Subjects: Malcolm Fraser; aboriginal reconciliation; bill of rights; practical reconciliation; fuel prices; Medicare cards; education funding; football grand finals.
E&OE................................
FAINE:
Prime Minister John Howard joins me on the programme in the studio. Good morning to you Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Jon, good to be back.
FAINE:
Malcolm Fraser of course is making news this morning delivering the Vincent Lingiari Memorial Speech in Darwin last night saying that we need a bill of rights, we need to resolve issues such as the stolen generation, mandatory sentencing and so forth. Does this carry any weight with you? Does it have any impact because of who is saying it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Malcolm has said all of this before, except perhaps the bill of rights. I don't know whether he's mentioned that before. But the rest of what he said is well known. He, like any other Australian citizen is entitled to his view. I don't agree with him in relation to a bill of rights. I believe that if you try and institute a bill of rights you run the danger of limiting, rather than expanding freedoms. There are plenty of examples in history of countries that have had beautifully written bills of rights and because the political process has failed the democratic aspirations, those wonderful words are swept aside. And I can think of a couple of European countries, namely Germany and Soviet Russia who fall into that category. Now, obviously I seek to make the point, rather than to draw an analogy in referring to those two countries, but what really has to be borne in mind is that it, the thing that best guarantees people freedom is the political process where you have, if you have a strong parliamentary system and you have courts which are incorruptible and you have a strong free press, they are the best three guarantees any society can have of fundamental rights and we have them in Australia. There will always be debate about what people are entitled to have and by having a bill of rights you won't remove that, all you'll do is open up yet another avenue for lawyers to make a lot of money being human rights specialists and practitioners.
I find it strange that some of the people who criticise the existing court procedure for solving some of the issues that arise in indigenous policy would want by the entrenchment of a bill of rights to open up a whole new avenue of litigation. If you have a bill of rights, you open up a whole new opportunity for court cases, because people say their rights have been infringed, they go to court to get redress. So you don't eliminate the litigation, you in fact multiply litigation if you have a bill of rights.
FAINE:
But if you believe in principle, if you believe in a bill of rights, then administrative hurdles or hurdles in the implementation of the bill of rights such as creating a less litigious environment, things that you take in your stride . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes Jon, if you believe in that, but I don't. And I don't believe in it because I don't think it delivers better outcomes for individuals, I don't think it makes for a freer, more open, more liberal society. And I am not alone in holding that view. And I just disagree with Mr Fraser on that, but he's entitled to his view and I respect it, but I don't agree with it.
FAINE:
But because of who he is, does this mean that even within the Liberal Party you are looking a little more isolated than you might have been yesterday in that view, because Malcolm Fraser still commands a lot of respect within the ranks of the Liberal Party.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've never been somebody who decides to take a position according to the number of people who hold it. I take a position on something because I believe it's the right position and I've noticed this morning that the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party and a lot of people have come out in support of Malcolm Fraser. You might be interested to know that the most successful Labor leader in the country, the New South Wales Premier strongly agrees with me. He's totally opposed to a bill of rights for essentially the same reasons that I've put forward. But Jon in the end you form your views on what you think is right, not according to the latest opinion poll, or according to what some individual in your own party says. So, I am not troubled by who says these things, I have never been troubled by that, I am always impressed with the quality of an argument and the quality of the argument in favour of a bill of rights has never, to my way of thinking, has never had any real substance. And either in the context of indigenous policy, or in the context of policy generally, I don't favour the bill of rights approach. Now there are a lot of people in Australia who do, there are a lot of people in Australia who don't. I am of the second school, I believe if you keep our parliamentary institutions strong, you have an incorruptible court system and we certainly have that in this country we have a very strong court system, and if you have a strong, free, on occasion rambunctious, but nonetheless free press which is willing to have a go and is not in anyway intimidated by the political process then you are far more likely to have a strong, robust, virile democracy than with a bill of rights.
