Subjects: Visit to the United States; UN Report; Michael Wooldridge; Question Time; Steve Bracks
E&OE...........
PRICE:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Steve.
PRICE:
What's the message you'll be taking to the US policy makers in that address?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll be taking the message of a strong but independent ally. I'll be talking about the shared values of Australia and the United States. I'll be committing Australia to continue to work side by side with the United States in the fight against terrorism. I'll also be pointing out the concerns that Australia has about the Farm Bill, the concerns Australia has about other aspects of American trade policy that damage Australia's interests and the desirability of trying to see if we can't negotiate a free trade agreement. I'll be going there as the leader of a country which is a very close and loyal friend of the United States but a country that has its concerns about the impact of some aspects of American policy on Australia's economic performance. But the American-Australian relationship is the most important that this country has.
PRICE:
Is it too simplistic for us, Prime Minister, to say, look, we help you out when you ask us, we do deliver the resources you need to fight the war on terrorism so why are you being so tough on us on trade? I mean, is that a simplistic argument?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think that argument is in Australia's national interest. We support the United States in its fight against terrorism because we are against terrorism and because terrorism threatens the Australian people almost as much as it threatens the American people, and there could be circumstances in which it would threaten us in exactly the same way. I have never sought to link those two things nor, to my knowledge, have any of my predecessors, either Labor or Liberal. We take the view that the two things are separate. I should also mention that we haven't always been unsuccessful in getting the Americans to ameliorate the impact of a trade decision on Australia's interests. For example, with the steel quotas we were able to negotiate an exemption for Australia which has meant that about 85% of BHP's export to the United States will be unaffected by those steel quotas, and we did it because we were able to make a case on the merits. But I do not believe the two things should be linked because in the end the fight against terrorism and the fight, wherever the circumstances might arise in defence of our common values, is something that we should be engaged in irrespective of economic outcomes. All countries defend their national interests when it comes to trade matters. Australia does that. I believe in as open a trading policy as possible but I always look to the Australian national interest when making decisions about trade issues and that is exactly what your listeners would want me to do.
PRICE:
Some people have made a little of the fact this week that you are not going to have a one-on-one meeting with the President, George Bush, have you managed to secure that yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, there are certain courtesies to be observed in relation to my programme but, simply, let me say this, that I'm looking forward to having a separate discussion as part of my bilateral visit.
PRICE:
UN inspection teams have been here. There was an announcement yesterday - a full report to come in March - they have criticised mandatory detention, will it change your thinking?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not sure that they have explicitly criticised it. There seems to be some difference between what they told Mr Ruddock and what was said publicly. But we won't be changing our policy. We don';t like having to detain people, I don't think anybody likes it, and we wish there were an alternative. The alternative is to say to people, if you come here illegally, after you've had basic health and other checks you can then disappear into the community. Now, that would act as a very powerful magnet for people to come to this country and that is why in their more candid moments, people like the New South Wales' Premier, who's Labor, says that he is in favour of mandatory detention. I mean, in the end the Labor Opposition in Canberra has got to make up its mind. It can't nitpick whenever any criticism is made of mandatory detention by…
PRICE:
Well, they seem to support you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't know where they stand.
PRICE:
Well, Julia Gillard stands up yesterday…I don't know what she was saying either.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, I just do not know…no, they're trying to have it both ways. Whenever there's a bit of criticism of us they like to align themselves with a criticism so that if anybody who's watching the television interview or hearing a radio interview disagrees with our policy thinks oh Labor's on our side.
PRICE:
They don't have the courage to put their hand up and say what they stand for.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, why don't they either say, look, we support Howard's policy, we don't like it but we support it, or alternatively they campaign to change the policy. I mean, I have contempt for their policy weakness on this issue. At least people in the Greens, I don't agree with them, I totally disagree with them but at least they have an authenticity of policy position which the Labor Party doesn't have.
PRICE:
I'm confused by one aspect, we haven't had one more boat since the election, we haven't had another asylum seeker set foot in Australia and yet we still seem to have this backlog in places like Woomera and in Villawood and in Port Hedland, the UN refers to, are the public servants not doing their job?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, that's not true.
