Subjects: Stem cell research; NAB branch closures; private health insurance; Middle East conflict; Reserve Bank; higher education; Defence Department.
E&OE...........
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
You say the research is only on existing surplus embryos. Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s an important but careful start. There are 60 to 70,000 surplus embryos if you – in existence at the moment. If you restrict it to the existing stock, then there can be no argument that embryos might be created purely for research purposes, which is not something that the Government, nor I suspect, the broader Australian community, would support. And from a practical point of view, the arrangement that we are putting forward will enable all the research that people might want to do in the immediate, indeed medium term, to go ahead. We';re going to review the operation of the whole system after a period of three years, and it – that seems an eminently sensible balanced way of launching into what could turn out to be a wonderful avenue to relieve human suffering and a great opportunity to fight disease.MITCHELL:
So, there are enough embryos [inaudible] – you want approval from people for their use, don';t you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes.
MITCHELL:
So we don';t know how many of 60 [inaudible] can be used?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no – but it';s only fair that people should give approval. That';s only fair and reasonable. But 60 to 70,000 – and all the advice that I';ve been given, I did consult a number of the very eminent scientists in this area, I';m satisfied that there';s an adequate stock, and there is, as I say, that could be in for a review after a period of three years.
MITCHELL:
When presumably we';ll have to again approach this issue of whether future embryos are usable? Like there must be another way of controlling, I know what you';re on about, embryo farming [inaudible]. There must be a way of controlling that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well – well I';m – you know, but if you can achieve the scientific research without running that risk, why wouldn';t you?
MITCHELL:
The – well the States certainly aren';t happy with it. I think Bob Carr described it as artificial.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean – I suppose – let';s, we';ve got a meeting in an hour';s time, and let';s just see what finally comes out of that meeting.
MITCHELL:
But I –
PRIME MINISTER:
I won';t respond at this stage to what he said.
MITCHELL:
Okay. You';ll respond in the meeting, obviously.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh and I';ll – and after the – look, I want to get a national agreement on this, and I do believe that this is something that should be the same throughout the country. I think it would be quite unacceptable in an area like this to have a different setup in Victoria, from that in New South Wales and Queensland. It really –
MITCHELL:
That';s – that';s part of the problem though, isn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is.
MITCHELL:
Who takes precedence? You want to go this way, and the States say no, no, we';re going further, and they are indicating that, both on the issue of future embryos and also the issue of permission being given by people – by people who created –
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think there';s a - there';s, I mean, I don';t think they';re arguing that – that, I don';t hear them arguing that there should no – be no provision for permission.
MITCHELL:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
That would – they may be, I think they';re putting forward a slight variation of the extent of the consent required for each individual piece of research, but I – I didn';t hear any of the Premiers, certainly at the gathering we had last night, say to me, look we think these embryos should be used even if people who donated them –
MITCHELL:
Well, what takes – what takes precedence at this agreement on the issue of future embryos and the States pass legislation, does the Federal legislation overrule that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the – well the normal thing is that if there is Federal legislation and State legislation, and both of them are properly based constitutionally in the same area, the Federal legislation takes precedence. But, I don';t want to get into a constitutional wrangle at the present time. I would like to see if we can';t talk this through because from a practical point of view, the difference between us – that difference is only about the question of whether you use at this stage, future embryos, is not very great – not from a practical point of view. If we only had a very limited number, then it would be a different matter but I do think that when you have such a large number, even allowing for the fact that a number of people may not want their embryos to which they contributed, used, it wouldn';t alter the fact that you';d have an enormous amount of – number of embryos available for research. The only thing we have to understand is that whilst this research offers great help, we don';t want to unreasonably raise expectations and we';re still a long way off the miracle breakthroughs in relation to Alzheimer';s disease and motor neurone disease and so forth, and we all hope and pray that you can get a breakthrough in relation to those diseases but it';s a bit – it';s a bit unfair for any of us in a position of political leadership to unduly raise expectations in this area. The scientists I';ve spoken to have said look, we';ve got a lot of hope that if we can get access to this research facility, we';re even more enthusiastic, but we should be realistic about what can be achieved.
MITCHELL:
The – the Catholic Church has been very critical of you, and they';re still saying it devalues human life. What';s your response to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I understand their view. I - I carefully considered it. I talked at length to Archbishop Pell, and also to the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney who I think articulated the more conservative view in the Anglican Church, and in the end I made the decision according to my own conscience, that there isn';t a qualitative moral difference between allowing an embryo to die through exposure to room temperature or unfreezing, and destroying the embryo in the process of medical research. I couldn';t see the moral difference between the two. That';s why in the end I came out in favour of allowing research to go ahead.
