Subjects: Subjects: interest rates; economy; Australian dollar; anti-terrorism legislation; ICC; Andrew Theophanous; child abuse; maternity leave.
E&OE...........
CORDEAUX:
Now we';ve had an increase of 25 basis points in the interest rates and the word is that there';s more in the pipeline. I don';t expect you, Prime Ministers and Treasurers never comment on interest rates I know. I';ve already got some complaints from business SA about it, business don';t like it but the economy by and large is going wonderfully well isn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the economy is growing strongly. It';s not quite correct to say that Prime Ministers and Treasurers never comment on interest rates. What is correct is that interest rates are set independently of the Government by the Reserve Bank and I respect the Bank';s independence. Let me say of this latest increase that some upward adjustment was to be expected in interest rates because last year they were taken down to very low levels to protect the Australian economy against any recessionary impact from overseas. Therefore some upward adjustment was necessary but you are right in saying that this has occurred in an economy that is performing very strongly. We';ll have an idea of just how strongly later this morning when the National Accounts, or growth figures for the last quarter come out and they will reveal just how strongly the economy';s been growing. But to keep the thing in perspective, even after this increase the monthly repayment on a $100,000 home loan is $329 a month lower than what it was in March of 1996. So there';s a world of difference between a quarter of a percent increase in interest rates when you';re going from something like six to six and a quarter, or six and a quarter to six and a half, than the sort of increases we had some years ago when interest rates were at 17 and 18 per cent.
Now people who borrow money don';t like interest rate increases whenever they occur, I understand that. It';s necessary for them to be adjusted in different directions from time to time to keep the economy on an equilibrium and they have been very very low. They';re just a little bit higher but they';re still relatively speaking extremely low.
CORDEAUX:
And self-funded retirees, or people who look to have a return on their investments, I guess they will be smiling. At least a little bit anyway.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is the other side of it. Now last year self-funded retirees took, or felt they took quite a hammering because many of them lived, in part at least, off the interest they earned on fixed investments. That was one of the reasons why in last year';s Budget we expanded a number of entitlements for self-funded retirees, it was to compensate in part for the negative effect on them of interest rate falls. So there';s always two sides to the debate, if you';re a borrower, a home buyer, a businessman then the lower the interest rates the better. If you';re a lender, an investor, a retired person you think differently. Although you do tend, not unnaturally to think of your children who are buying homes.
CORDEAUX:
You can';t please everybody but Prime Ministers are expected to please everybody.
PRIME MINISTER:
They are and that';s legitimate and I understand nobody likes interest rates to go up or vary if you';re a borrower. I just ask them to bear in mind, to keep a sense of proportion about it. $329 a month lower than six and a bit years ago on the average home loan of $100,000. That is an enormous difference and they are still by historical standards very low interest rates.
CORDEAUX:
The front page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday was talking about the end of the love affair with the American dollar. And we see that the Australian dollar is climbing against the American dollar. They say we could be 60 cents by the end of the year. Does this worry you? Or are you…
PRIME MINISTER:
I try not to get fixated on any particular level of the dollar except to say that we have had a very competitive exchange rate over the last few years and it';s one of the reasons we have done very well with our exports. It';s one of the reasons why our economy has grown. You were right in fingering what';s happened to the American dollar as the explanation. When our dollar went very low last year that was largely due to the strength of the American dollar and now that our dollar is going up, it';s going up against the American dollar, it';s not going up so much against the other currencies, although it';s going up a little. Once again it';s a question of degree, I want the Australian dollar to be at a realistic level, I also want it to be at a competitive level. I';m not going to nominate what that figure is, I don';t think that';s sensible of me to do because it can have an influence on markets. But a competitive exchange rate is always very desirable for a trading economy such as Australia.
CORDEAUX:
Why are you having so much trouble with this anti-terrorism legislation which broadly in the court of public opinion would have huge support I would have thought.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you';re in a new area, you';re in a new situation and Members of Parliament traditionally are very sensitive to anything that restricts individual liberty. And getting a balance between having a tough law to catch terrorists but also not interfering with legitimate political dissent and legitimate political debate and membership of organisations in a free democratic society, it';s always a difficult balance to strike and some of our colleagues were concerned that the onus of proof provisions had not been treated in quite the traditional way and they were a little worried about some other aspects. We';ve worked it through and I think we have a much stronger tougher law, and bear in mind we also have to get it through the Senate. And I think what the Attorney General came out with yesterday was good, and it was a good balance. It was a change as a result of views put in our party room, I don';t mind acknowledging that. There were some of the people in our party room who felt that some of the traditional protections were not 100 per cent there and we have made some changes and I think it';s a very good compromise.
