Subjects: Economy; Senator Heffernan; Governor-General; Michael Wooldridge; employment of former ministers; Zimbabwe elections.
E&OE...........
CORDEAUX:
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. Sir, how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm very well, Jeremy, it's very nice to be talking to you again and all your listeners.
CORDEAUX:
Let me say first, there's an awful lot to cover here but let me say first that the state of the economy must be a source of great delight to you. I mean, it's absolutely going gangbusters, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It certainly is. I'm very pleased for the Australians who are enjoying the benefit, the people with low interest rates, the farmers who have got the best seasons and the best conditions and the best prices, for some of them, for 10 or 20 years. And the other really good news out of a strongly growing economy is that employment growth will benefit and I would hope that the growth we are now experiencing will result in the generation of even more jobs over the remainder of this year, you can never be absolutely certain but I do think that will be one of the products, one of the main benefits of this very strongly growing economy. We shouldn't underestimate how well Australia is doing. Within industrialised countries our performance is really about the best at present. There's no country in the industrialised world that's growing more strongly than Australia at present and it really is a source of great satisfaction to me but, more importantly than any personal satisfaction to me, there are benefits in this for Australian families. They have low interest rates, they have low inflation, they have more affordable homes, they have rising real wages and as part of tax reform they had personal tax cuts. Now, all of those things help people in their daily lives and, in the end, that's what governments are there to achieve.
CORDEAUX:
And, Prime Minister, there's no real reason to think that that can't go on for a reasonable period of time, I mean, low interest rates and low inflation.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, the prospects for a continuation of both of those things are very strong. The good thing is that because of some of the measures we took last year, the boosting of the first homeowners' grant and the other spending measures and the benefits of reform, meant that our economy rode out the downturn last year and I hope that as the American economy strengthens this year the flow-through benefits of that will provide a further underpinning for growth in the Australian economy. So the prospects are good. You can never rule something out but the prospects for the remainder of the year are very strong and it's obvious from recent surveys that the business community is increasingly optimistic about our future.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, did you have any forewarning about Cabinet Secretary, Bill Heffernan's, comments or really, as it's been talked about, the extraordinary attack on High Court Judge Michael Kirby, did you have any forewarning that he was going to do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Jeremy, this is a serious and sensitive matter. I intend to say something considered about it in Parliament this afternoon and until I make that statement to Parliament I don't intend to say anything about it at all to anybody.
CORDEAUX:
Do you think it is proper use of parliamentary privilege?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will be making a considered statement on the whole issue this afternoon and until I make that statement I don't intend to make any other comment.
CORDEAUX:
Do you know if the police have the information that the Senator was talking about?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will be making a statement this afternoon. It will be a considered and careful statement as the seriousness of the issue in all of its aspects warrants, therefore I don't intend to make any other comment.
CORDEAUX:
I'm just trying to pick up something in the tone of your voice and I'm finding it difficult.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm pleased to hear that.
CORDEAUX:
There's a story going around also today about the Governor-General, that in fact you wanted Margaret Jackson and you have…that she was your first choice, in fact, that maybe you've revisited that possibility. Would you care to comment on that speculation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can certainly say this, that any suggestion that at any time since Dr Hollingworth was appointed as Governor-General the Government or anybody on my behalf has sounded out anybody else as a replacement for him is wrong and I would deny that completely.
CORDEAUX:
Was Margaret Jackson on your list to begin with?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, the question of what led up to the appointment of a new Governor-General is not something that I'd comment on.
CORDEAUX:
You wouldn't say if you had approached her and she'd knocked you back.
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't comment on anything of that kind and you wouldn't expect me to but I want to make it very clear that the Governor-General continues to enjoy my support and confidence. He has since he was appointed in the middle of last year. Any suggestion that anybody has been approached at any time since his appointment as a replacement for him would be wrong and I will deny it categorically.
CORDEAUX:
George W Bush says that it's the responsibility of every country to weed out the terrorists. You've got your own anti-terrorist law and you may be aware of the speculation over the last couple of days of extremists - I suppose we can't say terrorists - but Muslim extremists recruiting people and, indeed, training people here in Adelaide. Do you think your anti-terrorist bill will go some way to fixing this problem that is very unnerving for people to even think about?
