Subjects:
Drugs; East Timor; inflation; interest rates; private health insurance;
preamble;
GST; Care Australia aid workers; FM licences
E&OE.........
PILKINGTON:
Welcome back Prime Minister John Howard, good
morning.
PRIME
MINISTER:
Good morning Tony, good to be here both of you.
MCCLUSKY:
Prime Minister, of course you're in town today
and primarily speaking this afternoon at the Australiasian Drug
Strategy conference which by all records has been an enormous success.
There are a couple of things that they've been talking about, and
I'd like to get your thoughts on them. We had our Director
of Public Prosecutions, Paul Rofe yesterday coming out and saying,
and I think he was stirring the pot, but suggesting that perhaps
we need to rethink the way we handle marijuana. Even looking
at treating it the same as alcohol and cigarettes. Maybe even
selling them from the local deli. Now I know that you're very
much keen on zero tolerance. But what do you make of those sorts
of comments?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well I don't agree with them. I think
they're unhelpful, they're out of line with community opinion, and
they're also out of line with the tragic experience of people who
are addicted to marijuana. I know the use of marijuana is
far more widespread than say heroin. But I also know, and
I've had recent evidence of it, I was in Western Australia last
week and my policy adviser on drugs had extensive meetings with
a group of people including one person who said his life had been
totally destroyed by marijuana. One of the things that he
found totally depressing and distressing was that it was very difficult
to get help for marijuana addiction because there was a mood amongst
too many people that some how or rather its use or overuse was quite
acceptable and second order concern. And he said that if he
ever broke his habit what he would do is try and form a marijuana
users group to seek more assistance. So I don't think those
calls are helpful. Obviously the laws relating to these things
are matters for State governments but there will be no encouragement
at all from the Federal Government for further liberalisation of
the law.'
MCCLUSKY:
Talking about that, I mean I know there have been some complaints
from parents groups saying that professionals in this area don't
take parents' concerns and complaints about marijuana seriously
enough. Do you agree with that?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well there's some evidence of that and one of
the advantages of the new programmes that we're going to fund, rising
out of the announcement I made at the Premiers' Conference is that
we're going to give a lot more resources to the treatment of people.
And the diversion programme that we have in mind, the situation
where people where people who are in affect caught up with the law
in relation to relatively minor offences will be given the option
of going to some kind of treatment rather than getting caught in
the criminal justice system, which nobody really wants them to.
I mean I have never argued, despite the tough line I take, I've
never argued that the full sanction of the law is appropriate for
bare use and possession. What I think is desirable is to say
to people who are in that situation, that preliminary legal situation
you might call it, but hey, you've got to make a choice now. Either
you try and do something about your habit or you run the risk of
your legal situation getting much worse over time.
PILKINGTON:
Prime Minister, what about drug courts?
We'll be talking to one of the judges here in Adelaide who's one
of the key note speakers along with yourself this afternoon.
MCCLUSKY:
The chap from the United States.
PILKINGTON:
Yeah. Your feelings about the introduction
of drug courts in this country.
PRIME
MINISTER:
I think they're a good idea.
PILKINGTON:
Good idea?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Yeah, and there is a great consistency between
what the New South Wales government has done with drug courts and
what we are proposing. There's a lot of consistency with what
the Victorian government has done in relation to diverting people
away from the criminal justice system into treatment, and in what
we propose. We would like to make that nation wide.
We're not trying to make that nation wide, we're not trying to make
it completely uniform. Different States will do it slightly
differently. But the resources are there from the Federal
government to provide additional treatment for people who are trying
to break their addiction.
MCCLUSKY:
So in establishing those drug courts, as we know there's a trial
going on in New South Wales at the moment. Certainly there
have been calls today for one to be established here. The
Federal government has already allocated, or will allocate funds...?
PRIME
MINISTER:
The Federal government will allocate over, I
think it's about $120 million over the period of three or four years,
to fund additional treatment places to which people will be diverted
by the individual States either by drug courts, or some other methodology
with the States in consultation with the Federal government will
establish.
MCCLUSKY:
So establishing the actual drug courts themselves..
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well it doesn't have to just be a drug court.
It can be some kind of procedure which is roughly equivalent to
that and we will work that out with each individual State.
But the outline of what we're offering is this: if you establish
a diversion mechanism, be it a drug court or something else, this
is our offer to the States, we will provide you with additional
money to the tune of $110 million to $120 million to pay for additional
treatment places. Those treatment places will be sought by the various
organisations who treat peoples' drug addiction. About 300,000
treatment places over a four year period will be possible as a result
of the additional money we're making available.
PILKINGTON:
Prime Minister, on the issue of East Timor,
I mean you're just back from there, and yet I've read the comments
in the paper this morning about the pro-Jakarta militia saying that
they simply won't adhere to any sort of a peace keeping force up
there. I mean has this changed your thinking at all in the
last 24 hours, or are you still going to go ahead with the proposal
of sending Australian police up there?