FAINE:
Yes. On relations with indigenous people, Malcolm Fraser says the nation as a whole can't move on, I am paraphrasing here, he says unless we acknowledge and heal the wound, the wound of the stolen generation, issues like mandatory sentencing and so on, and generally reconcile white and black Australia then we as a nation can't move on. And without naming you he had a shot at you as the prime minister and said a prime minister who acted to resolve reconciliation, mandatory sentencing, stolen generation, would strengthen his moral authority.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well these are views he's expressed before. I don't agree with him and I don't accept those observations. No country that has as part of its population an indigenous component, no matter what it has done in the words of Malcolm Fraser, has moved on completely and put everything behind it, it never works that way. We'd like it to be so. People often quote Canada as an example of what we should do. It's probably an example in many respects of what we should not do, because many of the things that are now urged upon me have been done in Canada, but there is still massive disputation, there are still claims and arguments about the past, the formality of the language used in the document of national profound regret, it wasn't in fact a document that in fact used the word apology because I had a look at the document this morning. That still hasn't put all of that aside in Canada, there is still a lot of debate. These are difficult issues and they are not solved by the use of one word in substitution for another. If it were as simple as that Jon it would have been done years ago, I mean it is not as simple as that.
There is a lot of debate about what happened in relation to children separated from their families, you do have to have a proper analysis of who did what. You can't just glibly say it happened in this way, no if, buts or maybes. On the occasions when it has come before a court for proper examination for example a few weeks ago in the Northern Territory, the judge found in the case of one person that that person had been removed with the consent of his mother. He also said that of the witnesses that came forward, half of them had been removed with the consent of their parents. Now I am the last person to say that many of the things that were done in the past were. of course they were wrong and they're unacceptable by today's standards. But I have often stated the view and I can only repeat it this morning because it's a view I sincerely hold that I don't think the present generation should accept responsibility for the actions of earlier generations, particularly when they were sanctioned by law. And with the greatest of respect to those who argue that if you only said it this way, there would be no more debate and discussion and no more claims and no more anything. I think they're being na‹ve.
FAINE:
And what do you say then to the people who say you can't move on? You maintain your position, they maintain theirs?
PRIME MINISTER:
No well look what I say . . .
FAINE:
Even the church leaders say as a nation we can't move on while we're stuck at that impasse.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I'm saying to them is that you won't move on by doing what they say.
FAINE:
Then how do we move on?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think what you do is you have to accept that progress is slow. You have to accept that the best way of moving on, to use your language is to address current disadvantage. I talk a lot about practical reconciliation and I am criticised for using that word "practical", but I stick by it because the best way of helping disadvantaged people now is to address their elements of disadvantage and we are increasingly doing that. It's a slow process, but we are making some progress in areas like health. There's been a massive increase in the number of indigenous people who now receive an education through TAFE courses, there's a growing number of indigenous people who are university graduates. There are multiplying programmes providing additional employment opportunities, we are signing up companies to the Employment Partnerships between the Federal Government and companies of Australia to give indigenous people opportunities. We have established a foundation to encourage volunteers to go into aboriginal settlements to help some of the more dysfunctional communities.
Barely a month goes by without there being some new initiative to help indigenous people and I believe very strongly that that is the way to go forward. There's very little publicity given to these things because it's easier to have a political debate around a phrase than it is to have a serious programme. It's far easier to have a debate about whether the prime minister should use a particular form of words. I mean everybody can get worked up about that and take sides. But when it actually comes to doing something practical, I think we are moving forward in a way that is quite genuine.
FAINE:
Petrol prices. We're now seeing petrol selling in not just remote outback locations, but in places far closer to the capital cities and sometimes in capital cities for more than a dollar litre. You quipped when you walked into the studio this morning and you saw the list of frequencies of the radio stations the ABC operates around Victoria and I'll read them out, 106.5, 107.9, and so on, 100.7 at Lakes Entrance, you said, goodness they're not petrol prices are they which had us all giggling and laughing here. But it is like that, people see figures like that and they say gee it's the Prime Minister's fault.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well maybe some people do say that. But it's not the Prime Minister's fault. The Prime Minister will get some of the blame but that always happens in a democracy and I accept that that goes with the territory. But the reason why petrol prices have gone up a lot recently is that the world price has gone up quite dramatically, even President Clinton can't do anything about it, he said yesterday that he was going to raise his concerns with the oil producing countries. So if the president of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen feels that he can't change it without speaking to the oil producers, I think that gives the lie to the argument that it's all the fault of the Federal Government.
