E&OE...................................................................................................
JONES:
On the line from Murwillumbah or somewhere near it, Prime Minister, good
morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Murwillumbah or somewhere near it will do Alan. Good morning how are
you?
JONES:
Have you ever been where you are today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've been to Murwillumbah but I haven't stayed at this
very environmentally friendly place called tree-tops. I went for a walk
this morning. It's a great spot. It's a long way from where
I was yesterday morning in Dubbo but it has been quite an experience over
the past few days. I have listened a lot. I've learned a lot. I've
reinforced some views, I've modified and tempered others. People
are incredibly reasonable and sensible in their requests in the region
of Australia. In most cases they want a high quality of basic services,
they want to fix to the extent it is possible for the Government to provide
a reasonable participation in the general national economic prosperity
and as always country people are very courteous and friendly.
JONES:
Well, can I just ask you in relation to that before we talk about the
region per se, a fairly simple question : by what morality do we pay as
we did last financial year $50 million on illegal immigrants, $12 million
fighting legal actions brought by illegal immigrants, but textile workers
in regional New South Wales are left to whistle for what is rightfully
theirs.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's a fair question. Let me try and answer it. We are doing
our level best to avoid the need to pay all that money on illegal immigrants.
Since we came to power we have tried to strengthen the law to make it
less inviting to come to this country. Some of that cost Alan is involved
in - literally involved in apprehending people. Some of it is involved
in keeping them in detention. I don't want illegal immigrants coming
to this country. I've tried my level best as Prime Minister to tighten
the law. We were obstructed and frustrated by the Labor Party in the Senate
and the law would have been tightened long ago, and even more if it hadn't
been for their objection and obstruction. So I understand that but there
is a certain amount of unavoidable expense involved. Now, you get the
textile workers, we are still examining the details of that. I understand
their unhappiness. I think if I were in their shoes I would feel that
I was entitled to every last cent of that redundancy.
JONES:
And they are aren't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't argue against that and we've got to find an effective
and equitable way of dealing with that sort of problem. It is made even
more difficult when the people retrenched are in a regional area where
the employment prospects aren't as strong.
JONES:
I mean, it is a double whammy if no-one wants to come and live in the
place, they can't sell their house either.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, I accept that. I think this is an example of where the process
of economic change is hurting people and ...
JONES:
Could I just ask you one other thing which is a simple thing. You can't
employ anyone, I can't, you can't as Prime Minister and you
are the most powerful man in the country. You can't employ anyone
without at law having to commit as part of that employment their entitlement
to four weeks' annual leave, annual leave loading, they pay super,
you pay super, they must have sick leave. So surely to God if the employer
is not made by law to put these benefits aside week by week, month by
month, and if the employer goes belly up, but what morality does the employer
go scott free and the employee is asked to pawn his personal effects to
survive?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, in this particular case, and I'll come to that, I should point
out to your listeners that the workers are going to get paid their long
service leave and their sick leave and their superannuation. The entitlement,
or the benefit which is at risk or part of which is at risk without assistance
from another source is the redundancy payment. Now, the law, as I understand
it, does not require the redundancy payment to be separately put aside
and of course in the case of the redundancy you can have a worker who
is just about to retire and if he retires he doesn't get the redundancy
but if he is made redundant shortly before he retires, he does.
JONES:
But they are government laws?
PRIME MINISTER:
There is not a government law requiring..
JONES:
No.
PRIME MINISTER:
.. the redundancy to be separate....
JONES:
No but the government ordains their entitlement to redundancy, so if
the bottom line surely is...
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan in this particular case, and I'm not trying to avoid it, I'm
trying to answer it in detail, in this particular case the redundancy
does in fact arise from the enterprise bargain. There was an enterprise
agreement made, and the redundancies to which....
JONES:
But at law they are entitled to enterprise bargaining aren't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are entitled to enterprise bargaining but the amount of the redundancy
is something that is subject to that, but Alan look, that is interesting
detail but your point about their entitlement I can't argue with
and ...
JONES:
So if push turns to shove, shouldn't we as a community because you
talked about the other day when an article appeared under your name in
a paper and you talked about the need for a social coalition in this country
and you want a partnership of individuals, families, business, government,
you said welfare and charitable organisations each contributing
their unique resources and expertise to tackle disadvantage at its source.
Now, if that is to mean anything we should all kick the can to make sure
these people don't miss out on anything.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it is a very strong argument.
JONES:
Could I just ask you then on the extension of that argument, because
it is textiles and I'll come to the rural thing but I'm sure
you've met this everywhere in regional Australia. Bill Clinton was
in Davos at the weekend telling the world about the benefits of free trade
and imports and we all agree about those things but his government is
still providing $8.7 billion to the American agricultural sector. Now
while-ever people are not prepared to play by the rules, why then do we
slavishly adhere to rules that the big fellas don't want to play
by?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we don't have a situation of no protection in this country.
