Subjects: Nigeria; Zimbabwe; stem cell research; disability support; family tax benefits.
E&OE...........
JONES:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Alan.
JONES:
Prime Minister, you are the titular head of the Commonwealth. How can we survive and endure the notion that a Nigerian could be killed just for becoming pregnant?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think this is an appalling thing in every way. No matter what one's religion is, no matter what one';s views on behaviour and morality are, the very notion that somebody could be put for death for adultery, the very notion that it could be carried out in such a barbaric and cruel way is something that people all around the world at are appalled at. I will certainly be conveying to the Nigerian President my view to that effect. He himself has come out against it. Nigeria is a country that is about 60% Muslim and 40% Christian. There';s a very delicate religious balance. But these are common human values. The idea that somebody can be put to death even for a crime in that way appals me, sickens me. But the whole thing….
JONES:
What do we do about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what can we do about it? We can but express our view in the strongest possible way.
JONES:
But you';ve already done that with Mr Mugabe and an independent radio production company you would be aware on Friday had its offices destroyed and I see that a professor of politics at the University of Zimbabwe said that this is getting worse. He said the international community must take note. This is no ordinary African dictatorship. This is a very dangerous regime with revolutionary rhetoric and uses armed military units against unarmed civilians. We are at the beginning of what is likely to be a very disastrous period for this country.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';ll come back to Zimbabwe….
JONES:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
If I can just focus on Nigeria at the moment. There are I understand some internal processes still underway in Nigeria and it is not absolutely certain beyond argument that this appalling execution is going to be carried out. Nigeria is a federation and the federal government';s powers, as in the United States in relation to these things, are limited. But I understand there are still processes underway. Now you say what can we do. Alan, in all of these things you can protest, you can decide whether taking some kind of sanctioned step because of this is justified. I';m not sure that in fact I, at this stage, I don';t agree with that. But certainly in relation if I can now go to Zimbabwe….
JONES:
Just one thing there by the way in relation to that, one woman at the weekend, a pregnant Nigerian woman and her lover have now been sentenced to death by stoning. So this is the third now since the one of last week. They don';t seem to have yielded too willingly to international sanctions or international condemnation.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well, but I also know that the President of Nigeria is opposed and it is my understanding that there are some procedures available under the Nigerian legal system to either appeal or to further adjudicate it.
JONES:
All in the name of religion.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is by any principle indefensible. I can';t find a possible mitigating circumstance for such an appalling form of treatment of people and I would share the revulsion I';m sure of all of your listeners and of people all around the world.
JONES:
Zimbabwe?
PRIME MINISTER:
If I could go to Zimbabwe, there are steps available to Australia and I would expect very soon that we would be looking at the imposition of different forms of sanctions. The situation in Zimbabwe - it';s not just incompetence. The election there was rorted. There';s no argument about that. And the government has been given every opportunity to respond to international concerns. It treats international concerns with contempt.
JONES:
But PM, this bloke's addressing a major international conference in South Africa in the next 24 hours, one hour after Tony Blair speaks. Mugabe is a guest of a United Nations summit. What the hell are we on about?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m not the President of South Africa, I don';t run international conferences to which Robert Mugabe is addressing, certainly not in the current circumstances.
JONES:
Well the United Nations have invited him.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you have to in these situations ask yourself what can you do. Now what you can do is to, if exhortation and argument and advocacy fails, which it clearly has here, you have to look at targeted sanctions which don';t impose more burdens on the poor devils at the bottom of the socioeconomic structure in that country such as black farm labourers who are losing their jobs and they';ve got no savings to draw on as some of their previous white employers might have. You can do that, but you can impose sanctions on the people at the top and we';ll certainly be willing to do that.
JONES:
What would be the difference though in your mind between Milosevic and Mugabe? The world went to war against Milosevic. Mugabe seems to please himself. They';re doing the same thing, killing their own people.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not sure though that every time you disagree with somebody you should contemplate going to war.
JONES:
No nor do I. We were pretty hasty in relation to Milosevic and this bloke just seems….
