Subject:
Tyler Fishlock, drugs in sport, pecuniary interests, Future Fund
E&OE...
MITCHELL:
And speaking of that, on the line, in our Canberra studio, the Prime Minister. Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Before we get down to the other issues Prime Minister, this is of great importance to our audience, Tyler Fishlock's mum Georgette and her campaign for improved carers' allowances, she tells me she had a call this morning from the Minister. What's happening?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what's happening is two things. Firstly I am going to get an expert group to give the Government advice as to how we might reassess the guidelines that currently operate in relation to this payment, and importantly, in relation to Mrs Fishlock, we're going to make an ex-gratia payment to her of $10,000 to cover a period through to when the results of any review of the policy are going to be available. So it can be said that as a result of this heart wrenching incident, and I am not suggesting for a moment that this family is the only family in this situation, I think and the Minister thinks, that the guidelines should be looked at and we're going to get some extra people to tell us. These things are very hard because you have got to have a cut off point somewhere and whenever you are arguing over degrees of disability and degrees of anguish for parents, degrees of strain on people caring for somebody who has a profound disability; it's always very hard where to draw the line, but that is what we are going to do.
MITCHELL:
Okay, so that $10,000 is just to the Fishlock family?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah well obviously other people who might feel; I mean it's an ex-gratia payment for their circumstances but there could well be other people in a similar situation, but we would have to deal with that on a case by case basis.
MITCHELL:
And how long would you expect the review to take?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, not long but I want to get some people who are really expert in this field to have a look at it. That's not being critical of the department; I mean they have got a hard job. They're given a certain amount of money and they have to have rules and regulations, you've got to have that. But the infinite variety of human circumstances, Neil, is such that it's always very difficult to draw lines on these things but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. But it just seems to both Mal Brough and myself that the line is drawn a little too low on the page, if I could put it that way, in the case of this particular payment.
MITCHELL:
Okay, well thank you for that. That's what she wanted. She wanted the broader examination.
PRIME MINISTER:
I appreciate that and well, thank you for raising it and I think it's something that we do want to change, but want to change in a sensible fashion, and in the meantime we'll give her a bit of help along the way.
MITCHELL:
9690 0693 if you'd like to speak to the Prime Minister. Drugs in sport, does the AFL need a tougher policy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think everybody needs tougher policy. If you're talking about Ben Cousins, I wish him well. As a parent of children around that same age I can only sympathise for his mum and dad. It's always very difficult when these things happen and I think we feel a sense of partnership, comradeship with them, you know, feeling for them. And it's just a very, very difficult issue this. And I think every sport, every community group who has responsibility in a direct or indirect way for the lives and activities and the futures of young Australians, has got to have a very tough, uncompromising policy on drugs. I can remember seven or eight years ago when we brought out at a federal level our Tough on Drugs policy I was attacked by many people, including quite a few in the Liberal Party, for being old fashioned, and the old idea of zero tolerance and so forth, that was all old hat and ought to be swept aside. But as time has gone by, I think people have come to realise the only approach you can have to drugs is one of zero tolerance. You do have to provide generous and effective rehabilitation facilities for people, that is very important, but it's a terrible curse. But the important thing is to help people who have got a problem and obviously Ben has a problem. He recognises it, his mum and dad recognise it and we wish the family well as they struggle to achieve rehabilitation. And I know that the followers of the Eagles and the followers of AFL only want for one thing and that is for him to get rid of the problem and get back on the field.
MITCHELL:
Of course in the broader sense the AFL has a policy where you might drug test positive, but you have to do it three times before you are named.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have an open mind as to whether that policy should be further tightened. I mean, I do have quite an uncompromising view about this. I don't want to be unrealistic but it is an issue and I think the people who run elite sports and who run activities for Australians that are very much in the public eye; there is nothing more in the public eye than AFL, they have a responsibility. I think they have by and large discharged that responsibility, I am not being critical of them. But whenever something like this happens to a very prominent player, it brings home the challenge that exists.
MITCHELL:
Okay, so they probably should be reviewing their policies at least?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would certainly say that but I don't, I'm not sort of taking the opportunity to have a go at Demetriou or the AFL Commission, it's not an easy job. But I just, if you ask me my opinion, you can't be tough enough when it comes to drugs.
MITCHELL:
9690 0693 it is nineteen minutes to nine. Hello Martin. Go ahead Martin.
CALLER:
Yeah, hi Neil, hi Mr Howard. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. Just hearing that announcement Mr Howard, I don't know quite how I feel. My wife and I, we're the parents of a little boy who has autism and some years ago we actually had to sell our house to fund treatment and at that stage we approached all the Government agencies, the only thing that was available to us was carers' allowance and that's now $43 a week. I feel really happy for the Fishlock family to get that one off payment, but you know, there are so many other families that are in this situation that need this type of money that just hasn't been available and I'm glad you're getting somebody to review this because really honestly, $43 a week to look after, full time, these kids, it's really an insult.
MITCHELL:
Did you say you sold your house?
CALLER:
We sold our house to fund an early intervention program for my son. It cost us $120,000 over two years.
MITCHELL:
Did it help?
CALLER:
Enormously.