The price has gone up because the world price has gone up and the other thing that has aggravated it externally is that the exchange rate of the Australian dollar has gone down against that of the United States' dollar and because oil is priced in US dollars it's made the purchase of each barrel of oil more expensive.
FAINE:
And that's going to hit further in the future because in fact the petrol we buy now was brought some time ago and paid for even some time ago.
PRIME MINISTER:
John, there are lags, but equally if there were some . . .
FAINE:
It's going to get worse.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the exchange rate is never static and I don't want to make predictions about what is going to happen but it stands to reason that if it were to go up at some time in the future than that would work in our favour. But the overwhelming reason that the price of petrol has gone up so much is the world price has gone up and we are tied to the world price for good conservation reasons. Now people say to me yes but you are collecting a lot of excise - that's true and I've never denied it. Every government in Australia . . . .
FAINE:
And more and more excise as time goes on.
PRIME MINISTER:
No well, it is pegged to the rate of inflation. It is not more and more in real terms. It's not more and more in real terms.
FAINE:
There's a windfall for the Federal Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no a windfall is something you don't plan for or you don't expect. But every last dollar that we're going to collect in relation to excise this year has been planned for and included . . .
FAINE:
As the price goes up so does the revenue you earn.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no it only goes up through indexation. But that is calculated, that is in the budget papers and the point I make is that if you are going to cut the excise.
FAINE:
Which you can do, you could do that today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I could do that today.
FAINE:
Why don't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll tell you why - because you've got to get the money from somewhere.
FAINE:
Money for what?
PRIME MINISTER:
Money to cut the excise.
FAINE:
It doesn't cost you anything.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes it does.
FAINE:
It's money you don't earn.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I'm sorry, it's in the budget. It's in the budget.
FAINE:
There's an additional amount coming to the federal government...
PRIME MINISTER:
When you do the budget you make a calculation of what you might expect to get by way of revenue through the whole year. So that if you decide to cut the excise level and make it different from what you plan for at the time of the budget it means that you are reducing the budget surplus. And in order to cut the excise by say five cents a litre, I mean I would think that people listening to this program this morning if they wanted me to do something about cutting the price of fuel through reducing excise they would say please make a decent job of it, don't just cut it by one or two cents a litre. They would say cut it by at least say five cents a litre.
FAINE:
And what would that cost?
PRIME MINISTER:
$1.7 billion.
FAINE:
And why can't you afford that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because it would run the budget surplus down and...
FAINE:
You'd still have a surplus.
PRIME MINISTER:
A much smaller one and you would be increasing the margin of risk of going into deficit.
FAINE:
You'd be making a lot of people in particular in rural and regional Australia, people whose votes you will depend on in the next 12 months to be returned to office, you will make them very very happy and you'll make their prospects of surviving a difficult business environment, particularly with all the complexities of the new tax system, a lot more likely to succeed.
PRIME MINISTER:
I would that life Jon were as simple as that.
FAINE:
It looks simple to anyone watching from the outside.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I explain why I don't think it's quite as simple as that? That if you run the surplus down at the present time with all the other pressures that are around you are exerting further upward pressure on interest rates and I don't think there's any country person listening to this program who wants more upward pressure placed on interest rates. Interest rates now, it's quite important, interest rates now are much lower than they used to be. They have gone up a little in the last 12 months. I don't control them. They're influenced by world forces and they're set by the Reserve Bank but I do have an influence in the decisions the government takes on interest rate pressures. And if you reduce the budget surplus you are providing another reason, other things pointing in that direction, to exert upward pressure on interest rates and I am not willing to do that.
FAINE:
But it also puts pressure on interest rates to have the price of fuel going up, which puts pressure..
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I know, that's my call to make in the end. I've got the responsibility.
FAINE:
Well one of them has got all sorts of political negatives and the other's got all sorts of political positives.