CORDEAUX:
The Opposition still isn';t happy with those…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, the Opposition is hinting that it wants to make further changes.
CORDEAUX:
Are you open to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we think what we';ve got now is a good balance. And what we';ve got now does in part also reflect known concerns of the Opposition. I would, rather than allow the thing to fall into a political ping-pong game between the Government and the Opposition, I would rather hope that we could have some further discussion with the Opposition in an endeavour to reach agreement because we do need a tougher anti-terrorist law. The Opposition says that. We';re not arguing over that, we';re arguing over the detail of it and I hope we can reach a sensible outcome and we have gone a long way already and I';d like the Opposition to bear that in mind.
CORDEAUX:
A listener rang before you came on the air and asked me if I';d ask you about Andrew Theophanous and the way Mr Theophanous is obviously going to keep his Gold Card and some of his perks of office and I guess his superannuation as well. Do you think…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, can I just say in relation to the current law there';s a very fixed procedure, and look I have to be very careful because the man has not been sentenced so I can';t talk about his particular case but I can talk generally about the fact that there is a provision in the law that if somebody is convicted and sentenced in a certain way then superannuation entitlements can be forfeited. So the idea that somebody can be convicted, and I';m not talking about anybody in particular, but Members of Parliament in general at a federal level, the idea that you can be convicted of a serious offence and still keep all of your superannuation automatically, that is not correct. That is not correct. And in relation to the life gold pass, the present law means that you don';t automatically lose the life gold pass, for some odd reason it';s not as severe in relation to that as it is in relation to superannuation. In relation to superannuation once you';re convicted of a certain offence and sentenced to a certain number of years, the effect is essentially automatic. You do lose your superannuation but not the life gold pass. We are looking at that issue right at the moment.
CORDEAUX:
You do anticipate a change?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we';re looking at it very carefully. I don';t want to say any more than that because once again I don';t want to say anything that could be interpreted as in any way influencing or affecting the sentencing. I';ve got to be very careful of those things but it has thrown up this issue and we are looking at it. But the major entitlement that a retired Member of Parliament has is superannuation. Life gold pass sounds elaborate and generous but it is not what it used to be. For example, it is not unlimited travel for the rest of your life. I think it is 25 trips a year. So whilst that is quite generous, it is not as generous as it was. But we are looking at that in the context of what happens to it and whether it should be taken away if the person is convicted of a criminal offence.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, a couple of quick questions from listeners. Andrew would like to know would you consider introducing national service?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would consider introducing national service if there were a defence need. There is not at the moment. Recruiting is doing better than it has done for some time. And I have not had in the six and a quarter years I have been Prime Minister, any advice from the Defence Forces and our defence advisers that it is in Australia';s national interest to have national service. So my position on national service is you don';t introduce it for purposes other than the defence of the country, and you only introduce it if in the interests of defending Australia, it is needed.
CORDEAUX:
Milo asks with some people moving over from disability pension to unemployment benefit, will the criteria for work for the dole change at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
The criteria for work for the dole will not be changed other than what has already been announced. But there is no automatic change in those criteria as a result of the disability support changes.
CORDEAUX:
They thrown some interesting things at you Prime Minister. Peter wants to know would you consider making donations to Neighbourhood Watch tax deductible?
PRIME MINISTER:
To Neighbourhood Watch?
CORDEAUX:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Let me investigate that. I';m not sure whether it isn';t already tax deductible. I don';t know. Let me examine that. I';ve never been asked that before and I don';t know the answer. I';ll have a look at it.
