Subjects: Medibank Private; Geoff Clark; Telstra shares; head of Turkish soldier; petrol prices; Terror legislation; war against terror; Senate inquiry; television multichannelling; Japan.
E&OE...........
MITCHELL:
There is a great deal to address today with the Prime Minister. Let';s get straight to it. He';s in our Canberra studio. Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, there are tens of thousands of people listening now who are members of Medibank Private, including me. Are you going to sell it?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have not taken any decision to sell it. There is speculation about a scoping study but I can assure people no decision has been taken about the sale of it. And as to what we might do in relation to the organisation in the future, we will always act in the public interest.
MITCHELL:
Well you';re obviously giving consideration to selling it?
PRIME MINISTER:
We';re not saying anything beyond what I';ve just said. We are not considering a sale. There is speculation that a scoping study about the possibility of a sale will be included in the Budget. Like all pre-Budget speculation I';m not going to respond to that.
MITCHELL:
Okay well what about the speculation that if the sale goes through there would be a payout by the Medibank Private members - $395 a head.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that assumes that we have taken a decision to sell, which we haven';t.
MITCHELL:
What would be the reason to sell if it was to be sold?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s a hypothetical question and I';m not going to engage in it because if I do it will then be asserted that we have in fact taken a decision to sell, which we haven';t.
MITCHELL:
I accept that you say you haven';t taken a decision but I';m trying to weigh up what would be the…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I must say I haven';t given that a lot of thought.
MITCHELL:
So it';s not a high priority?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can only say to you we';ve taken no decision. There is speculation about a scoping study. I have not yet myself given a lot of thought to the matter, therefore it';s pointless my engaging and indulging a hypothesis about something we haven';t decided on and may not decide on.
MITCHELL:
What is a scoping study?
PRIME MINISTER:
A scoping study is something that examines the pros and cons and the feasibility of doing something and what might be involved.
MITCHELL:
So who';s doing that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven';t said we';re doing it. I';m just pointing to the fact that there';s speculation that it might be announced.
MITCHELL:
Oh okay. Who would do it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that would depend if it were announced. Get on to the next one.
MITCHELL:
Well I don';t think you';ll like the next one either.
PRIME MINISTER:
That';s alright.
MITCHELL:
Geoff Clark. Still subject to police investigation over allegations of rape. Now it';s reported in the Age, hit by police with capsicum spray during a brawl in a pub in Warrnambool. Now if this bloke was head of the Prime Minister';s Department his feet wouldn';t have touched the ground. He';d be stood down. Should he go now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he holds an elected position. He doesn';t hold a position which is at my whim or the whim of anybody in my Government. The question of his position is a matter for his organisation. It';s not a matter which is within my remit. He';s like everybody else. He is entitled to a presumption of innocence. That is the way our legal system operates. I have read the newspaper reports this morning. I don';t think it will add anything if I make a comment on them beyond saying I have read them and obviously there was a difficult incident. I haven';t heard and I haven';t sought at this stage either side of the story beyond what I';ve seen in the press report. But you';ve got to remember that he does hold a position to which he';s been elected by elected members of the Aboriginal community.
MITCHELL:
Would you seek a report on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I probably will. Well I think as a matter of course, I will get one. But it will probably be a report that is substantially based on the official accounts that have been provided to the media. But Neil I am not a judge and jury. I mean, accusations can… we get a lot of understandably, we in the political arena get a lot of lectures about the separation of powers. Now I respect that very much and it';s not for me to make a judgement about somebody in relation to alleged criminal responsibility. I mean you';ve referred to a charge in relation… investigation in relation to another issue. Well that is something where the presumption of innocence operates and the same thing applies here. And look I';m not going to put myself…
MITCHELL:
People in public positions regularly when under some cloud of suspicion stand down. Is it appropriate… would it be appropriate Mr Clarke to now stand down?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it does vary. Some of them only stand down when they';re actually charged.
MITCHELL:
Would it be appropriate for him to stand down?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is in my opinion a matter for ATSIC because it';s not a public official position to which he';s been appointed by the Government.
MITCHELL:
But this is (inaudible) Aboriginal politician who…
PRIME MINISTER:
I know but I did not elect him and I did not appoint him.
MITCHELL:
Are you happy to work with him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will work with whoever is chosen by the Aboriginal community. I mean there are a lot of people I';ve worked with who I may not necessarily agree with.
MITCHELL:
Do you continue to have confidence in Geoff Clarke?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s not a matter for me to have confidence in him.