PRIME MINISTER:
No well it's not, Jon it is not as simple as that because what so often happens like variations in excise is that you can have another movement in the price of fuel that might go in the wrong direction and it completely wipes it out. And if the price of fuel were to go down people would not be happy if the excise that you reduce were to be reimposed. Look you can't avoid the fact that if you want to, given the world pressures, if we want to cut the price of fuel we can only do it by cutting excise. If we cut excise in our present budgetary circumstances you will reduce the surplus very significantly and that will put upward pressure on interest rates and I am not willing to do that because I don't think that would be helpful to the Australian economy or the Australian community.
FAINE:
What's your response to the ACCC investigating four oil companies on evidence that seems fairly strong so far that the fuel subsidy that you introduced for rural areas as part of the new tax reform package was being in some way rorted at the retail outlet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm glad that they're doing it and it demonstrates that the system of investigation by the ACCC is working. I'm glad they're doing it. I haven't seen the evidence so I'm not prepared to find the companies guilty or innocent. I don't know.
FAINE:
Big oil companies are innocent until proven guilty.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes yes, that is..
FAINE:
Tempting as it is along with banks to put them in a special category all of their own.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is the system under which we operate in this country and long may we continue to do so. And they are entitled to - in inverted commas - their day in court and I'm not going to make a peremptory judgement even in these emotional times about the price of petrol.
FAINE:
The pressure on the price of petrol is going to continue. In Perth one retailer has introduced a new price board outside their bowsers and it reads as follows - unleaded petrol 47.3 cents, plus taxes 46.6 equals pump price 93.9. And there's a call for retailers around Australia to put those boards up. If that happens that puts a lot of pressure on you and, your backbenchers will have constituents saying gee I never knew it was as bad as that. It's like the campaign on beer prices. It will really start to hurt surely.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Jon I'm used to those sorts of campaigns. It's not new to be told that there's a big excise on petrol. The indexation of excise was introduced by the Hawke Government in 1983. The Labor Party in Opposition now is not saying it's going to change it. It's criticising and scoring points but it's not offering any alternative. It's clearly committed to the same policy as the present government. So there is no alternative at a national political level. Look I understand the unpopularity, I understand the pain if I can put it that way that people feel about high petrol prices. I wouldn't want any of your listeners to think that I am insensitive to that. It's a difficult issue. There's no easy solution. I want the price to go down. It's gone up because of factors over which I have no control. The only way that I can act to bring it down is to find about $1.7 billion either by taking it out of the surplus thus risking upward pressure on interest rates, or cutting spending in other areas. And I don't think that would be fair, and I don't think people would support it and that's why regrettable though it is I can see no alternative to the present situation. And it's a dilemma being faced by governments as powerful as those of the United States and by leaders as powerful as the President of the United States.
FAINE:
Prime Minister a couple of other things that are around this morning in particular. The AMA has called on the federal government to automatically issue a Medicare card to every Australian when they turn 15. At the moment I think the system is that you can apply for a card once you turn 15 but the AMA say that by the time you're 15 you should get one as a sort of birthday present from the Commonwealth government. A bit like getting a telegram from the Queen when you turn 100. And it tells you you're of age and you can go and see doctors without your parents' knowledge or consent. What's your response?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I wouldn't embrace that immediately. I would like to think about that. I'm not certain that at the age of 15 there should be such an automatic separation between children and parents in relation to medical treatment. I'd like to think through the implications of that. I don't know that I automatically embrace what the AMA is saying.
FAINE:
Young people seem to be growing up at an earlier age.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but that doesn't mean to say we should encourage an earlier disconnect than used to exist and it's possible of course for children to mature early and grow up early and still have a very close relationship with their parents. So the two things that.
FAINE:
Not only possible but highly desirable.
PRIME MINISTER:
Indeed, so you know let's not sort of over institutionalise and formalise social change, I think that's a mistake. I just want to think about that, I'm not prepared to pick that up on the run.
FAINE:
It almost looks as if you are, someone is trying to drive a wedge between 15 year olds and their parents, you don't have to take any notice.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is an intuitive reaction that I have and I don't like that. I don't know whether that is, I'm sure that's not what the AMA intends, but I've got to say that it's not something I will immediately embrace. I'll think about it.
FAINE:
All right.
PRIME MINISTER:
No promises at all.