PRIME
MINISTER:
We'll be going ahead, but subject always as
has it has been, to being satisfied about adequate arrangements
for their safety. You can't ever say to anybody in all honesty who
is being sent to a trouble spot, be that person a police officer
or a soldier, you can't ever say there's no danger and any Prime
Minister who says that is being dishonest. Of course there's
always danger and my responsibility is to make certain that the
security arrangements are as good as they can possibly be in a less
than satisfactory situation. Now there's a lot of noise coming
out of Timor. There's been a lot of loss of life. There
have been commitments made by the Indonesian government and the
Indonesian armed forces. We have to wait and see the full
extent to which those undertakings are honoured. There's certainly
a lot more pressure now on the Indonesian government as a result
of the meeting I had with President Habibie. There's a lot
more international focus on him. He has made very strong commitments
not only to me but also to the United Nations and the agreement
that will be finally signed in New York next week contains a very
strong commitment to the process of arms being laid down in the
process of complete neutrality by the Indonesian army in relation
to the choice that's going to be made by the East Timorese people.
Now I can't give guarantees. I've made that clear from the
beginning. I can report that I have more confidence that you
will have a fairly, a relatively peaceful handling of the act of
choice. I've got more confidence about that now than I had
before. But it's a difficult and fraught situation and I can't
give guarantees except I make this commitment: that the Australian
government will use every pressure and effort and influence it has
to ensure that the conditions under which any Australian personnel
go into East Timor, be they police or members of the United Nations
supervisory force, are as safe as possible in the circumstances.
PILKINGTON:
Was President Habibie more accommodating than
you thought he may have been? I mean you spoke for what, face
to face for about an hour-and-a-half..
PRIME
MINISTER:
We had an hour-and-a-half just the two of us.
That was a very good discussion.
PILKINGTON:
Initially it was going to be what, half-an-hour
or so?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well there are no fixed rules. I mean the press
said half-an-hour. I mean there are no fixed rules about these
things, although an hour-an-a-half one on one in a situation like
this is longer than normal and I thought that was useful because
it's always better to eyeball somebody and vice-versa. And
we covered all of the ground and then we went over quite a bit of
it again in the plenary session.
PILKINGTON:
Was he more accommodating?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well I don't know that I tried in advance to
put any kind of ruler on it. We couldn't have got a better
outcome. And the people who are running around saying well
it's not good enough. Can I say what is their alternative?
Are they saying we should invade Indonesia. I mean Australia
has three alternatives with this issue. We can do what the
government is now doing and that is use Australia's influence in
a positive way. We can invade the country, and nobody's seriously
suggesting that. Or we can simply say we don't want any more
to do with Indonesia. We withdraw all our aid, all our military
ties and everything. We walk way from our nearest neighbour,
the largest Islamic country in the world with a population of 211
million people. Now you only have to state it like that to
realise that the course we have chosen is the only course.
As for our political opponent, well they had 13 years to persuade
the Indonesians to change their policy on East Timor, and to my
recollection they didn't even try.
MCCLUSKY:
Prime Minister, what about the suggestion of temporary economic
sanctions against Indonesia, until this is resolved?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well I don't think would help because that would
discourage Indonesia for listening to world opinion. I mean
aren't we in the business at the moment of trying to persuade Indonesia
to effectively restrain her armed forces and allow a free and open
ballot? Well if you in the one breath say to a country, we
want you to behave, we want you to do that, but in the next breath
we're going to make your tragic economic situation even more tragic.
There are tens of millions of Indonesians living in absolute poverty.
What is the point of making them even more miserable? Do you
think that's going to change the attitude of their government, and
the attitude of their people? I mean I think people who propose
that at the present time really have no understanding of the reality
of that country. There are 211 million people in Indonesia,
there are 900,000 in East Timor. And that country has gone
through the most appalling economic depravation. Sure it is
not a free country, sure there have been gross abuses of human rights
and there has been a tragic loss of life, and we have condemned
it. I mean I have in fact condemned it more strongly than
Mr Keating ever condemned the behaviour of the Indonesian government
in relation to East Timor. But I'm trying to hold onto reality,
and the greatest influence that Australia can use is our credibility
in the relationship we have with Indonesia and if you start talking
at this stage about economic sanctions you will lose any hope of
exercising that influence.
PILKINGTON:
Prime Minister, just finally on Indonesia, what's the likely
outcome of the debate on this - I think it is scheduled for the
8th of August up there?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well I don't know. I'm more concerned
it being a free and open vote. Our view is that the people
of East Timor should have the right to decide their own future..
