Subjects: death of princess Margaret; SA election; ALP; Speaker of the House; asylum seekers; visit to USA and Indonesia; war against terrorism; Steve Waugh
E&OE...........
PRESENTER:
The Prime Minister has returned from two weeks overseas to find an uncertain domestic political situation after the election in South Australia, where a hung parliament is a distinct possibility. Federal Parliament also meets this week for the first time since John Howard was elected in November. The battle for the next election begins in earnest with a new Opposition Leader trying to develop alternative policies to a buoyant Prime Minister just back from his overseas trip.
Well, Mr Howard is in our Sydney studio this morning, and here to talk with him, Sunday's political editor, Laurie Oakes. Good morning, Laurie.
OAKES:
Morning, Jim. Mr Howard, welcome back to Sunday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
OAKES:
It's good to have you as our first guest of the year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, with a new set...(laughs).
OAKES:
It is, it looks good (laughs).
PRIME MINISTER:
Very good.
OAKES:
Prime Minister, could I ask you first about the death of Princess Margaret? Have you sent a message to the Queen?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I will be. I've made a statement. It's very sad, and I feel particularly for both the Queen and her mother. It's always sad when you outlive a child and that's the case. She's had bad health, and - I think as a person whose obituaries have tended to focus on her, as it were, wide circle of friends in society - I think older people will remember that she did her duty by the institution...and it may seem by the standards of today as a big thing to have done when she gave up any possibility of marrying Group Captain Townsend all those years ago out of deference to the position she then held. I think it's a sad event, she'd had bad health. And I certainly express on behalf of all Australians my condolences to the Queen and to her mother and her children.
OAKES:
Is there any likelihood this could affect the Queen's forthcoming visit to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand, and we've already had some discussions with the palace about this, that the visit will go ahead, and that is welcome. Although it does from the Queen's point of view cast something of a pall over it. But the visit will go ahead.
OAKES:
Well, to politics. What do you make of the cliff-hanger result in South Australia yesterday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not a bad result for the Liberal Party considering where it was six months ago. And if in one way or another Rob Kerin ends up hanging on ...
OAKES:
Do you think he will?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know. I spoke to him last night and he really doesn't know. The best guess at the moment is that Labor will have twenty-three, the Liberal Party and the National will be twenty-one, and there will be three Independents, all of whom have Liberal or conservative origins.
Now, what will come out of that I don't know. There could be a change. We might pick up Norwood. The Labor Party might fluke one of the others, although I think that's less likely. So it's a very obscure outcome. A couple of messages. Very bad result for the Democrats, very bad, and the Democrats are suffering very badly from having been seen to have sided with the Labor Party in the last federal election.
OAKES:
Do you think people remember that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I think it's one of the reasons.
OAKES:
Are they disillusioned too with Natasha, do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there is an element of that. I think they did have a leader of substance in Meg Lees. It never helps for the leader of another political party, I suppose, to say something (laughs) complimentary about somebody who you once dealt with as a leader, but I thought she was a person of substance.
I found her an honourable person to deal with. I'm not suggesting that Natasha's dishonourable, don't ... I'm not saying that. But ... I think people have perhaps stepped back and thought, well, gee you had a person, a woman of real substance there, and perhaps they went for appearance rather than substance, and they've suffered.
OAKES:
Did you think the Liberals benefited exclusively from the change of leadership or did things like the asylum seekers issue and...
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think the asylum seeker issue resonated. I think the change of leader did help because they looked as though they were going to lose prior to that. Rob Kerin is clearly very popular. I think the election also indicates another thing and that is that in all elections now in this less tribal political state in which we're living that incumbency is a very important factor.
You saw in South Australia marginal Liberal seats with members increasing their majorities. I think a seat ... I think Bright was ... Stuart was one of those. And, then equally Labor incumbents increased their majority. So, unless you have a strong issue or there's a real tide for change, people do go for incumbents.