PRICE:
Because we're not being topped up.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but a lot of the people there are still contesting the original decisions. They're either taking it to tribunals or seeking a merits review, as it's called. In other words, they're still arguing that they are entitled to be received into the Australian community. That's one way of…that accounts for one group of people. There is another group of people who have been found not to be illegal…not to be refugees and therefore illegal immigrants but we have not been able to arrange their return to their original source.
PRICE:
But you would have thought that numbers would be going down, down, down and down.
PRIME MINISTER:
They're beginning to go down, they are beginning to.
PRICE:
But do you like seeing children and women in those places?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wish we didn't have to retain people, of course I do. In relation to the children, in many cases when allowing children to go into the community was offered the family groups concerned said, no, we don't want that to occur because we don't want the children away from us. I can understand that and I think that is an entirely sensible decision.
PRICE:
Last night Mr Ruddock on Lateline said that it was a State issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the State government has certain responsibilities in relation to childcare. We have responsibilities in relation to immigration. I saw that interview. I think he was merely explaining, as I heard it, merely explaining the responsibility of State governments in relation to child welfare issues.
PRICE:
So does that mean that Bob Carr can choose to free children from Villawood, does it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it means that his Department has certain responsibilities, but we have offered, I mean, the point with children, Steve, is that we have, in fact, had some pilot programmes of some children going into foster homes in local communities, not in Sydney but in Western Australia and the Northern Territory…Western Australia, I think, and South Australia, or perhaps only South Australia and it's happened on one or two occasions but on the other occasions the parents and guardians of the children have said, no, we don't want them away from us. I understand that and that's the reason why it hasn't happened.
PRICE:
Can I just ask you about this story overnight that Michael Wooldridge, the former Health Minister, has been seen to access Health Department files on his computer twice after he left office?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've heard the news reports of it and I'll get some more information about it this morning. On the face of it, what appears to have happened - and I stand corrected on later information - is that he has had e-mail access to material that he would previously have seen or been involved in the generation of. I heard the Health Department officials say he wouldn't have had access to any departmental material that had been generated, as they say, since his departure. Now, normally…
PRICE:
Well, Kay Patterson was disturbed enough to have it cut off.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Steve, I'm relying on reports but can I make the point to your listeners that normally a former Minister is entitled, with the permission of the current Minister and the Department - I'm not aware that it's ever been refused - is entitled to have a look at material that was before them when they were a Minister. I mean, I, for example, could still access material that was submitted to me by the Treasury twenty years ago when I was Treasurer and I could have that right long after I left Parliament. I'd have to write to the current Minister or current Head of Treasury and there'd have to be a formal tick off and I have in the past done that. And, I for example, had a request the other day from a former Prime Minister for permission to have a look at some material that would have been before him or related to a matter in which he was involved. So, I mean, there is not automatically anything wrong with a Minister's recollection being refreshed in relation to material formerly before him. Now, the question of whether it went beyond that, I just don't know. The departmental person says it didn't. I have no direct knowledge of it. I am going to seek some information about it and check it out but I don't think it should automatically be assumed that once you stop being a Minister you're not entitled to refresh your memory about something that you were involved in or was shown to you.
PRICE:
Can I ask you about Question Time in Parliament this week. I noticed a photograph of yourself on page one of The Australian the other day - and I know it's tough when people take your photograph in Parliament - you seemed to be smiling as Tony Abbott was speaking. Now, the photo wasn't put into any context. So if Mr Abbott…
PRIME MINISTER:
I was laughing at a joke he cracked and if we take ourselves so seriously…
PRICE:
Well, I hope the joke wasn't about testicular cancer.
PRIME MINISTER:
It wasn't, it wasn't. It certainly was not and any suggestion that it was is completely false.