MITCHELL:
Some of the scientists are still saying this is overly restrictive and prescriptive.
PRIME MINISTER:
Some of them are, but others are not. And certainly the scientists – I spoke to Alan Trounson – and Professor Heard. On the basis of the discussions I had with them, I don';t think they would see it as overly restrictive. I mean, they might in an ideal world say that they want no restrictions. But somebody in my position, whilst I listen to the scientists, I don';t do 100% what they want. I listen to church leaders, I don';t do 100% what they want. You are elected to try and represent the public interest and – and to take a conscientious decision, and that';s what I';ve done, and I';m satisfied beyond argument the decision that';s been taken will allow research in – for practical purposes to go ahead in an unlimited way.
MITCHELL:
Is this about for the biotech industry as well though, because there's a lot of money in the biotech industry, if we can lose this way we';ll probably lose the investment.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is an issue, of course it is. We';ll everything I mean, commercial, legitimate, commercial endeavour is always part of the government';s decision making, of course we have to take that into account, why shouldn';t we if it employs people? But most importantly of all, the thing that dominates the scene in my mind is that this does open up the potential to tackle and provide relief and cure for some of the worst diseases that afflict mankind, and if we can do that then that will offer hope and happiness and a new life and a better life and a prolongation of life to many people, and that';s a wonderful thing and I don';t want to in any stop that. And I think what I';ve proposed is something that is sensitive to the ethical consideration but by the same token does allow the research to go ahead and I think it is a balanced approach.
MITCHELL:
Okay, we';ll take some calls in a moment for the Prime Minster, 96961278. Is there any room to move because the States are being very strong on this issue of wanting future embryos?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we';ll talk about it. I saw them last night over dinner and they indicated to me that they had two areas of concern, one related to the aspects of the consent process, and the other related to the question of future embryos. Now I';ll talk to them this morning when we meet at 9.30 regarding both of those issues because they indicated to me that they';d go away and think about it.
MITCHELL:
Will there be any charge involved in this, for the embryos? Financial charge.
PRIME MINISTER:
You mean by the donors?
MITCHELL:
Who owns the embryo?
PRIME MINISTER:
We';ll I guess that';s, I mean I';m not sort of mandating that that should take place. I guess some people might, and have a view on that if they';re the donors, I don';t know.
MITCHELL:
But you wouldn';t want a situation -
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I wouldn';t like it. I got to tell you that, I wouldn';t like it.
MITCHELL:
Would it be possible under what we';re talking about? That people would say you can have my embryos but you';ve got to pay for them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that would be very undesirable, I really do. I think it';d be most undesirable. You asked me if would there be a charge, I mean you can';t stop people whose consent is being sought saying I';ll only give it on a certain condition but I would hope that, that wouldn';t happen and that there';s a way of that being avoided.
MITCHELL:
Do you only think it could be avoided in legislation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that could well be the way to do it.
MITCHELL:
Laurel, go ahead please.
CALLER 1:
Yeah, hi Neil. We were faced with this situation because we went through the IVF program, out of that we obtained seven embryos, three of those which we used and three we had in storage for some time. Now I was really sick having IVF and became quite ill and we didn';t want to go through that procedure again, but we didn';t want to destroy the embryos. Our only option was donating to another couple, which we couldn';t face ourselves going down that track.
MITCHELL:
So what did you do?
CALLER 1:
Well we had to destroy them, we had no option.
MITCHELL:
Would you have, in this situation would you have been willing to provide them for stem-cell research?
CALLER 1:
Absolutely, we would have been more than happy to do that. We know of a person who needs a liver transplant, she has two beautiful children herself and this stem-cell research could actually assist her in that.
MITCHELL:
Thankyou Laurel. Have you had much reaction from people in the position Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible] sixty or seventy thousand's a lot of people.
PRIME MINISTER:
I have had. Yeah it';s quite a lot yeah, more than probably a number of embryos in the case of each couple. I';ve had some reaction and it';s generally along the lines of, Laurel was it? Generally along those lines.
MITCHELL:
Hello Lorraine, go ahead.
CALLER 2:
Hello, hello Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello.