OAKES:
And of course a year ago you looked as though you were finished too and you came back. No change of leadership in the federal Liberal Party. Does that make you feel pretty cocky as you go into this new session of parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm never cocky. I'm gratified to have got a third term but I take my opponent seriously. I think the Labor Party on occasions has made the mistake of not taking their opponents seriously. I'm not going to make that mistake. I think Simon Crean will work very hard as Opposition Leader and I don't underestimate him as an opponent.
OAKES:
Well, he's been flattering about you this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah. It's all part of a careful plot to sort of ensnare me, I'm sure (laughs).
OAKES:
But, you're being nice about each other. Does this mean there's a chance that we could have some agreement for a kinder, gentler parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm prepared to look at reform of parliamentary procedures. If he's serious about it, I will. I think there are some changes that could be made and I don't reject out of hand what the Opposition has put forward. I think the ...
OAKES:
This is the idea of a rotating Speaker.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the rotating Speaker thing is about ... I mean, in Britain what happens is you're there for so long as you want to and when you cease to be Speaker, the convention is you resign from the House of Commons and also you are not opposed at elections. I couldn't find that particular element in the proposal that Labor put forward.
But, look, I'm more interested in some of the procedural changes and if Simon Crean is serious when he says that he wants more debate and less argey-bargey then I'm prepared to realistically go halfway on that.
OAKES:
You'll talk to him about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, either I'll talk to him or I'll get Tony Abbott to talk to Wayne Swan. I think the latter to start with anyway would be the best way to go. Mind you, it is an Australian parliament and has got to reflect the character of the Australian people and we are pretty up front.
In fact, I had a discussion with the American Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who knows Australia very well as a former boss of Alcoa and he said he loved the in-your-face, as he put it, character of Australian politics. And he said he found it invigorating and less hypocritical than the political systems of other countries.
So, we've got to temper our sort of beginning of term embrace of some of these changes with a recognition that it is an Australian parliament expressing the character of the Australian people. But, having said all of that, I'm prepared to look at some changes but, you know, we've got to have everything on the table, things that affect the Opposition's freedom of movement at present as well as the things that they have proposed.
OAKES:
I'd like to go back to the position of Speaker quickly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
OAKES:
Before the '96 election you said a number of things. If I become Prime Minister I will adopt a system of having a completely independent Speaker. You repeated that on at least three occasions. Now, that's a broken promise, isn't it? You've done nothing about that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think Neil Andrew as a Speaker or Halverson or Sinclair before him ... I think they have been more even-handed.
OAKES:
But people would say you got rid of Halverson because he was even-handed, and the party's now trying to get rid of Neil Andrew for the same reason.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, people have said a lot of things about me. The other thing, in relation to the ... question time, one of the great promises I made was that I'd be ... I'd turn up every day, which Paul Keating didn't, I've done that. And on top of that we've averaged about twenty questions.
We've had more questions and I have been more accountable than any of my predecessors going right back to Menzies, as far as question time is concerned. Far more accountable than Keating or Hawke or Fraser in terms ... although, in the Fraser government there was a ... there were more questions asked than in Hawke or Keating.
OAKES:
So, do you want Neil Andrew to be re-elected in the polling tomorrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm voting for Neil Andrew.
OAKES:
Are you asking others to do the same?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not involving myself, because ... in the campaign for the Speakership. And the reason is that this is something that belongs to the party room, it's the one position where the leader doesn't assume the right ... if I thought the leader ought to appoint the Speaker there wouldn't be a ballot. But I think the leader ... I think the party room should decide all matters relating to the Speakership and the Deputy Speakership.
OAKES:
One other small aspect, what about the position of Deputy Speaker? Are you trying to take it away from the Nationals?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not trying to take it away from the Nationals at all.
OAKES:
So they're still guaranteed ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're ... you know, the proposal is that we have a joint party room vote on both positions, but I would expect there's a lot of support for a National Party person in that position.