CORDEAUX:
Thank you. The International Criminal Court. I get calls on this programme and I';ve had them for a long time now, where people are really worried about this potential loss of our sovereignty by signing up to a Court that would have powers over our country that one day we may rue giving them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I understand there is concern. Once again it is a question of making an on balance judgement. There is clearly an interest for Australia and indeed for the whole of the civilised world in having an international mechanism that can genuinely catch and prosecute the Pol Pots of this world. People who have been guilty of appalling genocide and mass killing and all sorts of unspeakable barbarities inflicted on civilian populations and innocent people. There is clearly a case for that. And as you will know, and your listeners will know, if you think back over the last 30 or 40 years, there has been some success in relation to some of the atrocities in the Balkans. I don';t from memory think anybody has been effectively prosecuted for what happened in Cambodia. So there is a case for trying to find an international mechanism that will bring those sort of people to justice in the future. On the other hand, I don';t want a democracy and a free country such as Australia handing over to an international body authority for that body to decide, not in accordance with our principles of justice, that in some way or other our citizens have been guilty of things that we know they haven';t been guilty of. Which is really the concern people are articulating to you. We';re having an internal discussion about this at the moment. We had indicated an intention to ratify. A number of my colleagues, Liberal Party and National Party colleagues – both parties, have expressed concerns and I have commenced a process of internal consultation. And that process will go on for several weeks yet, and when that is completed the Cabinet will look at it again and decide in the light of those expressions of concern, and also expressions of support for our current position, whether we are going to go ahead with it or change it in some way. Can I signal to your listeners that I am alive to the concerns they are expressing. I understand why they express them. I also understand many of the arguments in favour. And you can';t look to overseas countries for a lot of guidance on this. Countries like the United Kingdom have decided to ratify but the United States is totally opposed to it. As things stand at the moment, the major powers of the world are not involved in it although the majority of the countries whose judicial tradition we share are involved in it with the conspicuous exception of the United States. So it is once again a judgement that will have to be made, but I am going to take the time to consider it. I';m listening carefully to what concerns people have. I';m not accepting all of the arguments against it because some of them are not well based. Some of them are. And when I finish that consultation process I';ll make a final decision.
CORDEAUX:
It';s tricky because we have promoted it. I believe Alexander Downer has been a great promoter of it and now, are we able to turn around and say no we won';t ratify it?
PRIME MINISTER:
He has supported it. I don';t think it is right to say that it has been his sole mission in life as some reports have suggested over the last few years. He has been a supporter of it with, might I say, the authority of the Government. And Alexander has been talking on behalf of the Government. He has not been going out there on his own. He has been doing what he has been doing in the name of the Government and with the support of the Government. And if there is a change, well it is a change that the Government will take. But we haven';t decided on that.
CORDEAUX:
But if we do ratify it, we can have a hand in running it and…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we can have a hand in running it but the reality is that we will be one of some 60 to 70 countries and you can have a limited hand in running it but we shouldn';t imagine… nobody should imagine that by ratifying it we';re going to have a major say in how it operates. It will operate in accordance with the treaty. And the arguments are really about interpretations. The argument of those who support it say look, it won';t affect a country such as Australia because there is a thing called – I know it sounds very complicated – complementarity. Which means that if a country, obviously Australia would be in this category, already has a well developed, balanced, fair, proper legal system to try anybody, any of its citizens who is accused of a crime, then the International Criminal Court just won';t get involved. Now that sounds on the surface fine. And well people will say, what is the problem? Why should Australia be scared of it? And most people think, if they support it, think that is the case. However the critics then turn around and say, ah yes but the question of determining whether or not Australia has that fair, decent, balanced legal system is not in the hands of Australia and Australians, it is in the hands of the International Court. And you might get an International Court deciding that Australia didn';t have such a body. Now the defenders of the treaty then turn around and say, oh but they would never do that, because we so obviously do. But then the critics say, oh but you';ve had United Nations committees judge us as being guilty of breaches of human rights when we know we haven';t been. So I mean that is the sort of argument that we have to work our way through.
CORDEAUX:
Which way are you leaning?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m listening to the arguments. I don';t want people to… I haven';t made up my mind. I had previously been persuaded that it was a good idea to be involved and I can still see a lot of merit in us being involved. I do however in situations like this, once I find that there is a respectable body of concern within the community about it, I like to listen. And until I have heard all of the arguments I won';t make up my mind.