PRIME MINISTER:
The Attorney-General has released a statement saying that he doesn't have any evidence to support that claim about recruitment in South Australia, although obviously there were contacts and there's nothing wrong in itself with contacts clearly with members of the Islamic community in South Australia or anywhere else. I believe that the Bill will go a long way to filling any gaps in the law that were there, it creates a new offence of terrorism and it provides the authorities with additional power to deal with it. It's a fast moving, fast changing situation and whilst the threat level in Australia is not as high as in many other countries I have said repeatedly that we should never assume that it can't happen in Australia. A terrorist attack could occur in Australia. I had the opportunity yesterday of talking in detail with the Director of the FBI who's visited Australia and he was able to brief me and my senior colleagues about the nature of the terrorist threat in the United States and around the world and whilst American circumstances are different from our own it did serve to remind me that nobody should luxuriate in the false belief that it can't happen in Australia. It can happen in Australia, it might happen in Australia and we have to do everything we can consistent with allowing people to live their lives in normal freedom and without interruption and harassment. We've got to do everything we can, including the sort of measures the Government introduced last night, to make sure we minimise the risk of it happening in Australia.
CORDEAUX:
We could reduce the risk by maybe screening people who are coming from suspect parts of the world a little bit better, screening them and checking their background more thoroughly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you can always improve surveillance and you should not make unfair assumptions about people coming from particular parts of the world but, equally, if there is a greater likelihood on past evidence that people coming from a particular area are likely to be terrorists then they obviously should be screened that much more closely. But in the process we have to make sure that all law abiding citizens in our community irrespective of their racial background are treated fairly and decently and don't feel as though they're unwelcome in their own country.
CORDEAUX:
I was interested that George Bush singled out Andrew Russell, the Australian soldier who lost his life in the war against terrorism and impressed with the things that he had to say. You're aware of that, sir, aren't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I am and I have had the opportunity of speaking to Andrew's widow, which I did last week, and it's a very sad thing to lose your husband and a tiny baby to lose its father in any circumstances and there's something especially poignant about somebody who is killed in the defence of his country. I thought they were very gracious words from the President. They are an indication of the esteem in which the fighting men and women of Australia are held by our allies and rightly so. There are none finer, there are none better and they are doing the nation proud. We have to say our prayers and keep our fingers crossed because the war on Afghanistan is far from over and there is still considerable danger for our men and one hopes that there are no more casualties but you have to brace yourself for the possibility that there will be.
CORDEAUX:
I feel also that the American President has foreshadowed some tough new laws and a complete overhaul of corporate law in America, this is following on from the Enron thing and we've had our own collapses here, would you be interested in going down that path and revealing all of the, well, loopholes and problems that may or may not be fixable?
PRIME MINISTER:
In some areas American law is behind Australian law and some of the things that the President apparently is contemplating have long been enacted in Australia. So we don't have a lot to learn in many areas. One issue that he did raise and that is the question of a potential conflict between accountants both providing consultancy work and also audit work for the same company, that is an issue that the accounting profession will need to address not only here but all around the world.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, would you take a call?
PRIME MINISTER:
Certainly.
