Subjects: gambling; Ansett and CASA; tax minimisation schemes; petrol prices; beer excise; Shell-Woodside; Governor General; reduction in US interest rates; Kyoto treaty; seizing assets of criminals; Australian Democrats.
E&OE................................
MITCHELL:
And in the Canberra studio is the Prime Minister. Mr Howard good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil, good to be with you again.
MITCHELL:
Well thanks for your time. There's a meeting today of state and federal officials on the issue of gambling. Do you support the idea of restricting withdrawals from ATMs at gambling venues?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would be supportive of anything that discouraged people from gambling. The question of the practicality of that is something I would need to get advice on, but generally of course restricting the growth of gambling is something that the states have control over. Our direct constitutional power is limited to things like the internet and we've taken a strong stand on that. But I would encourage states generally to implement workable measures which discourage people from gambling.
MITCHELL:
Got any other ideas? Restricting withdrawals at ATM's is one thing, what else can you do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the moves that have been taken by some of the states to restrict the growth and the availability of poker machines is certainly a very good step in the right direction.
MITCHELL:
I sense, do you think Victoria's lagging a bit on this is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is the sense I have and I hope that it doesn't. I mean it is a social disease for some people, it's not for others. People who can control their gambling habits find it fun and nobody has any objection to that. But there's no doubt that there are a significant number of problem gamblers. There's no doubt that we have an absolute deluge of poker machines in Australia. It's one world record of which I am not in the least bit proud as an Australian. And anything that governments can do to discourage people they ought to.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, another issue, the airline safety. CASA says it doesn't have enough resources are you going to give them more resources?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if they make a case we will but just about every agency of government says it doesn't have enough resources and if you look at something in isolation you can always, I guess make a case for more money. But my reading of CASA in the past has not been a resource problem, if there have been problems there, it hasn't been resources. But I think they've done a good job. Look, they're not perfect but .
MITCHELL:
That's a bit of a worry when they're not perfect but they are there to ensure that the skies are safe. They need to be damn close to perfect don't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, nothing's perfect, but I can simply point to the safety record this country has and so far as commercial domestic airlines are concerned, you can't get much safer than what Australia has. But we do need to be vigilant and that means on occasions that the regulator is going to take decisions that airlines don't like and we're seeing that at the present time. But I am very pleased that Ansett and the regulator are working together. Ansett is a great Australian company. Ansett's contributed a lot to this country and I want to see it back there as a powerful competitor. I might say before I became prime minister I was a very regular customer of Ansett and I was always very happy with the service that I received and I admire the service that the company's given to the Australian public over the years and I think everybody wants to see Ansett work its way through the problems that it's got and co-operate with the regulator, get those 767s back in the air and make sure that the re-equipment that Mr Toomey has spoken about comes on stream as quickly as possible. Because we have got a great record when you look back over the years and I want to see it maintained.
MITCHELL:
I guess the issue though now is that there has been a problem, why that problem wasn't identified. Is it a failure of Ansett? Or is it a failure of CASA? Which it didn't follow up incidentally some of those Ansett, some of the Boeing bulletins with Ansett because they didn't have the resources to do it. Now that's a pretty key issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well even Mr Toomey acknowledges that the major failure, the major failure was that of Ansett in not having a proper internal system. I mean Ansett has the prime responsibility of fixing the problem. Now Ansett failed to do that until recent times and now it's doing it and that is to be welcomed.
MITCHELL:
Yes well Ansett had the problem, but CASA didn't follow it up as they say they would have had they had the resources.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can always debate that and no doubt Mr Anderson will debate that with CASA.
MITCHELL:
All right, well look what stage, does that mean that he'll be looking at any argument for new resources?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you always look at them but I don't want to be heard to say that just because an agency puts up its hand and says 'can we have more money', I say yes. I repeat, every agency by nature always wants more resources. I don't know any agency either part of or associated with the government that won't say yes, we could do with more money if you ask them.
MITCHELL:
Well you're happy with the way they've handled it? CASA.
PRIME MINISTER:
Broadly speaking yes.
MITCHELL:
Broadly? What not in the .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because I am not in touch day-to-day with the operations of CASA because I'm not the minister and Mr Anderson is very happy with the way they've handled it but he's not been unwilling to argue for some changes and some different approaches. It's a very high profile debatable, contentious area, air safety and air regulation in Australia. Australia is a big country, we use aircraft a great deal more than most countries with a comparable population size and as a result there's always going to be furious debate and you get some very strong-willed personalities involved in the aviation industry and you're going to get a lot of debate, no matter what the circumstances are. But in the end you've got to look at the record and the record in this country is of incredibly safe domestic airlines.
MITCHELL:
Well given the debate that's going on though, does there need to be a broader look at how it's working? As, a member of the public must say, who's right, who's wrong, am I safe?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would say to the public look at the record. Look at the experience. And I would remind the Australian public that what you've seen over the last couple of weeks is the determination of the regulator to make sure that Ansett complies with very strict safety requirements.