MITCHELL:
As Prime Minister you have to deal with him.
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Well there';s a lot of people I don';t have confidence in that I have to deal with.
MITCHELL:
Who?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well did you want me to start on some people in the political arena? I mean I don';t have a lot of confidence in a number of people I have to deal with, they might not have confidence in me. To be fair on this you';ve got to separate out those positions to which people are appointed by the executive Government of the day. If I appointed somebody to a position and I became satisfied that that person was no longer fit to be in that position or was bringing that position into disrepute or I had some reason to get rid of him, then of course I have to answer and I have to say whether or not I have confidence in him. But it is clear in this case he was appointed not by me but by the elected representatives of the Aboriginal community.
MITCHELL:
Okay well is it your view that ATSIC should consider his position?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for it. I am not going to tell it what to do because I will then be accused of pushing the Aboriginal community around. You know that as well as I do.
MITCHELL:
Okay something else. Why are Telstra shares on the nose? Three billion dollars wiped off yesterday. What';s wrong with them?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it';s due more than anything else to the fact that around the world telcos took a bit of a hit during the last couple of weeks. There may be some other factors as well. I don';t think it really helps if I get into that because it is a sensitive issue, the share price. I remain of the view that in the medium to longer term it';s a very good investment.
MITCHELL:
Do you still plan to sell it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our position on that is that we won';t consider a further sale until we';re satisfied that things in the bush are up to scratch.
MITCHELL:
Are they getting there?
PRIME MINISTER:
They';re certainly getting better and I';ve had comments made to me by people who in the past have argued for more being done for the bush in telecommunications, those people have said to me recently we think we';re really getting somewhere now. We';re starting to get people say gee we';re noticing the difference. So we are starting to get there.
MITCHELL:
Will the sale of Telstra be part of the Budget planning? Will it be in the forward estimates?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you';re asking me again to talk about the Budget and I don';t think I';ll do that.
MITCHELL:
Do you feel any responsibility if people are losing money on Telstra? There were very enthusiastic people getting involved in it initially.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if you haven';t sold your shares you haven';t lost any money, that';s a paper loss just are rises early on were paper gains. I don';t feel a direct personal responsibility yet people who buy Telstra shares understand the nature of stockmarket investments. We didn';t say anything about Telstra that was untrue and nobody in our situation associated with the privatisation of that kind can be held to account for subsequent fluctuations in the share price, I mean that';s the nature of the beast, you buy shares, you make a decision based on investment advice, you either make a profit or incur a loss.
MITCHELL:
I don';t know if you've seen it or not there';s been a head of a Turkish soldier from Gallipoli is being paraded around on television, do you think it';s a bit tacky to have done that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
It should have been kept private?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. I think it is, I don';t think it should have been paraded, certainly not. I do think, I mean it';s self-evidently bad taste.
MITCHELL:
Well the Turkish sub-branch of the RSL wants you, wants the Government, to decide what to do with it now, what would be your inclination?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t know that I can sort of "do" anything - we don';t have possession of it.
MITCHELL:
Well I think they want to give it to you to return or to…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if that were returned it would be treated respectfully.
MITCHELL:
And sent back to Turkey?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
Do you think that';s what should happen with it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do.
MITCHELL:
Okay, we';ll take a break and calls for the Prime Minister, 9696 1278, anything you';d like to raise with the Prime Minister in our Canberra studio.
[commercial break]
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister';s in our Canberra studio, more questions from me in a moment, but first Lawrence, go ahead Lawrence.
CALLER:
I think you';ve done a terrific job with the country but I think you';re wrong on this one with Geoff Clarke. It';s all well and good to say I can';t get involved because he';s elected by the people that he represents, but we fund it don';t we, don';t the people of Australia fund it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes we do but there have been examples in the past of people holding elected positions who';ve been charged with things and they';ve held onto those elected positions until they';ve been convicted.
MITCHELL:
Where was that?
PRIME MINISTER:
In Parliament. There is a number of examples of people who may have been charged from crimes but they haven';t stood down from Parliament while the trial goes on. They';ve stood down from executive positions but the normal rule for the Member of Parliament who asserts his or her innocence is that until the charge is proved in a court and therefore the person becomes ineligible to sit in the Parliament normally they don';t resign, some have but some haven';t because resignation is taken as an acknowledgment of guilt.
