E&OE....................................................................................................
O'BRIEN:
John Howard, welcome to the programme. We'll go to the guidelines
in a few minutes but if we could start with the preamble. You've
said that you detect that a lot of Australians across the political
and social spectrum would support a new preamble to the Constitution
recognising Aborigines as this country's original occupants.
Would you personally like to see that preamble?
PRIME MINISTER:
If I was satisfied that it had a good chance of winning support at
a referendum, yes.
O'BRIEN:
But you seem to acknowledging already that it does have that support.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, please, look, please, Kerry, can we sort of start the New Year
on a proper basis. Can I just answer the question. What I intend to
do is to talk to my colleagues in the Party Room about this. And can
I make the point that the preamble is not an after-thought or add-on,
it's something that came up at the Constitutional Convention.
And can I also say that we have no hope of getting a preamble accepted
either within the Government and elsewhere to go on the ballot paper
or by the Australian people if people keep upping the ante and saying
you've got to go further than simply recognising historical truth,
and that is the Aborigines were here first. I think if you start going
beyond that and you start introducing elements like particular rights
or particular disadvantage, you're talking here about putting
something in the Constitution, you're not talking about a day-to-day
debate. So, the answer is, I would like to see it. There are difficulties.
I want to talk to my colleagues about it. It's not about frustrating
the republic. I've been upfront in my opposition to a republic
and I've been twice elected as Prime Minister of this country
as an anti-republican. So I don't think my bona fides on that
issue can be dragged into the debate. I just simply believe that if
we could reach agreement as a nation on acknowledging that historical
truth, that would be a very important piece of symbolism for our Centenary
of Federation. Now, that's the beginning and the end of my thought
on that particular aspect.
O'BRIEN:
To be honest, I thought when you paused there that you'd actually
finished your answer but that's all right.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, having exchanged apologies and friendly glances, go on with
the next question.
O'BRIEN:
Well, given that your personal view is that you would like to see
the right kind of preamble, will you argue for that in your Party
Room?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I've already gone public on this but what I do in the
Party Room is a matter between me and my colleagues and we have our
own way of determining this. Bear in mind that we have maturely allowed
a free vote on the republican issue. And some people would legitimately
say, well, if you're going to have a free vote on the republican
issue, because the preamble only came up because we're talking
about a republic, that free vote should extend to the preamble as
well. Although you could end up with a situation where just about
everybody supports it even though, as far as the understanding of
the party is concerned, people are open to...are allowed to vote
against it or to argue against it. But that's something that
I'll discuss with my colleagues. And I've put it on the
table. I've been open about it. I've explained my motivation.
It's not machiavellian, it's genuine. And in a couple of
weeks time I'll get my Liberal and National Party colleagues
together and we'll have a talk. I'll listen to what they've
got to say. And there may well be elements in that discussion that
put a different complexion on it but as of now I repeat what I said
yesterday, I think this nation would be ennobled if we could find
a way of acknowledging that simple historical truth in our foundation
document. Now, let's not be too cynical or too conspiratorial
about something like this. It is just a view I have.
O'BRIEN:
You're obviously concerned that if you broaden that preamble
too much that you will alienate a number of people, you've said
that. But then you would be equally concerned, wouldn't you,
that if it's not broad enough for indigenous Australians and
some other Australians that you're still going to have a rancorous
debate that becomes race-based?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I wish, with great respect, people, including journalists, wouldn't
drag race-based into the discussion of anything at all that sort of
talks about our indigenous people. I mean, what I'm trying to
do is as far away from a race-based debate as you could possibly get
yourself. Nothing in this area is going to satisfy everybody. There
will be some people on the Aboriginal side who will never be satisfied.
There are some people on the other side who are intensely suspicious
of even mentioning Aborigines. I think what I've got is a simple,
middle-ground proposition and that is we recognise something that
no reasonable man or woman could deny and that is that the first Australians
were the indigenous people. We don't start saying that we have
to entrench in the Constitution that they have ongoing rights of a
particular character. They have rights as Australians, no more no
less, but it is undeniably the truth that they were here before any
other people. Now, I don't think it's too hard to acknowledge
that. But once people start upping the ante and saying, we've
got to go further, we've got to have custodianship mentioned,
we've got to have ongoing rights, particular kinds mentioned,
you lose me, you lose middle Australia because they would not want
that and they would see that as pushing the envelope too far.
O'BRIEN:
On today's new ministerial guidelines. You lost a lot of ministers
in the last term under your previous guidelines. The new guidelines
are being interpreted already as having been softened. Does that indicate
that you were perhaps a little over zealous with the first set of
guidelines?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you can debate whether I was or I wasn't. Perhaps some
people would argue that I was. The changes, Kerry, in today's
document are not extensive. What I've basically done is said
that you can make a divestment of it's not a breach of
the guidelines you have a divestment of shares to independent
adult children. You can't divest to dependent children and hope
to escape the guidelines. And we've also allowed, in pursuance
of the study of blind trusts that I commissioned about two years ago,
we're going to allow Ministers to hand over control of their
share portfolios to nominees as an alternative to divestment. Now,
there are a few other relatively minor changes but the great bulk
of the previous guidelines remain. They're not really softened.
I think they're made more common sense, they're made more
realistic. You will never get a satisfactory set of guidelines and
I don't think you'll ever get rid of argument in this area
unless you have Parliament full of people who've never owned
an asset, who've never sought to be successful in business, who've
never shown any kind of independent entrepreneurial imagination. And
while ever you have people who are jealous of the success of others
you're going to have criticism that guidelines aren't tight
enough.
O'BRIEN:
But when you talk about Ministers passing shares on to the management
control of professional nominees, are they clearly defined as blind
trusts where the Minister, under instruction, is not told anything
about the future management of those shares?