OAKES:
Prime Minister, the Ansett takeover looks as though that could die this week, are you concerned that it will fall apart?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am concerned and our guarantee in relation to workers entitlements remains in force. But we can't intervene financially, I think the difficulty that looks as though is there at the moment is a good reason why we did the right thing in not getting involved financially.
We can't bail out companies and we're not going to bail out companies, but for the sake of the workforce and for the sake of competition I would like to see the Tesna proposal get up and running. Of course, if it doesn't or there's some combination with Virgin - and that's a matter for the players to work out - then there could still be competition for Qantas.
But our interests are competition and protecting the entitlements of the workforce of Ansett. I gave that promise when I came back from America in September and that guarantee remains.
OAKES:
But if it falls over it's disastrous for the country, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not necessarily disastrous for the country, I think that's an exaggeration. If it doesn't go ahead then you will see a stronger Virgin.
OAKES:
Okay. Well, before I leave the issue of the parliament, you've issued a document headed, proposed introduction of legislation in the 2002 autumn sittings. That includes a bill called the Broadcasting Services Amendment Media Ownership Bill. So obviously you've decided your proposals, what are they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're foreshadowing that there will be a bill, we haven't settled all the details of it, but what we do have in mind are possible changes to the cross media laws and also the foreign ownership.
OAKES:
How would they work?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you'd get rid of the prohibition whereby a newspaper owner can't own a television station or vice versa, and you would relax the restrictions on foreign investment in the media.
OAKES:
And you don't think you need safeguards if you do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are safeguards about editorial independence and there are some details of that still to be worked through. But it's our obligation at the beginning of a parliamentary session to give notice of likely legislation, that doesn't mean to say that every last element of the legislation has been decided upon.
OAKES:
But, just pinning you down, you would legislate to guarantee editorial independence?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is one of the goals, yes.
OAKES:
How do you do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're still working through the details of that.
OAKES:
Prime Minister, we'll take a break and return after the commercials.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
[break for commercials]
OAKES:
Welcome back. Prime Minister, the big issue now, as it was during the election campaign, is people smugglers and asylum seekers. Firstly, will the government allow Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to send her personal envoy to Woomera?
PRIME MINISTER:
We're going to talk about that in the next couple of days. The body we normally deal with in the UN on this is the UNHCR, and they have access, as it were, any time they want it. And it's only a little while ago that somebody from the UNHCR went to all of the detention centres.
OAKES:
Seven months, I think.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well, I spoke to the Immigration Minister about that this morning, and he said they're free to come at any time. So ...
OAKES:
But if we have nothing to hide, is there any reason...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but equally you can't have a situation where the United Nations' interest is being represented by a whole variety of bodies. You have to yourselves ask questions as to, you know, what is wrong with the assessment by the UNHCR. We're not going to automatically agree to every request from different parts of the UN, we'll look at requests on the merits. The UNHCR is the body that we deal with. They have more expertise in immigration and refugee matters than any other agency. They do a very good job.
OAKES:
But that's Mary Robinson, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are ... no, the UNHCR is not Mary Robinson.
OAKES:
But she's in the same field.
PRIME MINISTER:
She's the Human Rights Commissioner.
OAKES:
Yeah, but her concerns are the same. Why shouldn't she have a look?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you might ask why if the UNHCR has ready access, why is it that the High Commissioner for Refugees or whatever her title is, Human Rights Commissioner, I'm sorry, why is it that she also wants access. I mean, you might start to wonder whether there's some agenda being run. I don't know, but we're going to talk about it.
But as things stand at the moment, the detention centres are open for visits by the Refugee Agency of the United Nations, and that is virtually, as it were, on demand. As to whether other bodies should come, we'll think about that, but I'm not giving an advance blank cheque.