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know that we were hasty, Alan. I';m not sure I';d agree with that. But I mean that';s an interesting subject and I think the degrees were worse. I mean they';re both very bad, once you get to a certain situation but I think there were qualitative differences. The scale of murder and so forth carried out in Serbia was, I have to argue, much greater - carried out by the Serbians - much much greater than has been even in the worst interpretation of what';s occurred in Zimbabwe.
JONES:
Okay. PM…..
PRIME MINISTER:
[inaudible] bad though what is occurring in Zimbabwe - don';t let me by comparison sound as though I';m in any way defending or apologising for Mugabe. I';m certainly not.
JONES:
No I don';t think anybody would think that Prime Minister. Professor Trounson has claimed the use of embryonic stem cells to describe the cure of a crippled rat on a video and there';s been a lot of publicity about this. Instead they were germ stem cells taken apparently from five to nine week old aborted foetuses. I';m just wondering in this debate are you aware, because it';s a very explosive and controversial debate as we all know, but the stem cell journal 'Stem Cell' said last year and I quote - we scientists have exaggerated the immediacy of the prospects of clinical therapies using embryonic stem cells and this has led to public misunderstanding. Prior to clinical use of embryonic and foetal stem cells it will be necessary to thoroughly investigate the malignant potential of embryonic stem cells. How heavily does that kind of comment in the 'Stem Cell' journal weigh up in your debate and argument on the position you take?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan it';s something I take into account. I am in favour of stem cell research. I strongly support the ….
JONES:
Adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells?
PRIME MINISTER:
…and the government supports both and Alan Trounson';s unit in Melbourne will carry out research into adult stem cells as well as embryonic. I support it but I do think some people are prone to exaggerate the benefits. It will be some time in my understanding before we can start even beginning to seriously contemplate the possibility that the research into the use of these stem cells could lead to wonderful cures. I mean there is the hope, I think this bill is about hope, it offers the hope, but I do agree that some have exaggerated it. I don';t think that is helpful, I think we';ve had a good debate, I hope the bill gets through, I believe it will get through the House of Representatives with a fairly comfortable margin. It will be closer in the Senate but my advice is it will still get through the Senate. Now I think that is the right result, I do respect the views of people who argue differently and I think it was the right thing for the Parliament to split the two bills, it wouldn';t have been fair for somebody who is against embryonic stem cell research to vote against a bill that included that which they would feel comfortable about voting against but also included a ban on human cloning that they wouldn';t feel comfortable about.
JONES:
Well Prime Minister, it was refreshing to see a Prime Minister sitting in the chamber listening to the views of others. I';m just wondering whether you';ve listened to the views of the people in the disability sector because you didn';t stump up with the money?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan we have discussed this before and I can only repeat what I';ve said before that in relation to the accommodation services, the arrangement we had with New South Wales was that we would pay them a certain amount a year plus indexation, we did not have an arrangement to pay pro rata increases and the contracts were made between the New South Wales Government and those disability services and they are the people, they';re the government that have the contractual liability. In relation can I say in our defence the employment services, we are meeting in full the impact of those wage increases on the employment services and I can now none of those services are going to close or be downsized as a result of the impact of those wage increases.
JONES:
So you will be making extra money available to the states to meet those regimes?
PRIME MINISTER:
No we';ll be making, well we were already making extra money available, we put another $125 million.
JONES:
Well just on the $125m are you aware that the state and territory disability ministers made a joint media statement on August 21, they asked for a reappraisal of the amount of $125 million over the next five years for the growth money, they';re simply saying it is inadequate. Do you understand that there are in fact thousands of people out there, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has estimated approximately 21,000 nationally who have unmet need for accommodation, respite and day programme services. How on earth are we going to fund these people or aren';t we?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan I am aware of that report, I';m also aware that that report says that it';s impossible on the figures available to know exactly the extent to which the states have met their obligations in relation to unmet need and Amanda Vanstone has told the state ministers that she will be very happy to have a further meeting with them providing before that meeting, they provide her with full data about their commitment and their willingness to match the extra money that she';s put on the table.