MCCLUSKY:
Without coercion?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Without coercion and intimidation. Now that is very critical
and obviously what has been going there in the last few weeks has
given one no encouragement to believe that that would happen.
And that is why I said what I did the weekend before last, it's
why I rang Dr Habibie it's why I went to meet him in Bali earlier
this week: to make the point to him how critical it was for Indonesia's
international reputation that there be a free and open vote, and
there be seen to be a free and open vote. Now he's given an
undertaking. We have to wait and see what materialises.
We all hope it will be a free and open vote. We're willing
to make a contribution. But I can't guarantee it, but I can
say this: that if you adopt any other course of action your capacity
to influence events in that country will disappear overnight.
MCCLUSKY:
Now, look, Prime Minister, I got terribly excited
yesterday. I thought we were about to have an interest rate
cut. Was it on the books?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Oh, I never speculate about the future level
of interest rates. Never.
PILKINGTON:
I wondered why you were so happy yesterday.
MCCLUSKY:
Well, I was I was thinking.
PILKINGTON:
I noticed you were on a bit of a high yesterday, you know, something
good must have happened.
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well, it was a very good inflation number but
interest rates are set from time to time by the Reserve Bank and
I never publicly speculate and I never say they should be higher
or lower. The only thing I ever talk about are the general
economic positions that influence what in turn determines the level
of interest rates and clearly if you have low inflation and you
have low, or you have no Budget deficits, and you have Budget surpluses
and all of those things, it all helps the general economic climate.
But the, the day to day level of interest rates is a matter for
the Reserve Bank, I merely remark that they are the lowest now they've
been for 30 years, and home buyers are better off on average to
the tune of about $320 to $330 a months, which is an enormous amount.
It's the equivalent of about getting a $100 a week pay rise for
an average wage and salary earner and it does mean an enormous amount
to millions of Australian families to have much lower interest rates;
it means that they're, they've got a capacity to spend money on
things like a slightly better family holiday, some additional entertaining.
MCCLUSKY:
Private health insurance.
PRIME
MINISTER:
And private health. Well, private health
insurance are getting a 30% tax rebate as well. So, all of
those things mean that the general living standard of the average
wage and salary earner is a lot higher now than it was up a few
years ago.
MCCLUSKY:
What about the latest news about the preamble.
I know we had a chat with you not that long ago about the preamble
and that whole concept of 'mateship' and the furore that followed
that. It now seemed that the opposition forces have in fact
joined forces and you're likely to be rolled on that. What's
your reaction?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well, my reaction is that it would be very disappointing
if the one opportunity we've got for a long time to have a new preamble,
which at least acknowledges the historical place of the indigenous
people in our community, is lost. Now, obviously if the Senate
votes down the Government's proposal, then there can't be a vote
on the preamble at the same time as the vote on the republic and
I therefore don't think we'll revisit the preamble issue for years.
And therefore the opportunity we have on the eve of the Centenary
of Federation to do what I think most Australians would like to
do and that is to at least write the indigenous people into the
Constitution in a non-controversial way, that will have been lost.
Now, in the end, I can't force a vote on the preamble if the Senate
doesn't support it. There's not time to sort of put it back
again and go through all of that business for it to be listed at
the same time as the Republic and if the Senate decides to vote
the Government's proposal down, then there won't be vote on the
preamble. I mean, I accept that.
MCCLUSKY:
What was the, what was the sticking point, because
I gather the Opposition wants to talk about 'indigenous custodianship';
do you agree with that or is there something about that phrase that
you're not comfortable with?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well, I've been careful to say that in relation
to references to the indigenous people that you've got to have a
form of words that everybody agrees on and there's no point in pushing
things too far out in one direction so that you start losing people
in another part of the argument. I mean, let me put it this
way, everybody who believes in custodianship also accepts that the
Aborigines were the first inhabitants. Not everybody who accepts
that the Aborigines were the first inhabitants necessarily want
to use the word 'custodianship.' So the point I'm simply making
is that if you want to get something in an area like this, you've
got to try and find some common ground. But, I haven't ruled
out making some changes to the proposal that I put up. I didn't
say that that was set in stone. I've sent a copy of it to
Mr Beazley, I've sent a copy of it to the Democrats, to the Premiers.
I've received something like 430 responses to the draft we put out,
I'm going to have a look at all of those and see where we go from
there.
MCCLUSKY:
Is there a problem that custodianship may somehow
imply ongoing ownership?
PRIME
MINISTER:
Well, some people feel that. Now, well,
I don't myself but some people do. I'm not myself persuaded
of that but a lot of people of goodwill are concerned about that
and I respect their views. But I just say again that you've
got nothing at the moment, we can have common ground on something,
but if you push that too far, you'll end up having nothing, which
is where we are at the present time. And that really is the
choice in the end that might be faced by the Labor Party and the
Democrats and the Greens in the Senate. If they're going to