PRICE:
Well, the accompanying story tried to suggest that the behaviour that day was bad.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Tony made a reference, as I recollect, he used a euphemism for the expression that Mr Latham had used about muscling up, that was my understanding. But look…
PRICE:
Are you happy with the standard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think some people behave badly. I don't think there's anything wrong with a Government Minister making a strong political attack on the Opposition. What happened this week, Steve, was that a number of Government Ministers attacked the Labor Party over their links with the union movement, which is a perfectly legitimate form of political attack and criticism given that the unions are refusing to let go of their grip on the Labor Party and the Labor Party didn't like it and they caused a hullabaloo, that's what happened.
PRICE:
Mark Latham having a crack at Tony Abbott about adopting out a child, I mean, it's all a bit unseemly, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I don't want to talk about that. I think it's fair that Tony deals with his own life and he's a very up front person and he has my respect but I think that reflects poorly on Mr Latham.
PRICE:
I'm pleased I'm no longer a taxpayer of Victoria because I'd have to be footing the bill this morning for an extra $77 million to rebuild the MCG after Steve Bracks has turned his back on your $90 million.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm glad for you you're not either. We wanted, as a contribution to the Commonwealth Games, contribute $90 million and we offered it and I wrote to Mr Bracks confirming the offer, to refurbish the Melbourne Cricket Ground. But we said, as a condition of spending the money, we wanted the Federal Industrial Relations Law applied to the building site. In other words, you couldn't have a no-ticket-no-start-rule and if people didn't want to be pushed around by a union on that site they shouldn't have to be. Now, I don't think that's unreasonable, it's, after all, federal money. And this is the rule we're applying with the construction of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, which is now three months ahead of schedule. I mean, you have the disgrace of Federation Square, which you would know about in Melbourne…
PRICE:
Already several tens of millions of dollars over budget.
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly, and that is because of unions and we say we're not going to be part of that. And in response Mr Bracks effectively said, well, I can't agree to that condition because the unions don't like it. So what he's now done is that he's going to put the bulk of the money in and the refurbishment and the construction will be carried out under the no-ticket-no-start approach and carried out in circumstances where the union just has full sway. Well, if he wants to spend Victorian taxpayers' money on that, that's his decision and he must answer to them.
PRICE:
And put the project at risk because you have the unions who could hold you to blackmail.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, of course, and that is…we are not going to be part of that kind of farce. We wanted to help with the Melbourne Cricket Ground and the $90 million offer was an incredibly generous one.
PRICE:
There's plenty of other people around the country saying, you know, how come you're giving Victoria $90 million.
PRIME MINISTER:
Because it's a national project. I mean, the Commonwealth Games is something that brings great credit to the whole country and I am very disappointed that because of Mr Bracks we won't be part of that. But it's his decision because of the union influence on him.
PRICE:
Now, I was going to let you go, I know you've got to go and pack to go to the US, have you heard yet your appearance with Jack Davey in the Quiz programme that's doing the rounds on the Internet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
PRICE:
Have you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
PRICE:
Can I just play this little bit. I'm not doing this at all to embarrass you, as you know. Here it is.
DAVEY:
Alright, what do you do for a living? HOWARD:
I still go to school. DAVEY:
Oh, you do, what school? HOWARD:
Canterbury Boys High School. [Laughter] DAVEY:
That's your last year, is it? HOWARD:
Oh, that's just me brother, he went to Canterbury too. DAVEY:
Oh, he did, hey. HOWARD:
Yeah, he's got a wife down there too. She didn't go to Canterbury. [Laughter] DAVEY:
I was going to say, these co-educational [inaudible] are quite alright[inaudible]. Now, you know what we're going to do, don't you, John? HOWARD:
Yes
DAVEY:
That's the boy, [inaudible] Right, let's get busy. In Botany, a tree whose leaves fall in autumn is called a what sort of tree?HOWARD:
A shedding tree. [Laughter]
PRICE:
Now, I didn't do that to embarrass you. Oh, have you ever forgotten the word deciduous?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, certainly not.
PRICE:
And you live in the capital of trees that shed, of course. Good on you. What were you going to do if you won the soap anyway?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't know…it was 46 years ago.
PRICE:
Fancy giving a kid soap.
PRIME MINISTER:
Mmm, yes.
PRICE:
Good on you, have a good trip, thanks for talking to us.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay, bye bye.
[Ends]