MITCHELL:
Yes but we've also seen a situation where people were flying around in planes that it was later decided they shouldn't have been flying in.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is true and that is something that shouldn't happen again.
MITCHELL:
Can we be confident of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will certainly do everything we can to make sure that it doesn't happen again and if that means some changes to the way CASA operates, well so be it. But I am not going to just on the run without knowing every detail of how the organisation operates say what those changes ought to be.
MITCHELL:
On another area, I read this week that these mass marketed tax schemes, like film The Plantation, there's been an argument going around those for some time, that a decision is close on that. Is that decision made yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well these are schemes that over the years have been entered into by an estimated 60,000 people. They are certainly tax minimisation schemes although the people who have gone into them and the nature of them are not your commonly understood tax avoiders, or commonly understood tax avoidance schemes.
MITCHELL:
Well tax minimisation is legal, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well tax minimisation is legal, yes but if everybody minimised their tax to every conceivable degree there might be a big hole in the revenue. But in relation to these schemes there have been of particular problem in Western Australia. A lot of people are very worried about the possibility of bankruptcy. The Commissioner of Taxation has told me that he is going to do a number of things. Firstly he's going to bring test cases to court as quickly as possible and he's going to fund the hearing of those test cases. And in the meantime and this is very important for people who are caught up in these schemes, the Tax Office will put in place a moratorium, that means the Tax Office will hold off recovery action until the relevant cases have been resolved in court. And what that means is that the moratorium will apply to all outstanding tax debts in tax effective scheme investment cases where an objection has been lodged by the taxpayer. Now our position as a government, bearing in mind that the Tax Commissioner administers the Income Tax Act, our position as the government is that if people are found to be liable to pay tax, they have to meet their tax obligations. But we would certainly expect and want to see a very sympathetic approach taken by the Commissioner in relation to the question of penalties and interest. But the main message I have at the moment and it's very important for the people caught up in these schemes is that we're going to have test cases, they're going to be funded by the Commissioner and until then there is a moratorium on debt recovery action by the Commissioner until those cases are resolved in court and some of them may be resolved in court by the end of this year.
MITCHELL:
Yeah. I think if I did read the Commissioner was in fact pursuing that money wasn't he?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there have been a lot of reports but this is information that I was...advice I was given by the Commissioner of Taxation late yesterday afternoon.
MITCHELL:
Now, something else, petrol. Petrol's topping the dollar in Melbourne for unleaded per litre. Has your excise cut disappeared do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it hasn't disappeared because if we hadn't cut the excise it would be 1.5 cents a litre dearer and we would be looking at another increase in August of this year. So the answer is no it has not and it never can disappear.
MITCHELL:
So you're confident it's being passed on I guess? That's what I was getting at it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're confident it's being passed on. But as I have always and frequently said Neil because the world price fluctuates because of world pressures we can't control...
MITCHELL:
But it went up on the eve of Easter and the crude price didn't go up.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we don't control the market forces that influence the price paid when the crude is purchased and it can sometimes because of leads and lags there can sometimes be a disconnect between a movement in the crude price and the domestic price. I have seen situations where the crude price has gone up overseas but that hasn't been directly reflected in the bowser. It bounces around.
MITCHELL:
The other excise issue is beer and there's certainly been a lot of attention on that this week because it's not being passed on. Do you think that you've been, or that people have been dudded on beer prices?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're doing everything we can to make sure they're not. I was always sceptical about the breweries in relation to the beer excise cut.
MITCHELL:
But isn't it more the hotels rather than the brewers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the pressure of the ACCC will ensure that the price is passed on and I think most Australians are alive to their entitlement to cheaper beer.
[Ad break]
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister is in our Canberra studio. Mr Howard I noticed Paul Keating describes Bob Menzies as having been a coward. What was your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is the kind of spiteful view of history for which many in the Labor Party, not all I might say, are quite notorious. I mean this is just an illustration of how much contempt people like Paul Keating and the Labor Party had for the notion of bipartisan commemoration of our centenary as a nation. I think most fair-minded Australians would recognise that on our side of politics the towering figure of history and the longest serving Prime Minister was Robert Menzies. And even Labor people would have to acknowledge the way in which he dominated the political scene for so long. I mean he laid waste the Labor Party for almost a generation.
MITCHELL:
But did you read in the letters released of him wanting to appease...?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I didn't see that at all. I've read that letter and it's just a sort of selective spite. I mean most political leaders of that generation with the dramatic and courageous exception of Winston Churchill were people who talked about negotiations with the Germans. There are comments by John Curtin in the Parliament encouraging the idea of negotiations after the war had broken out. I've recently read a wonderful book Five Days in London by American historian, Lucas, about the deliberations of the British War Cabinet in 1940 after Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. And Halifax, the Foreign Secretary at the time, he was very much still in favour of discussions and negotiations. I mean it was the attitude of that generation. And I'm not saying that Menzies was exempt from that but nor was Curtin. They were all on, both sides of politics in Australia at that time, appeasement was something that people grabbed for. They still had memories of the horrible losses of World War I.
