Subjects: Justice Kirby; GP House; Zimbabwe
E&OE...........
JONES:
(inaudible) but do you also understand and people say to me that they are very unhappy about how issues like the Governor General and the Heffernan/Kirby battle have been handled by politicians and they're saying to me that a certain tolerance that we need in an community is being placed by an almost hatred and an ugliness deriving by the way politicians have handled these matters?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can understand why some people would feel that way. My response inrelation to my own responsibilities is to say that I've tried on each of those issues to handle them correctly and handle them in the public interest. I've stated my position in relation to the Governor General and nothing has emerged since I stated it to alter that view. In relation to the most recent issue you mention, it's a little difficult for me to say more than what I have to date. Matters have been raised, there are examinations going on I understand by the News South Wales police and obviously we'll need to know the outcome of that before anything further can be said. It's a difficult sensitive issue that.
JONES:
PM how can it -
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say that there is nothing unusual about prime ministers having to deal with difficult, sensitive issues. I will later this morning be releasing the biography of John Gorton, Australia's Prime Minister thirty years ago. And I've read the biography over the weekend it reminded me that in the life of any Prime Minister, difficult issues arise.
JONES:
I don't think that's the concern though that the public have. See can I ask you this: how can it be anything other than improper to raise in Parliament matters before police have looked at supposedly new material? I mean you're a lawyer, you would be aware of, in the attempt to protect the presumption of innocence to which we're all entitled, that matters firstly are put before investigative police, then there are committing magistrates, then there are indicting prosecutors, then there's a jury. Parliament surely can't subvert that process.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think Parliament can, and I don't think anybody should enable parliament to subvert a process. It's impossible for me to talk about the merits or otherwise of what has been done by Senator Heffernan in any detail, until the issue has worked its way out, except to say that anybody who uses parliamentary privilege ultimately has to be judged by their parliamentary peers and by others on the correctness or otherwise of what they've done. I mean he's accountable and obviously if certain consequences or certain outcomes flow from the issue having been raised, then he has to explain and justify and defend what he did because they were actions he took himself. Now that's the principle and this is not the first time and I know it wouldn't justify it if it were wrong and without foundation, that parliamentary privilege has been used to attack a High CourtJudge.
JONES:
But isn't it wrong to raise, and let's just forget Heffernan, because I think the public need to be educated, or understand, or have confirmed in their minds certain straight -forward principles that they thought apply. But if someone wants to raise matters of this kind, they send material to the Commissioner of Police in the particular State, if they're unhappy about the way that matter's being treated then to the Minister for Police, then to the Head of Government if it's all (inaudible) in the treatment of it or the Police Integrity Commission. I mean why should anyone be able to do other wise and seemingly in this instance escape sanction from their leader, who is you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the question of whether he's escaped any sanction is yet to be determined. It depends upon how the matter plays out. The question whether somebody should be sanctioned by his leader is ultimately to be determined by the truth of thematter.
JONES:
Not really, surely. We're talking process aren't we?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I think with respect, you can't just talk process. Parliamentary privilege has been called the ultimate safety valve of democracy and in the end it is the merits of what is being done viewed in its totality -
JONES:
Sure, but it's not the ultimate safety valve here is it? It's not the ultimate safety valve because the matter now after the Parliament is being sent off to the police.
PRIME MINISTER:
Your now asking me to do what you said a moment ago you didn't want me to do andthat is get into the detail of this issue. Because this issue is still -
JONES:
I'm not talking about detail; I'm talking about process. It can't be theultimate safety valve.
PRIME MINISTER:
You've just talked the detail of what happened in this case -
JONES:
The public is very worried about this Prime Minister. The public is very worried about process. You say the ultimate valve. I can understand, that's whatparliamentary privilege is. But it's not the ultimate safety valve if the matter hasn't yet been before the police.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the truth is and once again I don't want to go into the detail of it, thetruth is that it has been once before the police.
JONES:
Well, what's been before the police before is all that Senator Heffernan has now, then the police and the courts on that occasion rejected what was before them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, once again, I'm in a difficult position, that the matter is still in the process of being worked through and you're asking me to give a running commentary.