OAKES:
Okay. The ALP's developing a new policy on asylum seekers. Though no details yet, but the word is they are going to withdraw support for the Pacific solution, even though Simon Crean equivocated that today. What's your reaction to what's happening in the Labor Party on this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think they quite know where to go on this. I think they're trying to have their cake and eat it. Nobody likes mandatory detention, Laurie. I don't like it, and I would like to see the situation arise as soon as possible when we didn't have to have it.
OAKES:
Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
But while ever people come here illegally, we believe we have to have it, and so apparently does the Labor Party. Because the Labor Party has said that it still supports mandatory detention, and Bob Carr and Peter Beattie and Geoff Gallop, who are incumbent Labor leaders, they say we've still got to have it.
OAKES:
And they instituted the system as well.
PRIME MINISTER:
They instituted the system in 19 ..., ten years ago, and many of the arguments that I now use and Philip Ruddock now uses were used by Gerry Hand...
OAKES:
That's right.
PRIME MINISTER:
And by Paul Keating.
OAKES:
But what about the question...
PRIME MINISTER:
And by Duncan Kerr, who was a minister in the Keating government. I mean, he's now running around saying it's an international outrage, yet he was part of a group of people who brought it in. Now, I would like to see the situation arise when you didn't have to do it, I don't find it pleasant.
OAKES:
Can't you do something about kids behind razor wire?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have. I mean, we have a program where some groups have been taken into local communities. In a number of cases, the families offered that facility, that is the families in the detention centres, have knocked it back because they don't want the family group separated. So we have actually done quite a bit of that. Philip Ruddock started that six or nine months ago.
OAKES:
Have you seen the story in the Sun Herald today, the newspaper in Sydney? It's a story about a woman and her five children, all under thirteen, they've been held in detention for thirteen months even though the husband and father's already in Australia as a genuine refugee. And the paper also says that it was this woman's brother who was the one who dived onto razor wire as a means of publicising her plight. I mean, how do you justify that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the first thing I'd like to do is just to check out all the details of it. I did see the story, and I will get some advice on the details of it. The only thing I can say at this stage is that apparently the children came to Australia separately in the care of other relatives, and therefore under the normal procedures that are followed their application has to be assessed separately from the father's. But ...
OAKES:
But you can assess...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, hang on, hang on...
OAKES:
... the application, but surely they can live with him in the meantime rather than behind barbed wire?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well, they didn't come here with him. I mean, you know, they made a decision that he would come separately from the children in the first place, therefore it is not necessarily unreasonable that their status along with the relative who accompanied them should be assessed separately, but...
OAKES:
I'm not arguing that, but why have they got to be behind razor wire?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's all I'm saying about it. But as to the rest of the story well, I want to check it out. I don't ... not everything you read in the papers about these things are correct.
OAKES:
Now, part of that story quoted a member of Mr Ruddock's staff, Steve Ingram, objecting to the publication of the story saying if the government rejected the asylum claims of these people and sent them back to Afghanistan their lives could be in danger. And there's a direct quote, they quote Steve Ingram as saying, I warn you, it's on your head, you're writing their death warrants.
Now, what he's saying there is you're prepared to send people back even though their lives are in danger, is that true?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've been told by my office that he disputes the version of what is attributed to him and this is one of the things I want to investigate.
OAKES:
So, if he says ... if he said that ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't answer hypothetical questions.
OAKES:
Okay (laughs). Your Indonesian trip.
PRIME MINISTER:
Mmm.
OAKES: Snubbed by two parliamentary leaders, but you obviously got on fairly well with President Megawati.
PRIME MINISTER:
Mmm.
OAKES:
Will she pick up the phone next time you try and call her?
PRIME MINISTER:
(Laughs) Well, you've got to understand that different countries have different ways of handling difficult situations. And I didn't attach any great significance to that and I've always had very courteous relations with President Megawati. I thought it was a good visit.