We still have significant levels of protection for the textile industry
and the motor car industry. I would be the last person to defend the consistency
of the Clinton administration's performance on trade matters after
what they did to us over lamb and we were not overly impressed with the
American position at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle
I'll leave it at that.
JONES:
And you are being belted up over Howe Leather?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, of course, and that illustrates the inequity of the world trading
system...
JONES:
For my listeners' benefit I should just say Howe Leather is a Victorian
leather company for which the government provided export assistance to
the tune of $22 billion. The WTO dispute mechanism has found against the
Commonwealth Government and directed the Government to retrieve that $22
million from Howe Leather or face punitive action.
PRIME MINISTER:
We'll continue to fight that as strongly as we can but it illustrates
the point that the world trading system is loaded against countries like
Australia and it is therefore very important that these sort of inconsistencies
be pointed out but in the long run because we are a trading nation we
still have more to gain from a more open world trading system than we
do from a closed one, and we are getting many of our agricultural exports
into the world markets. I, for example, was in Bourke two days ago, and
the cotton industry there is a huge success and a lot of that cotton is
being sold and in fact the great bulk of it is being sold overseas. A
lot of it is going to Asia. Some of it is going into Indonesia. Now, what
we have to understand is that if we close down this country against other's
exports then they will close their countries down against our exports.
JONES:
I wish that applied to European and American agriculture.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the problem is it doesn't apply to that...it's been
our 30 or 40 year gripe and it continues to be ...
JONES:
Just come back to Bourke. The cotton growers warned you against it. Just
coming back to Rutherford. Do I hear you that you will consider the prospect...see
these people face I don't want to go on about this
but I'm more worried about, they are pawning their private effects,
they are sending kids to school, they may not be able to afford uniforms,
they can't afford the mortgage on their house. Is there an initiative
whereby you would say to the nation our collective well-being can't
obscure the need for theirs and we as taxpayers will meet their entitlements?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Alan, let me leave it at this. The Government is looking at all
aspects of this. I understand the plight of these people - I do understand
that - and we are trying to find a way through it which is fair to them
but is also consistent with other obligations the Government has and also
recognises that there is some role in all of this for the private sector.
JONES:
Right. Bourke, just come back to Bourke, because the cotton growers warned
you there against reducing irrigation water from the Darling River. Now,
we know the Murray Darling system has a problem that has to be addressed
but you were told that proposals to cap irrigation water would threaten
the community's foundation in Bourke. Now, it was in Bourke, Prime
Minister, in 1996 and earlier that a nationwide campaign was launched
called the National Water Distribution Scheme. Elsewhere it's called
"drought proofing Australia". Now, we are not short of water
we are short of the whit and the will to preserve it and use it. You are
talking about infrastructure. Why not investigate a massive infrastructure
project to better use our water and water Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think that's good some merit. I think one of the points
that arises from that suggestion, Alan, is that that is the very sort
of thing that you might have a greater capacity to look at if there were
a suitable scheme and I'd stress that proviso. If the Government
weren't investing tens of billions of dollars in owning 50 per cent
of the telecommunications company and that's a point I've been
making as I've been going around the country. But the water problem
in Australia is not just a question of expenditure, it really is a question,
as you rightly said in your question, it really is a question of management.
It's not the scarcity of the resource it's the way in which
we use it.
JONES:
But can I just say to you on that - in Western Australia, for example,
in the Lake Argyle system in Western Australia it releases 50 tonnes of
water per second into the Ord River, 90 per cent of it is unwanted and
goes straight into the Timor Sea and yet productive areas of Australia
are savaged by a drought. Now, we have got a proposal to put a pipeline
from Papua New Guinea to Queensland, a $2.5 billion pipeline to pump gas
into Queensland, why can't we pump water into Queensland?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that $2.5 billion is a private sector commitment.
JONES:
And I'm sure you'd get a private sector commitment to water
Australia.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if there were an economic return on it and I'm not sure that
some of those projects there would be an economic return.
JONES:
But even from the Government's point of view if you could water
Australia and save money on drought relief you'd build revenue...
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, there is no more important, long-term resource management issue
in this country than water.
JONES:
Definitely.
PRIME MINISTER:
And one of the things that I, you know, clearly had reinforced to me
over the last few days is just how important this issue is, how difficult
it is, how much you can gain if you manage the resource intelligently.
And I think it's an issue that this country and all of the governments
of Australia working together not taking parochial State attitudes but
working together to find a common solution.