MITCHELL:
But certainly not a coward?
PRIME MINISTER:
No no. I think that's a despicable comment but typical of the rather spiteful attitude unfortunately. I don't talk in a spiteful fashion of John Curtin. I obviously disagree with much of his philosophy from a political stand point but I recognise and respect the contribution he made as Australia's Prime Minister during World War II and I think particularly in this year of commemorating our centenary we need a little bit of historical objectivity as well as individual charity from former Prime Ministers and not partisan spite.
MITCHELL:
Can I ask you about the Woodside decision. Is that likely today?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not aware that the Treasurer will be making that announcement today.
MITCHELL:
Is it likely soon?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it'll be made quite soon. It's a difficult issue and the Treasurer will of course make a decision according to the national interest.
MITCHELL:
Presumably if it goes ahead there'll be conditions on Shell will there not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to talk about what the decision might be.
MITCHELL:
There has been extensive reporting of some disagreements between yourself and the Treasurer on this. Is that correct?
PRIME MINISTER:
We've had very extensive discussions as we do on all important things.
MITCHELL:
Have there been discussions that involve disagreement?
PRIME MINISTER:
They have been wide-ranging, full and frank.
MITCHELL:
I won't take that as a denial.
PRIME MINISTER:
No no, you shouldn't take it as anything other than what I've said. Look Peter and I have a broad measure of agreement. In fact our views on matters economic are very close. But it would be very strange if you had a Treasurer and a Prime Minister always agreeing on every single thing. That comment is made not in reference incidentally to Shell and Woodside. It's made generally. I wouldn't have much respect for a Treasurer of mine who agreed with everything that I said.
MITCHELL:
What is your reaction to the reduction, surprise reduction in American interest rates?
PRIME MINISTER:
I welcome it. I think it shows a determination by Alan Greenspan and the monetary authorities in America to build growth back into the American economy. And fortunately we have low inflation in American and they can afford to cut their interest rates.
MITCHELL:
Is it relevant to Australian rates?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what happens in America always has some relevance in Australia. And there's now a gap of I think three-quarters of one per cent between the cash rate in the United States and the cash rate in Australia. Now the question of what happens in the future is a matter naturally for the Reserve Bank.
MITCHELL:
I read that the Cabinet is looking at taking a tougher line on assets of criminals, seizing assets. What were you planning?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there'll be an announcement made by the minister but the idea is to be as tough as possible in relation to criminal behaviour. But there's just a couple of 'i's to be dotted and 't's crossed before any announcement's made.
MITCHELL:
Another report today that there's a look at changing the regulation of governing the radiation from mobile phones. Have you caught up with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven't. I heard it on the radio this morning as I was walking and I don't know anything about it. It's news to me as it is to you so I'll find out.
MITCHELL:
And a report from the Kyoto treaty. A poll says 80%of Australians support it but you don't.
PRIME MINISTER:
No it's not right to say that I don't support it. I support, as I think that poll indicates, I support a world wide agreement effectively controlling the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. What I don't support is an approach that doesn't include the developing countries. Now I would imagine anybody asking do you support Kyoto takes that as a question do you support world wide attempts to control greenhouse gas emission and of course we say yes. Anybody would say yes to that. I say yes to that. But I don't say yes to a protocol which places restrictions and liabilities on Australia but doesn't place restrictions or liabilities on developing countries.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for your time. Is a decision close on the Governor General?
PRIME MINISTER:
When I have something to say on that subject I will make sure that you hear it at the same time as everybody else.
MITCHELL:
That'll be difficult. Have you had a discussion yet with the new leader of the Democrats, Senator Stott Despoja?
PRIME MINISTER:
No not yet. She has asked to see me and we're having a meeting next week.
MITCHELL:
Do you still think she'll be more difficult to deal with?
PRIME MINISTER:
Let me take things as they come. I will deal with her courteously on the merits. I'll deal on issues, I won't deal on rhetoric or image or perception or 'x' 'y' 'w', 'a' 'b' or 'c' 'd' 'e' generations. I'll just deal with her attitude on issues. If she is willing to support some of the Government's measures than I will welcome that. If she's not then I'll accept that because there's nothing I can do about it. I mean I have had to deal with a hostile Senate from the day I was sworn in as Prime Minister in March of 1996. And many of the things that we would have done we haven't been able to do because the Labor Party and principally the Democrats wouldn't help us do so. But on occasions we've negotiated important changes with the Democrats. I do still respect and thank Meg Lees for the leadership she showed in negotiating the tax package with me, and also the attitude taken by Cheryl Kernot, then the leader of the Australian Democrats in the area of industrial relations with Peter Reith back in 1996. Now they were important breakthroughs. We didn't get everything we wanted but we got a lot more than Labor would have given us.
MITCHELL:
Well thank you for your time. If she's generation X what are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought my ramble through the alphabet indicated I'm not much impressed with those sorts of labels.
MITCHELL:
Thanks for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay.
[ends]