JONES:
No I'm not asking you at all, I'm talking about processes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you start talking about processes and then you refer back to the chain of events in this particular affair. Now you can say that's process but it doesn't alter the fact that I'm being asked to give a running commentary on it and I think that's difficult -
JONES:
Well you tabled matters in the Parliament before presumably they had been seen,sighted, and reviewed by the police. You're a lawyer.
PRIME MINISTER:
What I tabled in the Parliament, which I was obliged to do, and which I would have been pressed by the opposition to do, is correspondence that Senator Heffernan sent to me. That was entirely appropriate. And that is the normal thing to do. Any suggestion that that was improper is ludicrous. I mean what you're meant to do at question time, and this is an issue that I knew I was going to get asked about, what you're meant to do at question time is to be forthcoming. And any suggestion that that was wrong is ludicrous.
JONES:
Isn't it fair to say that a Prime Minister by his silence, or by his actions give weight to allegations before they are properly tested by the appropriate authorities?
PRIME MINISTER:
Generally speaking, yes.
JONES:
Well, you didn't do that.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't agree with that, because the proper testing of the -
JONES:
Didn't this bloke talk to you before he made these comments?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've already indicated that he had discussed this whole issue with me, in fact the last discussion that we had it occurred some time ago, I don't remember exactly when, it would have been sometime last year, but certainly he gave me no warning of making this speech. It came as a complete surprise to me when I'd heard that he'd made this speech. I mean I do know this is an issue that has concerned him and it's an issue that he's not only discussed with me, but it's an issue he's discussed with quite a number of other people.
JONES:
Sure, he's sincere and I don't think that that's an issue here if someone is sincere and even frustrated. But isn't it more than just courageous, it may well be improper if you represent your sincerity and your frustration in a way which denies appropriate processes?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan, stated as a generic proposition I can't argue with that. What you say is correct. Now whether that applies in this particular situation, I can't make a final judgement. I've said before and I'd repeat, that he will be ultimately accountable when this matter finally works out, for what he's done. He has chosen of his own initiative, without prior warning to the Government, to us parliamentary privilege to make these statements. Now those statements having been made, it is then my obligation in a difficult situation, to try and work my way through, to make sure the matter is handled appropriately and along the way of course, quite legitimately to discuss the matter as I'm doing with you this morning in a public domain. Now that is not an easy task, because it's a situation that is still in train and I can't say any more than that. But equally I've got to try and answer your questions.
JONES:
Right, well many would say that your attitude towards the Governor General wasentirely principled in that Archbishop Hollingworth was not to be judged, you were saying, because of the volume or the number people lending their weight to public outcry. Many would also say that that principle seems not to be at work here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't agree with that because I haven't made an adverse judgement about Mr Justice Kirby. I haven't, I haven't made an adverse judgement.
JONES:
One of you Members has left the matter -
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but I have a lot of Members. I mean a lot of Members in the Labor Party in earlier years made adverse judgements about a former late Chief Justice of the High Court.
JONES:
But isn't that this ugliness that we're talking about, the public feel that there's an ugliness out there that we've got to try and somehow remove from the political process?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan, nobody likes ugliness but life can be complicated, life can be difficult. And when you get a situation like this, what you have to try and do is to apply what you think is a principled, correct approach. Now I have not made any judgement and I would reject any suggestion that I have made an adverse judgement about the Judge, I haven't. And the chain events is known, this is a matter that the Senator raised of his own bat. It has been known to a lot of us that he has been concerned about this issue. He's not only spoken to me, he's spoken to a number of others within Government ranks and perhaps elsewhere.