JONES:
But see if you have got water, if regional Australia is watered you don't
really have to worry about banks or Australia Post or car sales or dry
cleaners, they will be there because those areas will be viable and profitable.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, that's true, that is absolutely true. And Bourke is a good
example because Bourke at one stage in its existence was in very difficult
economic circumstances. I am not suggesting that all its problems are
behind us but it's certainly a much stronger economy now and that
is largely but not totally due to the success of the cotton industry and
that is de to the...
JONES:
Murray Darling.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, the fortunate conjunction of natural circumstances.
JONES:
Absolutely. You have been to Kalgoorlie. Now, when you said it's
a difficult project I wonder what they were saying in 1897, when C.Y.O'Connor
said he'd build a pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie. 370 miles, he
built it in a matter of months. He was criticised it wouldn't work,
he was criticised it was a waste of money. The poor coot committed suicide
under the stress, that was in 1897. Surely to God we can do something
like that now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Alan, the answer to that in-principle is yes provided the national
benefit is clearly demonstrated. I mean, I can't, and I don't
think you want me in an interview like this to say yes or...
JONES:
No, I am not.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't and I am not going to do that.
JONES:
I just wanted to lift up the priority list.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think I have been doing that. I mean, what I have been doing
for almost a week now is raising a simple question, why should the taxpayers
of Australia invest tens of billions of dollars in a telecommunications
company rather than in all the sort of things you're are talking
about. Now, that's a very simple question.
JONES:
But you have heard from the farmer that he's not a whinger but he
knows that he can handle commodity prices, he can handle interest rates
but he can't handle the absence of water.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I understand that and the point I am making...
JONES:
See in New South Wales, Prime Minister...
PRIME MINISTER:
Just hang on.
JONES:
Go on, go on, okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, it's a question of priorities and I go back to the Telstra
point I was making. I mean, what is more important tens of billions of
dollars tied up in a telecommunications company or those tens of billions
of dollars in infrastructure investment? Now, I'll leave that to
you.
JONES:
All right, I take your point. Well, let's just take that a step
further. I am sure you are aware in New South Wales and Queensland, even
recently in the last year, stringent native vegetation laws are having
a real impact on the ability of farmers to use land for productive purposes.
Now, they have been imposed without any regard to their cost directly
o farmers and indirectly to the rest of the community. I mean, wouldn't
the Federal Government support an inquiry into the cost benefits of on-farm
conservation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't had that specifically put to me before but I will
have a look at that. I won't say yes or no on the run.
JONES:
Right. Just...I am wondering on the phone front, have you had any
feedback on the phone front?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, so far I haven't, we haven't sort of encountered any
difficulties. People say up here in northern New South Wales there are
a few problems. I am meeting a lot of community leaders today to explore
that. At the back of Bourke it was fine.
JONES:
Right. Well, I have got farmers from Dubbo telling me they can't
even get a mobile phone service at home.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are some areas, Alan, that didn't have the old analogue
service. Dubbo itself was covered by digital, it has been for some time
and I know there are some more base stations being put in out there. Look,
I am not representing to anybody that every part of the country is fully
covered by mobile telephones but it is getting progressively better and
it's one of those basic services that people are entitled to have.
But in the very remote areas the only way you can reach people, because
there are no base stations, the only way you can reach people is by satellite
and, of course, the cost of an individual satellite phone service is very
high. And clearly that is a different dimension from most of the rest
of the country where we are progressively extending either the digital
or maintaining the CDMA where analogue has been discontinued.
JONES:
Is it technically possible for you to turn the analogue signal back on
until the CDMA coverage is improved?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think it's technically possible but the taxpayer would face
a big law suit from the mobile phone providers because the Keating Government
signed a contract guaranteeing that the analogue service would disappear
and we would be in breach of that contract. We had a look at that, we
had a look at that a couple of years ago and they wouldn't hesitate
to take the taxpayers to court I am sure. Well, it's understandable
they made a big investment on the strength of the contract that the former
Government entered into. I mean, you should remember that these analogue
phones have been turned off now because the former Government entered
into an agreement with the new companies, the companies providing the
new service, that they would discontinue the analogue. And, I mean, it's
because of that that they have invested in digital.
JONES:
One quick one before you go, one farmer said to you and I quote his words
"we have become the nation's nasties, we are clobbered called
for wrecking the environment, written off as a bunch of whinges, called
a lot of ignorant dickheads for voting no in the republic referendum."
What is your response to rural and regional Australia when they know that
that's the way some people perceive them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the Prime Minister doesn't conceive them in that way and nor
does the Government he leads.
JONES:
Good on you. Good to talk to you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]