FAINE:
Maybe next time. We've been talking over the programme this week about new arrangements being put in place by your government for the funding of government and non government schools. One of the newspapers have gone through and worked out for instance Wesley College here in Melbourne would get an additional 2 and a half million dollars in commonwealth money under the new formula for funding and so on, Caulfield Grammar, 1.8 million additional money, Scots College 1.4 million dollars extra a year, Melbourne Grammar 1.3 million and so on, some vastly greater than the sorts of additional funds that will be provided to government schools under the arrangements from the government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well except the people who make those claims deliberately leave out the contribution the federal government makes through its general revenue contributions to the states for the funding of government schools. Now what people do when they use those figures is quite dishonestly say that because the direct money given by the federal government to independent schools is greater than the direct money given to government schools, therefore they are unfairly treating governments because what they leave out is that every year the federal government contributes what 30% to 40% or something like that of state government budgets and out of that in turn the state governments spend a huge proportion on government schools. When you add that in, you find that the treatment of government schools is roughly equivalent to the treatment of independent schools. These sorts of statistical sleights of hand are a function, a product of the financial arrangement we've always had whereby the on going capital and running costs of government schools are met by the states and in turn, the federal government makes a big contribution to the states so that the federal government is in that fashion, providing a lot of the financial underpinnings of state or government schools.
FAINE:
These new arrangements are based on a formula that looks at the income of the parent community.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's right, rather than the historical reasons and that is fairer.
FAINE:
Well is it? If the question in the private school community, you will have all sorts of families that have income being earned through companies and trusts which can give an artificial indication of the income of the parent community whereas companies and trusts are unlikely to be the vehicle for any income in government schools.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you don't know. You see once again, John that's wrong. There are, there's plenty of evidence that a lot of affluent people as is their right, as is their right, continue to send their children to government schools, there's a lot. I've seen surveys, you would be surprised. I mean it's a question of choice and equally there are a lot of people who make huge sacrifices to send their children to independent schools. I feel quite strongly about the need to have freedom of choice in this area and I'm a strong defender of the government school system. I'm a product of the government school system myself and I am very grateful for the education I received in it. But if you are going to be fair about this, you've got to look at the funding coming from all sources and this old trick which is used of just looking at the directing funding by the federal government without taking into account the money it sends the states through the general revenue grants each year, which in turn are used by state governments to fund government schools. If you add them in, which you must, you will find a much more balanced outcome and one that presents a fairer picture.
FAINE:
Two and a half minutes to nine, a few quick ones before we run into the news Prime Minister. The Olympics closing ceremony, big fuss being made over the last few days that one of the acts that's part of the parade, that's part of the closing ceremony is some drag queens.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know the details of it and I'll leave that to SOCOG, I mean SOCOG has never consulted me about the opening or the closing..
FAINE:
You mean it wasn't your idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
Your next question?
FAINE:
We need your football tips.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hope the Wallabies beat South Africa on Saturday in Durban. I would expect, I would like to see North Melbourne win. I fear that the final will be between Melbourne and Essendon.
FAINE:
Who would you tip then ?
PRIME MINISTER:
You would have to tip Essendon on form. I can't, I don't claim to be an expert, but you can't do other than tip Essendon. In relation to.
FAINE:
It would put you in good company I should say.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it does, although I would be very happy if Carlton won.
FAINE:
Because?
PRIME MINISTER:
I just think, I like occasionally to see the underdog get up.
FAINE:
I see, I see.
PRIME MINISTER:
As to the NRL.
FAINE:
Mr Elliot hasn't been leaning on you for that.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, we've.we haven't seen each other for quite a while.
FAINE:
The rugby?
PRIME MINISTER:
Rugby league? Rugby league, rugby league, I look, you would have to assume that Brisbane were going to win. It's a very classy outfit, it's a very good team, I would expect Brisbane to win.
FAINE:
We will wait and see and I must congratulate you on the portrait with Mrs Howard, there's a bit of discussion around the office.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you, you should congratulate the painter. She is very talented.
FAINE:
Your choice of having your portrait painted with your wife, we thought was a very interesting and about time departure from tradition as well.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are a team and she's been very important to me.
FAINE:
Thank you for your contribution this morning.