JONES:
I suppose the reason I'm asking you this is, and that's what I'm leading to, it seems to me and this is to me an important matter to public policy I would have thought, while section 72 of the Constitution provides some rules for proven misbehaviour, I don't think that anyone thinks that anyone should be above the law, it talks about a Judge being removed quote 'by the Governor General in Council on an address by both Houses of Parliament in the same session praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Now the question arises is, how do you initiate that process? I mean proven in whose mind, proven before whom? When the Constitution was written, we didn't have the array stack of Federal Judges, Family Court Judges, Federal Magistrates and so on, and quite frankly what this has demonstrated is there is really no mechanism for properly dealing with complaints.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan that is right. there is no hard and fast procedure. I mean for example, several years ago, the Labor Party attacked Mr Justice Callinan and the Shadow Attorney General on the basis of some court decision in Queensland wanted a panel of three retired Judges established to decide whether Mr Justice Callinan fell within the proved misbehaviour provisions of the Constitution. The Government quite correctly opposed that because they didn't think there were any grounds for it. Now the point that that illustrates, and the point you've made, is that there's no clearly established procedure and one of the things I did say in Parliament last week is that what this latest issue had highlighted was the need to establish some kind of procedure protocol, where people who believe that events have occurred which might amount to proved misbehaviour within the Constitution can be examined. And one of the advantages of that would be, that it would provide people with an alternative to using parliamentary privilege toair matters when they feel very strongly about it.
JONES:
But you have in your possession, the Parliament has, a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission which cost the tax payer millions of dollars which is called "Managing Justice". And one chapter there is on judicial accountability. Now the Parliament has done nothing about that report even thought it's had it in its possession for eighteen months. And in that it talks about how you should establish a standing apparatus whereby these matters can be addressed. I mean the worry with many people is that this could be come then the province of the Executive, whereas the Constitution says it's the Parliament, the Houses of the Parliament must deal with this. Shouldn't there be for example, a standing committee of some sort appointed by the Houses of the Parliament, a joint standing committee, which could honour some of the recommendations made at the Law Reform Commission report?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, that is certainly worth considering. You are right , that Law Reform Commission report did come out eighteen months ago. It does need to be examinednow as a matter of much greater urgency. You are also right to say the power of removal is not and should never be something in the hands of the Executive, it's a matter for the Parliament to decide and I'm not arguing othewise. I'm not pretending for a moment that the Judges can be or should be capable of being removed by the Executive, quite the reverse. I respect totally the independence of the Judiciary. I think society is better served if the Executive does not interfere with the Judicial process and the Judiciary does not interfere with the political process. I think it's a two way street. And I think both sides have got to fully respect that.
JONES:
Can I just come from that, because you're going away today are you not to Londonon the Zimbabwe issue. I mean I know can't, it's not going to help you to be able to canvas those issues here, but there's an interim report which basically finds what we all know. From those people to whom we've spoken, quote 'the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for free expression of will by the electors.' Are you concerned that the two colleagues of your, Mr Mbeke seems to be backing Mugabe, because he seems to be agreeing with him that the white man is the enemy of African dvancement and equally the President of Nigeria, you're going to have a s struggle aren't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's not going to be an easy few days. That's absolutely right, I've not spoken to them since the meeting in Coolum. They're both men of courage and principle and I would hope and expect that they would bring that courage and principle to a consideration of this issue. This is something of a moment of truth for the commonwealth. If there's one thing that we do have in common, apart from most us a pretty closely shared history, or particularly amongst a lot of members of the commonwealth and Australia. The other thing we do have in common, is a commitment to free and fair elections and democratic processes. Now our job, the job of the three of us, the job that was given to us by the Commonwealth meeting in Coolum was to analyse what had happened as reported in the Commonwealth Observer Group report -
JONES:
Just to interrupt you for one minute Prime Minister, it's seven-thirty, but I'll just take the Prime minister through the news. Yes Prime Minister, go on on this issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Our responsibility is to judge what happened in Zimbabwe during the elections as reported in the Commonwealth Observer Group report, against those principles ofcommitment to democracy and fair elections.