PRIME MINISTER:
But they're circumstances where he has nothing to do with it,
that's what I've got in mind.
O'BRIEN:
And no knowledge of.
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
O'BRIEN:
Is that spelt out in the guidelines?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't have the document with me. And can I tell you I
settled the document about three months ago and it's because
Parliament's been in recess that I haven't tabled it. And
I'm not going to pledge myself to every last word of it without
getting it out and I don't carry it with me in my pocket. But
the intent is to create a situation where a person can hand over control
of his portfolio to somebody independently, he no longer exercises
control. And that is regarded as a reasonable alternative to a situation
where you have complete divestment.
O'BRIEN:
But do you accept that if the Minister is seen to be divested of any
possible personal interest or conflict of interest in shares that
might impact on his own portfolio responsibilities, that in handing
that over, not only does he hand over control of those shares, he
loses knowledge of any future movement of shares?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the circumstance that we have in mind is to put a person in
a situation where he can say, look, you run this, I have no control
over what you do and I can't influence your decisions.
O'BRIEN:
Okay. On the GST and Peter Costello's admissions today that he
didn't get Treasury to model the employment effects of the new
tax given the size of the unemployment problem in Australia
and its import to us all, why wouldn't you try to model the effects
of that in advance as you did other elements?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, for the reason the Treasurer explained. And this, Kerry, is
not a new admission. I mean, I think I said this and Peter said this
some months ago. We do still have a big unemployment problem. We've
both recognised that. And tax reform is part of solving that problem,
but it's only part of it. You need to have further movement in
freeing up the labour market. You need to do more about the interaction
of the welfare system and unemployment benefits, including things
like literacy and numeracy testing and instruction for people who
can't get jobs. You also need, of course, a high rate of economic
growth. Now, none of us have claimed that the only answer to unemployment
is the GST. What we do claim is that if you reform the tax system
so that the economy grows more strongly and we can trade more competitively,
that will make a contribution towards reducing unemployment because
it will add to economic activity and economic growth. And the way
in which tax reform impacts on employment is that it boosts economic
performance and economic performance in turn brings forth the demand
for more jobs.
O'BRIEN:
But as you also know, there have been other models that suggest that
at least in the short-term substantial jobs in particular sectors
can and possibly will be lost and even that there might be some loss
or marginal effect in the long-term. Peter Costello, late last year,
was quoting one outside report as saying there'd be 190,000 new
jobs but there was no Treasury modelling on that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we've never disguised that. What we've said is
and this analysis so far stands unrefuted that the tax reform
will add to economic growth and economic growth will call forth demand
for a larger number of jobs. Now, you can't put a precise figure
on that and I didn't argue that during the election campaign,
in fact, I was attacked for not doing so. But I just say again, Kerry,
that we put all of this before the Australian people. We didn't
make false representations about the employment impacts during the
election campaign. We said it would be beneficial but we didn't
try and put a figure on it because, frankly, it is just not possible.
And you talk about modelling the man that Labor's relying
on for a lot of their argument is Peter Dixon and he said that in
the short-term the plan would create 30,000 new jobs.
O'BRIEN:
In one circumstance but in another circumstance you might lose 100,000
jobs.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but I mean...
O'BRIEN:
But that is selective quoting on your part, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, when you say...but you can equally say you've got selective
modelling. You can't take one segment of a tax plan as big as
this and hold that up and say, this outcome alone either damns or
endorses the taxation policy. You have to look at the whole piece.
And I would go back to what I said a moment ago that so far the evidence
before the Senate committee has not adequately refuted the broad economic
analysis contained in the document that I released before the election
last year.
O'BRIEN:
Okay, if we can just turn our eyes offshore for a moment. East Timor
continues to make headlines, particularly with Indonesia's open
canvassing of possible and I know it's only possible
independence. How relaxed would you be about an independent East Timor
with Indonesian sanction?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would prefer an autonomous East Timor within Indonesia. And I would
hope that Indonesia and East Timorese leaders will continue to work
towards that. If that is unachievable then I would hope that the transition
to independence would be as orderly and as carefully planned and as
sympathetically undertaken by the Indonesians and others and we want
to help. This is very important to Australia. And if that is to be
the case, if the East Timorese people won't accept autonomy
and I don't regard the issue as completely beyond resolution
and I think there still should be attempts to achieve that
but if that comes about it would be not be as preferable to me as
East Timorese autonomy within Indonesia.
O'BRIEN:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think there would be an inherent instability. There would
be an economic and strategic vulnerability. There would be the potential
for, I think, ongoing tension between Indonesia and the independent
East Timor of a type that mightn't exist if East Timor were an
autonomous part of Indonesia. There's no really happy outcome
of this. I mean, we played a major role in bringing about a change
of Indonesian policy because we believe that the previous position
was increasingly unsustainable. But it has always been our preference
to see East Timor autonomously part of Indonesia for the reasons that
I've just put forward but we recognise in the end that if that
is not what the people will accept, well, we don't support it
being imposed upon them, of course we don't. But that doesn't
make it illogical for us to hope that it might still be possible to
achieve the autonomous within Indonesia outcome.
O'BRIEN:
Very briefly because we are out of time, would a UN security force,
given the instability in the lead up with negotiations and so on,
would a UN security force in the area be a good idea and would Australia
consider contributing to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, hypothetical questions at the moment. I want to see continued
diplomatic effort invested not only by Australia but by others in
trying to persuade the Indonesians and the East Timorese to the virtues
of the preference I've expressed. And I think those avenues should
be exhausted genuinely, not only by us, by others, before we start
examining what are still hypothetical propositions.
O'BRIEN:
Prime Minister, thanks for talking with us.
PRIME MINISTER:
A pleasure.
[Ends]