CORDEAUX:
Brad, here's the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Good morning, Mr Howard. Congratulations on the economy. I don't think there's any doubt you're doing very well there. What I want to talk to you about specifically is Mr Hollingworth. I was a childhood victim of sexual assaults in an Anglican children's home. Now, myself and a number of other people are at present at the centre of a police investigation into this. What I want to know, with all the evidence on the table how at the very least Mr Hollingworth can not be put in some form of suspension until the air is cleared because as it stands at the moment this man has a) put money above the importance of assaults that took place. And b) has therefore given tacit approval to those response. I';d like your response on that please.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there';s no allegation Brad and can I say I do feel for you in what you';ve described and your friends and I hope the investigation is thorough and the punishment is appropriate. As far as Dr Hollingworth is concerned there is of course no allegation of any kind that he himself was involved in any act of impropriety. The criticism which is being made of him is at worst a criticism that he made errors in judgement in dealing with particular issues brought to his attention. As far as the schools within the archdiocese in Brisbane were concerned private schools in the Anglican church or indeed in any churches are essentially run by school councils. And the idea that an Archbishop is involved, whether he';s an Anglican or Catholic or whatever, is involved in the day to day administration of the school is just not an accurate reflection of the facts. Now I think there are some errors of judgment that were made but we are all guilty of that. Nobody is immune from errors of judgment. And I guess the other point that might be made is there could have been some statements he made that could have been expressed differently but we';re all also a bit guilty of that. My dilemma, I mean there is no way you can stand aside as a Governor General. You';re either the Governor General or you are not. And I have to make a decision as to whether there are grounds to recommend the end of his appointment and if I were to recommend that to the Queen well it would happen automatically because she always acts on the advice of the Prime Minister in issues like this. Now I';ve come to the conclusion on the information available to me at present that the grounds do not exist. I do think that some of the reporting of this issue has been loose, I mean I hear remarks like the allegations of sex abuse surrounding the Governor General, I mean if you don';t understand all of the facts and you';re a newly arrived person you might think that there had actually allegations made against him which is grossly unfair. I mean there';s no suggestion of any personal impropriety by him and I just am not satisfied, sensitive though I am to the difficulty of the issue and critical though I am to people in the past who have covered up these things, I';m not satisfied that grounds exist to ask for his removal.
CORDEAUX:
You talked about a constitutional earthquake if you did, what did you mean by that?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I meant by that is that once you establish the precedent that a Prime Minister removes the Governor General essentially because of some political and other pressure without proper grounds, I think you do undermine the position of the Governor General in our constitution. And we do have a separation of powers, we have the executive, we have the Crown';s representative, we have the Cabinet and of course separately from that you have the judiciary and if I were to act without proper grounds I think I would be establishing an extremely bad precedent and I think that would be as I called it an constitutional earthquake.
CORDEAUX:
You have said on this programme before that on several issues or several matters that the buck stops with you. Now you can understand a lot of people thinking that the same would apply to the head of the church, the same would apply to…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but I am the active head of the Government and the buck stops with me in relation to decisions and processes directly within my power. But let me pursue that analogy. If an individual in one of my Departments is responsible for an error or wrongdoing it';s not automatically something for which I can be made directly responsible, I can be directly responsible perhaps for systemic failure or systemic corruption and things of that kind where quite clearly the responsibility can be sheeted home, I mean that';s a different matter because clearly it would have been within my power to do something about it because it was bought to my attention. But the idea that because you are the titular head of an organisation that every malfeasance or misdeed that occurs within that organisation is automatically your fault unto which you have to accept personal responsibility. That has never been, despite what people who rewrite history might now say, that has never been the doctrine of responsible government and certainly hasn';t been the practice of responsible government in this country for a long time.
CORDEAUX:
Had you known of the controversy would you still have appointed the Governor General?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t answer those sort of hypothetical questions. I had no reason not to appoint a person who';s given such great service to the community. And can I say that when he was appointed there was near universal applause for the appointment.
CORDEAUX:
Yes, that';s true.
PRIME MINISTER:
From the different sides of politics. And one of the reasons that I thought he was a good appointment that was that knew his work had drawn favourable comment and support from the Labor side of politics, particularly when he was the director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence. I mean I hadn';t the faintest idea, I don';t want to know what his personal politics are, I wouldn';t have a clue, and I';ve never asked him and I never would. But I did know when I appointed him and I still know that when he was director of the Brother of St Laurance he worked very closely with a lot of people on both sides of politics in Australia as indeed somebody in that position should.
CORDEAUX:
When I first saw that story about Michael Wooldridge and the $5 million that was rounded up and allocated to GP House, I could not believe that Michael Wooldridge would put you in that position. I mean you must have been hopping mad.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m having it investigated and once again until I get all the results of that I don';t want to say a great more except to reassure your listeners that not a dollar or cent of money will be lost to either the asthma programme or the rural services programme and nobody should think for a moment that any money will come out of either of those programmes. I hold open the possibility that we won';t make the contribution to the organisation. I haven';t made a final decision on that and I can';t until I get final advice on the examination. I don';t want to colour my judgment by making any other comments at the present time and in fairness to the Minister he has informed me that there was department advice in relation to his decision. But there are some aspects of it that I';m unhappy with, obviously, that';s evident from what I';ve said and I';m waiting on some further advice but again can I assure people that not a dollar or a cent will be taken out of either of those programmes.