JONES:
But see it's already continued. Apparently now all foreign reporters, according to a law that Mugabe's passed over the weekend, are going to be barred from Zimbabwe. They are imposing prison sentences of up to two years for anyone who reports contrary to the will of the Government. That's on top of killings and violence and intimidation. The Commonwealth is under siege here isn't it? I mean you and your leadership is going to be judged in terms of how you honour the simple principles of democracy.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan, I have no intention, having spent a lifetime in the democratic process, I have no intention of abandoning a commitment to the principles of democracy. Having stated that as to precisely what I say to my two Commonwealth colleagues, as a courtesy to them, as I think by and large I think they've tried to extend to me over the past few days, I can't say a great deal more. But it is, it is an important moment for, a very important moment for the Commonwealth. And if it is seen that things are swept under the carpet, if it is seen that a serious addressing of these issues does not occur, well the Commonwealth will suffer a very severe blow to its credibility. I don't think that there can be any doubt about that. Beyond that I think you will understand I should pay courtesy to my colleagues.
JONES:
Yes I do understand. Just two final questions before you go. The Royal College of General Practitioners and the $5 million, were you aware in all the discussions that took place last week that the $5 million that was to go, and I'll ask you in a moment whether you've knocked that on the head, along with $5 million from themselves, was to go to a building which they would never occupy. That it was going to be an investment property for them, they'd never contemplated using the new building as its head quarters. That surely makes theoriginal concern even worse doesn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my advice was not quite to that effect. My advice was to the effect that there would be some tenants, but there would also be an occupancy as well. But all I can say is I've got two reports, I've got one form the Department of Health and one form the Department of Finance. And I've sent each of those reports to the Auditor General and if the Auditor General wants to have a look at this the Government will cooperate. We won't in any way resist any examination by the Auditor General. I should also point out that the amount of money involved was such that the decisions taken by the two Ministers Dr Wooldridge and Mr Fahey was quite within their authority in relation to taking decisions of that kind without reference to any body else.
JONES:
Right, but not necessarily essentially ethical. Do you think -
PRIME MINISTER:
Well hang on, I don't think we can say something, did you say essentially ethical?
JONES:
Not ethical surely.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't … I think that's unfair and premature for any body to make a judgement that anything unethical was done. It's not on the face of it unethical. It may be unwise and open to political criticism. But it's not unethical to of itself, without more, to decide that you might provide some financial help to an organisation which does pursue a public as well as a private inertest to establish a national headquarters. Now you might criticise that and say it's a wrong use of money, but I think unethical on the face of it is a too severe a word to use.
JONES:
I thought if there was a job coming up it most probably would be regarded.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, that assumes a connection that -
JONES:
An intelligent person would make.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for you to pursue with other people.
JONES:
One final thing. It is seniors' week, and in the Budget, you announced, in the Budget, that there would be, self-funded retirees would get a Commonwealth Seniors' card. It was promised in the Budget in May. And so self-funded retireeswould get the same benefits as pensioners,…
PRIME MINISTER:
To a certain level of income yes.
JONES:
Licences, rego, power bills. Now nothing's happened about that, you know that don't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm sorry there were two things announced in the budget. The first is that we would extend the income limit for people to get the seniors card . And secondly we said we would commence negotiations with the States to extend thebenefits now available to pensioners and part-pensioners to self-funded retirees. As to where those negotiations are at the moment, and they are dependent on an agreement with the States, I can't tell you. We did make some progress and there was an announcement about a month ago by Senator Vanstone as to where those negotiations are, at the moment I can't tell you.
JONES:
Well in Seniors' Week, I can tell you, they're nowhere. South Australia has come to the party , the other States, and I think you wanted a sixty-forty split. 60 per cent of the benefit cost to be met by the Commonwealth, 40 per cent by the States. The states haven't come aboard. So does that mean that self-fundedretirees miss out?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it doesn't mean that. It means that we'll continue to negotiate with the States. We've put money on the table and we'll continue to pursue it. And I can assure the seniors of Australia that we do intend to keep that promise. And I know that Senator Vanstone will have more to say about it this week. We didn't make that lightly, I'm well aware of what the commitment was, I'm also well aware, as your question implies, that we need to discuss and negotiate and agree with the States about how something like that is implemented. Because the services that are the subject of the concession and the subsidy of the servicesthat are provided by the states like public transport.
JONES:
Okay, good to talk to you, when are you back?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll be back next Saturday morning.
JONES:
Okay, we'll talk to you later. Thank you for your time.
[ends]