MITCHELL:
But if you were in the position, if it was a member of your staff…
PRIME MINISTER:
…If somebody on my staff were charged with something I would stand them aside, of course I would.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Lawrence thank you for calling. Prime Minister, Shell says that we';re wrong to whinge about petrol prices, we';ve got the cheapest petrol in the industrial world and don';t seem to understand that. Do you think petrol';s at a fair price in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Given the world price, yes I do. Generally speaking there may well be a case to answer in relation to local variations. It is true that Australia has the second cheapest petrol in the world, not the cheapest, it is infinitely cheaper than petrol in Europe and many other countries. I don';t think it';s quite as cheap as it is in the United States.
MITCHELL:
Shell also says that we';re being strangled by cheap petrol and that…
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think any Australian motorists would ever feel strangled by cheap petrol.
MITCHELL:
(inaudible). They say though that it';s the role of Government to try to help convince the ACCC about problems in the industry. Do you see that as a role for government?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think it';s the role of the Government to create generally good competitive conditions, it';s the role do the ACCC under the law to enforce the competition law. I don';t know what will come out of this investigation by the ACCC, I was asked about this I think by you a couple of weeks ago I said like any other company the oil companies are entitled to a presumption of innocence, it';s certainly been a very high profile raid and therefore people will look with interest on the outcome. Australians will always want cheap petrol, it';s part of our nature, we love our motorcars, it';s a big country and everything';s relative. The fact that petrol is cheaper in other countries doesn';t really make us any happier when the price goes up. The price at the moment is a reflection of the world price. We did cut excise last year. We abolished the automatic indexation of petrol excise. We can';t do any more in that area, obviously can';t do any more at all. But we will continue to point out that the driver of the price now is the world price of oil and the world price of oil has firmed as a result of the instability in the Middle East.
MITCHELL:
The Director General of ASIO says Australia has an increased terror risk because of statements, he's interpreted statements recently from Osama bin Laden. Do you accept that advice - our terror risk is increased?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our terror risk has been higher for some time now. I can';t really get into sort of specific gradations of it but we are obviously more at threat now. We are a close ally of the United States , properly so. We have taken a strong stand properly against terrorism. I have said frequently since the 11th of September last year that the idea that it can';t happen in Australia is wrong and misguided. It can. We have to be vigilant but the vigilance of course can';t and won';t stop us going about our daily lives. You can';t stop living because of a terror threat but people should understand that we';re not immune.
MITCHELL:
Well does that justify, is that how you justify your new legislation which as I interpret it, somebody could be locked up for five years without charge for not answering questions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s not the interpretation that I have on the legislation.
MITCHELL:
Well do you want it to do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I want it to arm us with what is needed consistent with our traditions as a liberal democracy, what is needed in order to fight terrorism.
MITCHELL:
How far do you go with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you';ll never get complete agreement on that. We think this legislation which goes a little further than in the past particularly in the relation to the 48 hour period. We think that is justified in relation to the sort of threat that we now face. You have this eternal dilemma. People say what';s the Government doing about the new terror threat, when we do something about it we are then accused of going too far. We think we';ve got the balance right but we';re listening to what people have got to say. I don';t want this country to lose its strong tradition of civil liberties and its tradition of being a liberal democracy. It';s treasuring of the principles that somebody is innocent until proven guilty. All of those things are very important to our society.
MITCHELL:
And you deny that under this people could be gaoled for five years for not answering questions?
PRIME MINISTER:
That wasn't, the formulation I used a moment ago is different from that.
MITCHELL:
Can people be gaoled for five years for not answering questions?
PRIME MINISTER:
There are new offences created by this and we think they are fair.
MITCHELL:
Can people be gaoled for five years for not answering questions?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is one of the new offences created by it yes.
MITCHELL:
How is that fair? If you've got a presumption of innocencen surely you've got a right not to answer questions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, but if that is part of a pattern of deliberately obstructing the proper investigation of an allegation I'm not sure that I would agree with you.
MITCHELL:
But how far do you extend that, I refuse to answer questions? Five years.
PRIME MINISTER:
So you think it';s perfectly alright for somebody to do that indefinitely no matter what the circumstances?
MITCHELL:
I think it';s the base of any democratic judicial system at the moment that you have the right to refuse to answer questions.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think you have to look at the whole bill in the context of the new environment in which we are.
MITCHELL:
So how far do we go?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the bill strikes a good balance.
MITCHELL:
One of your senior bureaucrats….before we get onto that call Australia, Australians reported in further action in Kabul over the past week. Do you have reports on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the only reports I have were those that were given out yesterday at a military briefing.