CORDEAUX:
Messy business with Archbishop George Pell and 60 Minutes and all of that. There are people who are asking the Government to consider a Royal Commission into child sex abuse. Would you consider that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have considered that. We were asked to establish a Royal Commission by the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane. We decided against it. There are a number of reasons why I am not in favour of a Royal Commission. I fear that a Royal Commission of this kind would just become an unending witch-hunt. There is no doubt that sex abuse has occurred in a number of institutions, not only the Churches and not only in private schools, but also I dare say in Government schools and other institutions over the years. The great bulk of those institutions are either run by State Governments or they are in the case of Churches, completely outside the control of either Federal or State Governments. There is little doubt that people are now a lot more aware of this problem. It is not as if nothing has been done about it over the years. There were cases undoubtedly of cover-up in the past and that is to be totally condemned because it is the most appalling, abhorrent, disgusting behaviour imaginable in our community. But it also has to be said in defence of churches and schools that the great bulk of men and women who are in priestly orders or work as teachers are dedicated decent people and it';s the behaviour of a very small minority that has brought their institutions into disrepute. If I believed that people didn';t realise that sex abuse had occurred and still does occur, if I thought that well there would be a case for having some kind of royal commission. But there have been umpteen inquiries by state governments, there have been a lot of inquiries by individual bodies, and I';m unpersuaded that great benefit would come out of it. What is needed by all institutions is to have procedures that deliver referral of complaints to the police and the prosecution in accordance with the law, of people who are guilty, but also respect the fact that when you';re dealing with an emotional and sensitive area such as this that people';s reputations can be besmirched. I mean it is easy to make allegations against people in high places knowing that those allegations will get huge publicity and people such as archbishops and may I say governors general are entitled to defend their good name. I mean I know Archbishop Pell. I';ve always found him to be a person of intense, of great intelligence and somebody who I respect enormously. I may not agree with him on everything, I';m not expected to but I have a great regard for him as a person. I think he';s a very dedicated, sincere man. I don';t know the circumstances of this situation. Clearly there was a crime committed by a priest that he knew but that';s inevitable. If you';re a priest in the Catholic Church and one of your colleagues is a priest and a crime is committed, of course there';s going to be situations where, you know, you say well you knew him therefore….I mean the implication is that he';s implicated in it, that he';s linked to it and that is quite unfair.
CORDEAUX:
Some people say it';s because, they';re attacking him because he';s a conservative, that he';s rubbed some people up the wrong way.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can understand why that allegation is made. I have no evidence that that is the case. I don';t want to be unfair to the young man who appeared on the 60 Minutes program either. I don';t know him, I don';t know the background. All I can say to you is that the Archbishop impresses me as a strong leader and as a person who';s got a great deal of integrity. I think the Catholic Church feels a sense of responsibility and shame about the small number of its priests who behaved in an appalling fashion and I believe they';re endeavouring to tackle the problem and my reason for opposing a royal commission is I don';t think it would unearth things that, generically speaking that we don';t already know about and it would just become an opportunity for, you know, in many cases uncorroborated allegations to be made and a witch hunt and I don';t think that';s going to help anybody. It';s not going to help the victims. I mean if we are genuine about this all of our energy should be directed to ensuring that people who';ve broken the law and against whom complaints have been made are dealt with in accordance with the law and that the victims are helped in whatever way can be achieved.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, Pru Goward – Sex Discrimination Commission – is pushing for paid maternity leave. Do you think that';s something we can afford?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we';re looking at her paper. The paper she';s put out already is I understand it just a discussion paper. I';m not against paid maternity leave where it can be afforded and it already exists in the public service and some large corporations have it. I think something in the order of 20%-25% of the population already has access to some element of it. I';m against it being imposed on small business. I don';t think the great bulk of small businesses can afford it and therefore if it were to be extended into the small business sector than the taxpayer would have to pick up the bill. You can';t ask a small business who employs a couple of people and has a small profit to say well you';ll pay, you';ve got to effectively employ an extra person for another three months of the year. They literally cannot afford it and people who argue they can have no idea of what it';s like to run a small business. But we are looking at it and I';m not hostile to the concept and indeed it exists at the present time in many parts of the economy. It';s just a question of making sure that it is not imposed upon people and businesses that can';t afford it.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister thank you very much for your valuable time. Have a great day and thank you again.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Ends]