JONES:
But you understand it is a sector which is significantly under-funded, forget who';s responsible?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think, there could always be more money provided Alan and I mean that';s just another way of answering your question, you could always provide more money and we have provided more money and you say it';s still not enough, well that is a question of debate and we are prepared through our Minister to meet the states and to hear further what they';ve got to say but the extra offer we put on the table has still not been matched by the states.
JONES:
Prime Minister, we could argue that forever and a day, I actually think in this the government has been very mean-spirited and we shouldn';t have disabled people faced with the kind of anguish they';ve had to endure as governments fight over appropriate funding for them. But however that's a debate for another day. You did concede in the Parliament that the family tax system, there had been about 400,000 families overpaid. Now if there was 600,000 families that would have to pay back money to the government or 400,000 or whatever, surely the system is flawed, I mean obviously people have to pay back money that they';re not entitled to but what about a system which puts that burden on people in the first place? It';s got to be a flawed system hasn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say, in answer to that question the figures were 400,000 people at the end of the year entitled to a further payment, a top up, an additional payment, and 600,000 the other way round.
JONES:
Overpaid?
PRIME MINISTER:
Overpaid. Now you say that means the system is flawed but how many taxpayers at the end of the year get an exact nil assessment?
JONES:
That';s not the point…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no Alan could I say to be fair that is the point because this is a tax benefit.
JONES:
Have you seen the forms that have to be filled out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I have, I have seen them.
JONES:
They';re just frightening.
PRIME MINISTER:
And we are making some changes to make it more flexible and I would expect…
JONES:
PM if I could just take a little of your time, if I could take a little of your time PM for the benefit of my listeners, to qualify for one of these family tax benefits they have to multiply the amount they receive before tax by 26 or 52, depending on whether they get it fortnightly or weekly, they have to take into account any pay rises or other changes, they have to add bonuses, lump sum payments, gifts or extra money that they or their partner might receive, they have to add in social security income support and veterans affairs service pension entitlements received since July 1, they have to add the value of fringe benefits or any salary package for the financial year, they have to add any foreign income, add any income from rental property, add any pension or benefit paid. Now many of these people don';t speak English, they';re mostly casual part-time people, they';re not clairvoyants and someone';s saying tell us what you';re going to earn down the track, they can';t.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they';re not mostly, I mean you';re dealing here with several million people and you';re dealing with something that is a tax benefit and the point I was making a moment ago was that nobody, very few people at the end of the tax year get a completely nil assessment, they either owe a bit or they get a bit of a refund. Now this is exactly the same category, this is a tax benefit and you';re entitlement depends upon the amount of money you end up earning during the year.
JONES:
Alright, well Senator Vanstone said last July prior to the election, “the Government has also decided that it would be easier for any family who still had an excess payment to have it recovered by adjusting their payments rather than taking it from their tax refund, this is because people may have earmarked their refund for specific things.” On that I agree with Senator Vanstone, except the Government is now taking it from their tax refund and in some instances taking the lot.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';ll have to look exactly at what she said in July.
JONES:
That';s exactly what she said.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you know there may have been another context to it. But there';s nothing odd about taking from a tax refund an amount of money which is owing to the Government through the tax system which effectively any overpayment in this category is.
JONES:
Fine, but I';m saying what about a system that creates that problem for battling lower income people in the first place?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are some changes that we are looking at and one of them is to allow for the adjustment when somebody notices an increase in their income which means they';re entitled to a lower amount to allow the future payments to be adjusted to take account of the previous overpayments during the first part of the year so at the end of the year they don';t have a bill. We';re looking at that. And the other one we';re looking at is to give people an option in relation to the two categories of family tax benefits so you can have one of them as a lump sum at the end of the year if you want and take the other one as a periodic payment. We are looking at making it more flexible.
JONES:
We';ve got to go to the news but we will talk again, but thank you for your time.
JONES:
Thank you Alan.
[ends]