CALLER 2:
Mr Howard, I';m very pleased to hear that you're not just taking the opinion of scientists and not just the public but you';re trying to look after public interest. But Mr Howard, I really want to challenge you, when your considering your opinion that you do consider more than that. God';s put you in a position of authority over us and I would really appeal to you to look to his authority when it comes to life and I';d rather you went backwards on this Mr Howard. I really hurt for all these unborn babies, God says that they';re life right from the start, he knew it from the time we were conceived and it really hurts me that human life is being so devalued. You have such a responsibility to God, he';s put you in this position, our whole society is based on - the foundations of the society, all our [inaudible] go back to biblical principles that God's done. And I';m really hurting and I really pray that, I';ve been praying for you Mr Howard that you';ll just consider the lives of these unborn babies.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thankyou. Look can I just say in reply to that that yes God gave everybody a conscience and a human personality and everybody in the end is answerable to that conscience and you have to, according to my understanding of Christianity, you have to apply your own conscience and your own moral code as you understand it according to your beliefs, and that';s what I';ve tried to do in relation to this issue and it';s by doing that, that I';ve come to the conclusion that I have. I respect the view that you have articulated, you might see yourself going through the same process as I do but you';ve come to a different conclusion. I understand and respect that but I';ve come to my conclusion, I conscientiously applied my mind to a very difficult issue. And I am going to ensure that when this matter is debated in Federal Parliament, every single member of my party, our Liberal Party, has a conscience vote or a free vote. I';m not going to try and force my view down anybody else';s throat. I';m going to say to all of my colleagues from the Deputy Leader of my Party, Peter Costello down, you have a free open vote, you vote according to your conscience and that is how you should resolve issues like this.
MITCHELL:
You have an interesting point Lorraine's raised and you are obviously known as a Christian and a believer, did you seek divine advice?
PRIME MINISTER:
I always do.
MITCHELL:
Do you really?
PRIME MINISTER:
On difficult issues, yes.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, it's interesting. Lorraine thankyou for calling, we';ll take a break and come back with more from the Prime Minister.
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister';s in our Canberra studio. We';ll move onto some other issues now although we will come back to this issue later in the program with some differing views. Mr Howard, the NAB closing rural branches in particular. Anything you can do about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s hard to compel a company to maintain an investment or a branch in a particular part of the country but it won';t win the NAB any friends.
MITCHELL:
You have been involved in rural television and those sorts of areas. You wouldn';t get involved in this in convincing them to stay open?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';ll take a look at that but I';m not going to sort of make promises I may not be able to deliver.
MITCHELL:
The Commonwealth Bank';s already complaining about over regulation, [inaudible] today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well banks will do that from time to time. I mean you can';t win. I mean banks in Australia have a lot of privileges. They are well run and they';re very prudentially stable and all that kind of thing. But they also have a lot of responsibilities and sometimes they are not their best advocates in the way in which they behave on sensitive issues.
MITCHELL:
Private health. Now there';s talk this week about the possibility of deregulating the private health industry. Will you do it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what we';ve said is we';re going to have a, just as you do on an ongoing basis in areas like this, a review of the conditions under which they operate. I';m not forecasting an enormous change. By and large the system does work pretty well. We';ve got 45% of people in private health insurance now. That';s up from about 31% or 32%. We do provide a big tax subsidy etcetera. So I think the system';s working pretty well but it can always work better and if a bit more competition is going to provide a consumer benefit well that';s all the better.
MITCHELL:
There';ve been some real hidden nasties though, not just the fee rises but changed conditions which effectively increase the fees even further. Did the Government approve those?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my understanding, and I don';t claim to be in possession of all of the detail on this, my understanding is that the consent of the government is obviously needed for increases and premiums. In relation to some of these of these other aspects I';d have to talk to the Health Minister because I could be certain and give you an answer on that.
MITCHELL:
They';re a bit sneaky? I mean some of the excesses have been doubled which means if you use the private health then your fee goes up significantly above the apparent 10%.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah but it depends a bit on the proportion that that forms of the overall cost. I would have to get some more advice on that.
MITCHELL:
Has Israel gone too far in the Middle East?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think….it';s a hard question to answer. I think probably there has been an over reaction but it';s a very understandable reaction to a degree because of the terrible impact of the suicide bombing. I would agree with the stance being taken by George Bush. It';s not easy. People have been saying you';ve got to do something. What in a situation like this can, if you are the United States, what can you do? You can ask people to behave in a more civilised fashion. The tragedy of the Middle East is that the Palestinians did not accept the offer that the Israelis made a couple of years ago. They offered 80% to 90% of what the Palestinians wanted and Arafat knocked it back. Now we have really gone downhill ever since.