The Indonesian relationship is always going to be challenging for Australia, we've got to be realistic. In the past, especially under the Keating government, there was an unreal prominence given to the relationship. We invested too much in it and therefore we were bound to suffer disappointment when those expectations were not realised. I think if we're frank with each other but courteous, we understand we're different societies, different countries, but we have common interests.
And the thing that hits you whenever you go to Indonesia is just person after person has either been educated in Australia or has children now being educated in Australia. So the people to people links are immense, and that gives me a great deal of confidence that as the years go by it'll always ... there'll always be a solid infrastructure to the relationship, even though you might go through political turmoil.
OAKES:
Now, during that visit, because of the snubs, you had to deny strongly that Australia in any way wants to support independence movements in Aceh or Papua. Have you given, thereby, open slather to the Indonesians to use any brutal methods they want in those provinces?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I haven't. What I said was that we recognise Indonesia sovereignty, which we do. Aceh ...
OAKES:
So you ...
PRIME MINISTER:
... and Papua are different from East Timor, because they were always administered separately from the administration of East ... East Timor used to be Portuguese, whereas the rest of the place was Dutch.
OAKES:
Yeah, but would you speak out if there was brutality in Aceh and Papua?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, I'm not going to sort of, you know, once again, answer a hypothetical question. We have, as well as recognising Indonesian sovereignty, we have encouraged discussion and dialogue to resolve differences. And we welcome the fact that a lot of internal autonomy has been given by Jakarta to those regions.
OAKES:
Now, in New York you didn't see George Bush, did he, though, consult you at all or inform you at all of the contents of his State of the Union address?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, and I didn't expect him to. And, I didn't go to New York as part of an official visit to the United States. I would've ... I wouldn't have, probably, been able to see the President that week because it was the week of his State of the Union. I went to New York because that's where the Davos meeting was. If the Davos meeting had been, as normal, in Switzerland I probably wouldn't have gone to New York, I would've gone to Switzerland because ...
OAKES:
But does his axis of evil statement commit Australia in any way?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not ... no, it doesn't. We are only ... we will only commit our forces to any kind of action as a result of a separate, deliberative decision by the Australian government ...
OAKES:
So we're not going all the way with the USA?
PRIME MINISTER:
There is ... well, I'll, you know, let me define our relationship with the United States in a positive way. If there is an American request for Australian forces to be involved in future action, then that will be considered afresh. Our decision to be involved in Afghanistan does not automatically commit us to involvement elsewhere.
The Americans know that, the Americans don't presume on our friendship. We are close, there is no ally closer to the United States at present, and I think everything we have done has been in Australia's interests. And I think President Bush's speech was a first class one and I understood full well the language he used and why he did it.
OAKES:
Why did he describe Iran and North Korea and Iraq as an axis of evil?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he was making very plain that he doesn't see the war against terrorism as being over once the Taliban is gone from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is reduced. What he is saying is that the United States is prepared to pursue terrorist groups in other parts of the world and I think it was an appropriate warning.
But the question of whether we are involved in any future American led activity is something that we would make a separate decision on, and I haven't given any blank cheque on that - and the Americans know that. And it's just not really an issue, if they want our help in the future they'll ask for it and we'll consider it.
OAKES:
Now the inevitable question to a cricket tragedy.
PRIME MINISTER:
Mmm.
OAKES:
Steve Waugh's under pressure. Do you think his future should be in question?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't. I would imagine what Steve wants to do is take the team to South Africa and lead the Australian team in the World Cup in a year's time.
OAKES:
Which is more likely, Steve Waugh leading Australia in the World Cup or you leading the Coalition to the next election?
PRIME MINISTER:
(Laughs) Well, my position is that I'm going to consider two years into my term. Two years into my term will take us way past the World Cup. So perhaps we might get together and compare notes.
OAKES:
Now, you asked Buddha for two more terms. Did he answer?
PRIME MINISTER:
(Laughs) Two more terms for the government.
OAKES:
Prime Minister, we thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
(Laughs) Thank you.
[ends]