in Melbourne where

Anne Peacock has been, or somebody tried to ban Anne Peacock from

joining the Liberal Party?

PRIME MINISTER:

Of course I have read it. It is stupid. I mean, really. I mean, what

are they going on with, I mean, it is absolutely crazy. She is a first-class

person, she comes from a great Liberal family, she is married to a

great Liberal. But in her own right, which is the most important consideration,

she is an intelligent articulate person of impeccable character. I

mean, why on earth anybody would think they are serving any interests

by trying to keep her out or even delay her joining the party, I mean,

that's just, the stupidity of it absolutely amazes me.

CORDEAUX:

It sounds like a strange petty bureaucratic...

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, that sort of thing turns people off political movements. And

as far as I am concerned I don't want any of that nonsense in the

Liberal Party anywhere in Australia. Not just in Victoria but anywhere

in Australia. It really is absolute nonsense and I think the message

would have well and truly been received by now given the reactions...the

reaction that I have given and also I know the reaction of Jeff Kennett

and Peter Costello to senior Liberals in Victoria.

CORDEAUX:

Demonstrations, I understand, will be held across the nation today

to protest the Federal Government's censorship laws, what's your feeling

on attempts...I don't even know if it's feasible to try and effectively

censor the Internet?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think we have an obligation to try. What the community wants is

protection of young people against certain material on the Internet.

I think that is absolutely defensible. I subscribe generally to the

theory that adults should be allowed to read, hear, and see, and view

whatever they choose to, of course. But there is an argument in relation

to children and there is no reason in-principle why that shouldn't

be extended to the Internet. And I think what the Government has done

in that area is absolutely defensible and the reactions of many are

completely, how should I put it, they're over the top. They are

basically seeking a society where you don't say enough is enough

in relation to anything. Now I don't hold that view. Certainly

when you're talking about children I certainly don't. And

I just cannot understand on ordinary common sense grounds believe

that the constant bombarding of young people with certain material

doesn't have an influence on their conduct. I mean I find it

impossible to believe that people who might otherwise be socially

vulnerable aren't influenced by constant and repetitive violence

on videos and on movies. I find it impossible [inaudible] otherwise.

CORDEAUX:

The video games must be.....

PRIME MINISTER:

It must. I mean it doesn't matter to kids who've got an

otherwise supportive and stable environment in which to live. But

those that haven't, I think it does further deepen their sense

of alienation and hostility towards the community. I'm not a

psychologist, I'm just another bloke I hope who has some understanding

of human behaviour and I will never be convinced otherwise, and I

think most Australians would feel the same way. Therefore you have

an obligation, however imperfectly you might deliver on it, to achieve

something in this area. And I say to those who are protesting against

it that you don't understand the mood of middle Australia on

this. You don't understand how deeply many parents feel about

it with some justification.

CORDEAUX:

Prime Minister, just hang on for one second. Let me take one call

here. Roger from Williamstown. What would you like to say?

CALLER:

Good morning Jeremy, and Prime Minister.

CORDEAUX:

Yes Roger.

Mr Howard, two points I'd like to make briefly here. The first

one being I keep hearing of talk of a mandate for a GST. Your Liberal-National

Coalition achieved 36% of the vote. Now that means that 64% voted

against it. That hardly equates to a mandate. Secondly I hear you

talk about reformation of the Senate. Will that be reformed in the

light manner to which our voting system was vandalised behind the

public's back last July? Thank you.

11147