MITCHELL:
I wonder what can Arafat do now though?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he';s in an impossible position. His authority is gravely weakened yet if he is replaced or removed or disappears or whatever then the position is even worse. As always with these situations there will be a point at which people will hopefully come back from the precipice. I';m pleased that Colin Powell is going to the Middle East. In the end the Americans have more authority and more hope than anybody else and they';re more likely to bring about a change.
MITCHELL:
The Governor of the Reserve Bank Ian Macfarlane said the financial markets are trying to twist his arm on interest rates. Do you agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Some people do yes, and I';ve said this before that some people do try and talk up an interest rate rise. I';ve been criticised very heavily by some commentators a couple of years ago when I made a few remarks about people trying to talk up the need for an interest rate rise. I got bucketed in most sections of the financial press. I';m very interested that Ian Macfarlane is now saying effectively the same thing. In the end the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Reserve Bank Board has got to call the shots on interest rates and in the end if they make a judgement that interest rates have got to go up in the national economic interest well so be it. But I do think from time to time people try and create a situation where prophecies become self fulfilling.
MITCHELL:
A lot of people since this latest decision have said well it';s now inevitable they';d go up in a month';s time when the Reserve Bank next meets. Is that more of that sort of pressure, is it inevitable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well people have been talking it up and I mean my view is that interest rates in this country did not go down as low as they did in the United States therefore as economic conditions continue to be strong or even improved there';s not the same immediate pressure for interest rates to go up again. That';s not to say they won';t go up again in the future. I made that point two days ago when the bank didn';t move at its regular meeting. So I';m not going to get into the business of saying when I think the bank will move. I simply make the observation that from time to time people do try and use the Governor';s words to twist his arm and I';m glad that he publicly nailed them as well.
MITCHELL:
He also said university standards have slipped in Australia. We';ve got a problem that has to be addressed by the federal government. Will you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Brendan Nelson will be having something to say about the higher education area, the long term of the higher education area in the not too distant future and he and I had quite a lengthy talk about this.
MITCHELL:
Is there a problem?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there can be some improvement. I think we still are encumbered by some very…..a number of things including some restrictive work practices. I do think that we have to recognise that the days of an alleged free tertiary education are gone forever, that it';s not unreasonable that there continue to be a reasonable contribution from both students and the private sector. I think it';s also necessary that we set our face against this sort of blind belief that the only place for a person leaving school to go to is a university. There are as Brendan Nelson said many people who are neither suited for university or want to go to university. They should not be made to think they have to go to university and there should be plenty of encouragement and plenty of opportunities for them outside university.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard I';m starting to wonder about our Defence Department. We had the problem with the children overboard and at the very least a degree of confusion there. We even had the name of an SAS soldier released this week that shouldn';t be. And we';ve got the deal on the helicopters - $31 million to maintain helicopters even though they won';t be used. Now have you got some sort of systemic problem within Defence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the first thing I';d say is that the men and women in uniform do a fantastic job. I don';t think there is a better fighting capacity anywhere in the world.
MITCHELL:
Yeah I';d argue that the people on the Adelaide have been let down by what';s happened since around that whole issue. They behaved impeccably.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well of course they did.
MITCHELL:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t want to say anything further about that at this time while the Senate - . If somebody asks me a question about myself I';ll answer it but as to what other people may or may not have done if I say much about it I';ll be accused of trying to influence what they say before the inquiry. I mean I frankly think this inquiry is nothing other than a Labor inspired political witch hunt.MITCHELL:
Do you think Peter Reith should give evidence to it?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a matter for Peter.
MITCHELL:
I know but you could influence….
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well I have not personally spoken to him about this issue since it became a public controversy when I tabled the reports and the reason for that is I don';t want to be accused of trying to tell him what to say. Peter can make up his own mind. If he decides to give evidence that';s fine by me, if he decides not to give evidence that';s fine by me. He';s a private citizen now and he';s got a perfect right to make a decision according to his interests or his assessment of his responsibilities. He';s a private citizen and I will not try and influence him in any way in what to do. I don';t think that';s fair or reasonable. I do agree with you, now that I';ve got the opportunity of saying so, I think during the day and the days of that incident I think the people on the Adelaide behaved magnificently and I indicated that incidentally when I visited the Adelaide during the course of the election campaign. I thanked them for what they had done.
MITCHELL:
Can I ask you very quickly, have you spoken to Justice Kirby since….?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
MITCHELL:
Do you intend to?
PRIME MINISTER:
I may. I may well do so. I don';t have any current arrangements to do so but I may.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time. [ends]