CORDEAUX:
Maybe a cooling off period for retiring ministers is a good idea and maybe the idea of from a budgetary point of view this idea if you don';t spend it you lose it. Maybe Departments should be rewarded for having a few biscuits left in the tin at the end of the year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m sorry, the reception there wasn';t too good, can you just repeat that question.
CORDEAUX:
There should be perhaps a cooling off period when ministers retire so that not only proper behaviour is done, its seemed to be done and maybe it should be that departments don';t lose money that they';ve managed to save at the end of the year, that they manage to have a few dollars. This mentality that if you don';t use it you';ll lose it. Is it going to encourage maybe waste, or misappropriation or something.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a fair point. The question of a cooling off period is difficult because everybody';s situation is different and if you try and write rules that are too narrow and too strict you will unfairly penalise people. They do have a right once they leave Parliament to follow another career and to make a living, they do have a right to do that. And providing they don';t improperly use information they have gleaned as Ministers, then they have a right to a few other careers and there are plenty of examples of people in the Labor Party who were members of the Hawke and Keating governments, such as Graham Richardson and others, and I';m not criticising them for this, let me say, who have pursued very lucrative and successful careers in business and the media after leaving Parliament. And what is the difference, a person who';s been a member of Parliament and is able to establish himself as a successful media figure afterwards by, largely, the reason that he's been a senior minister or a senior parliamentarian, he is, as it were, using his previous position in order to make money. Now, I don';t think anybody would criticise somebody who does that, equally, if somebody is seen as having some insights and experience and understanding of business issues because of his experience he would have been able to use that as well and where do you draw the line? Do you say that after six months or 12 months it';s okay for a person, yet until then it';s not okay? I mean, the things that I learn in government or things that Ministers learn in government they remember for years. You don';t suddenly forget them after two years, you don';t suddenly become antiseptic and transparent and different after two years. It';s a very difficult area and I';ve always been reluctant, long before this episode arose, I';ve always been very reluctant to embrace it. I mean, you can';t ever rule something like this out but my current disinclination remains and I look around the world and I see countries that have these rules and I';m not satisfied that they have any less…fewer allegations of corruption.
I mean, can I just say in defence of federal politics in this country, I have been in federal politics for 27 years and I have not seen any solid evidence of personal corruption of a Minister or senior member of either side of politics in that 27 years. For all the criticism that I had of the Whitlam Government - and I thought it was a terrible government and, you know, literally wrecked the Australian economy in only three years - I never thought there was anything corrupt about it, I never thought there was anything corrupt in the correct sense of the word about the Hawke or Keating governments. I mean, we had criticisms and questions and I think they raised, in their behaviour, they raised legitimate doubts. But we are not a community which at a federal level has a lot of corruption. I mean, you have corruption where people are close to making decisions about property rights and that';s why you often get more allegations of corruption in the local government and State government.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, I';ve only got 60 seconds before the ten o'clock news item.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry about that. It's a very important point.
CORDEAUX:
Yes, I know, I know. I just wanted to ask you, you';ve had obvious concern, grave concerns about this election in Zimbabwe. I see that the Norwegians have raised their concerns this morning, what do you intend to do?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, what I intend to do is get hold of the Commonwealth Observers Report when it';s made available and along with the President of Nigeria and the President of South Africa we';ll make a judgement as to whether action should be taken in relation to Zimbabwe';s Commonwealth membership in the light of that report. Quite clearly I want a transparent, fair, honest, open result, we all do, and if the Government';s been defeated in a proper ballot then it ought to go. And if there';s any chicanery or skullduggery or ballot rigging then that';s unacceptable but I don';t know and I';m not alleging that until I get this report.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, thank you for your valuable time I really appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]