MITCHELL:
Is there any intention of changing or increasing Australian commitment in Afghanistan?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. We don';t have any plan to change it. We certainly are not proposing to increase it and we don';t at this stage have any intention of altering it from what was outlined by the Defence Minister only a short time ago.
MITCHELL:
One of your senior bureaucrats is accused if trying to influence the children overboard inquiry by encouraging people giving evidence to omit facts. Is that unacceptable if true?
PRIME MINISTER:
It would be quite unacceptable for anybody to encourage people to do other than tell the truth. The allegation as I understand is that the impression may have been created that an attempt was being made to influence the evidence. The allegation has been denied by the person concerned. I know nothing other than what you know. The matter is being investigated by the head of my department which is the appropriate thing to do because the claim has been made in relation to somebody who was then on secondment to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
MITCHELL:
The changes to television. Is multichannelling likely, free-to-air?
PRIME MINISTER:
There are some arguments both for and against. Given that we took a decision some time ago that you would not have any additional….there would be a moratorium on additional free-to-air channels for a number of years, you';d have to look at any proposals for multichannelling against the background of that commitment.
MITCHELL:
So what does that mean…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what that means is that if the view is taken that multichannelling violates or runs against that commitment in relation to no expansion of free-to-air licencing then you';d have to say it oughtn';t to occur. Now it';s something that is being considered but we haven';t got to a point where we';re taking any final decision on it. But that is one of the factors that';s got to be kept in mind. It shouldn';t be assumed - let me put it this way - is going to happen but it';s one of those things that gets considered along with a whole lot of other things.
MITCHELL:
Those changes that were put in the Financial Review to the Tax Office, putting a lot of the control under the Treasury, is that because the Tax Office has mucked a few things up lately?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Because it';s a better way of doing it. You have a slightly broader economic approach and not just a technical tax approach. It doesn';t mean that the Tax Office won';t be consulted and won';t be involved but there are broader economic and policy considerations involved in the drafting of tax legislation.
MITCHELL:
The Chair of your Immigration Advisory Group, John Hodges, I noticed went to Papua New Guinea to apologise to the boat people accused of dumping their children overboard. Would you apologise as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I';ve been asked that question before.
MITCHELL:
I just wanted….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I apologise for misstatements that I have made about people, I apologise for mistakes I have personally made. As you know Neil the statements I originally made about SIEV 4 were based on advice I had at the time. That';s why I made them. I didn';t make them maliciously or carelessly and that remains my position.
MITCHELL:
When the Japanese Prime Minister visited did you hope there would be an apology from him about the second world war?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I didn';t expect that issue would come up. I really didn';t.
MITCHELL:
Is there any need for one do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s a difficult issue. We';ve had various statements over the years from various Prime Ministers of Japan. I don';t think it is something that we are going to see a change on from the Japanese and we have to make a judgement as to whether in our current national interest we oughtn';t to focus on the future positive aspects of the relationship which I believe most Australians wish to and I find that as somebody who has an unbounded reverence for those who died defending this country and an incredible respect for returned servicemen of Australia. I think every Australian knows how much I respect them and support them. But it is now a long time since the war, you have a new generation of Japanese. I do hope that they face the realities of their past as all societies must and debate it.
MITCHELL:
That';s an interesting point because we established yesterday and I think it';s pretty well known that fairly much the history of World War II is ignored in Japan.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that';s true. I think that';s one of the great criticisms and it';s one of the differences between the approach the Japanese have taken as compared with the Germans. The cruelties inflicted by the Germans particularly on civilian populations were quite unspeakable. I think there is a problem, I think there is a problem in Japan in relation to history and that is a difficulty in her relations with countries such as China and Korea, it';s a particular problem there. And it is understandably a problem with many people in Australia. But I know many men of World War II generations are looking forward in terms of the relationship and attitudes towards the Japanese and it';s a difficult issue because on the one had I can understand the feelings of people who were prisoners of war and their children. Equally as leader of the country in 2002 I have to look to the importance and the diversity of our relationship with Japan and the value of it to all Australians.
MITCHELL:
I see Bill Clinton';s looking at doing a talk show now he';s retired. Now would that interest you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not thinking of retiring.
MITCHELL:
I heard a word that you might contest the next election. Is that right?
PRIME MINISTER:
You know my line on that.
MITCHELL:
I';ve just had a line from a caller you'll love, they said if you put people in gaol for not answering a question you wouldn';t have many politicians walking around free. Do you agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we don';t always answer questions, no.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Ends]