MITCHELL:
Well that's good.
CALLER:
And we'd do it again if we had to, but the Government doesn't, wasn't even willing to recognise this form of treatment called ABA or Applied Behaviour Analysis...
MITCHELL:
Yes, I'm heard of that. Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Martin, I obviously try to understand how you feel and it is important that we look again at these guidelines as I've indicated and I am aware of that particular early intervention approach in relation to autism. I don't know enough about the technical details of these things to try and predict whether that's going to be part of the review or not, I don't know, but at least we have embarked on a process of having a look at these things. I suspect that what will come out of this review is a recommendation for certain changes and I also, regrettably, predict that for some people those changes will not go far enough. We're just trying in good faith to grapple with this, recognising that a country like Australia, which is well off, does have an obligation to help parents who are in your situation as best it can.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, a minister failed to declare investments as he should have, didn't declare share dealings. You were angry, he was sacked. You replaced him with a Senator, Brett Mason, who has now failed to declare investments, some of the going back to August 2005. Why do we have rules if your people are going to ignore them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's fair to say that over the last couple of days we've had a lot of additions to the register...
MITCHELL:
Well that's disgraceful.
PRIME MINISTER:
It doesn't look as though all of them have been on my side either so I want to make that point.
MITCHELL:
Alright, well why should we trust politicians if they won't follow the rules?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think anybody who doesn't keep up with the rules deserves to be condemned. In the face of Brett Mason, he's a Parliamentary Secretary, when I rang him to invite him to become a Parliamentary Secretary I asked a question, as best I can recollect it, is have you got any undisclosed shares? And the indication was no...
MITCHELL:
But he did have.
PRIME MINISTER:
He had some managed funds.
MITCHELL:
But they should have been declared...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they should have declared while he was a senator. He declared them a couple of days later so that he hasn't committed any breach as a Parliamentary Secretary and in those circumstances angry though I am about it...
MITCHELL:
So you're angry about this one as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly, why wouldn't you be? Anybody who doesn't, and if it's somebody on the Labor Party side then presumably Mr Rudd will be angry about them as well. I think people are letting their colleagues down when then don't keep up with the registration of interests. I think in the case of Senator Mason that these are managed funds and they operate in a way that's at arms' length...
MITCHELL:
Doesn't matter, they had to be declared. He told you they were and they weren't.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he told me in response to a question have you got any undisclosed shares, he said no. I think it's fair to say that my question was a metaphor for saying have you got everything in order.
MITCHELL:
Under these rules he had to declare those managed funds.
PRIME MINISTER:
He should have declared them yes, and he didn't and as a Senator he has repaired the breach before his appointment or simultaneously with his appoint as a parliamentary secretary. I learnt about the breach yesterday.
MITCHELL:
Will you sack him?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think in all of the circumstances and particularly as he had repaired the breach before he was a parliamentary secretary as distinct from Santoro who committed multiple breaches after becoming a minister, no.
MITCHELL:
Did he not update the register this week, Senator Mason?
PRIME MINISTER:
He updated the register on Wednesday, yes.
MITCHELL:
Ok, did he add any shares on there that he hadn't declared?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not shares. He put on these four managed funds investments.
MITCHELL:
One of them to 2005.
PRIME MINISTER:
One of them was back to 2005 and one of them was in January this year, but it's fair also to say that there are other people who have done, that's doesn't excuse him but...
MITCHELL:
But this man's a minister that you've just appointed.
PRIME MINISTER:
He's a Parliamentary Secretary that I've just appointed, yes.
MITCHELL:
An oversight, how many oversights do you allow?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have to look at each individual situation. I certainly didn't allow in the case of somebody...in Santo Santoro who's a minister, I certainly didn't allow that, the multiple ones that occurred there and I think the distinction can be drawn that these oversights occurred before he became a Parliamentary Secretary. If there are any oversights while he's a Parliamentary Secretary well the consequence will be obvious.
MITCHELL:
So it's alright, backbenchers can have oversights.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not alright, but I have to exercise balanced commonsense judgements in every case. I mean these rules are there for people to observe, but human nature being what it is people can make genuine mistakes. I couldn't accept that 72 omissions which involved a fairly active pattern of buying and selling shares in the case of Santo Santoro was anything remotely resembling an oversight. I could accept in relation to him that that original investment in that company C-Bio, which at that time I thought was the only one that that was, and I can accept it in relation to Mason, particularly as it occurred before he became a Parliamentary Secretary, but I have to exercise a commonsense judgement Neil because people could technically forget to put a fairly inconsequential acquisition on the register and do I use that kind of oversight as a reason to terminate their political future? I think I have to be a person who exercises both prudent and rigid support of the code but also, or the requirements, but also try and exercise the element of commonsense.
MITCHELL:
But it would seem that whether it's inadvertent or deliberate, we cannot trust either side of politics to declare the interests they are suppose to declare. Do we need to introduce some sort of a pollie police that do random checks, independent people who random checks and make sure that they're doing, following the rules they're supposed to follow?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil I think that's a harsh judgement on the great majority of Members of Parliament on both sides who do keep their register up to date.
MITCHELL:
Well some don't, enough don't.
PRIME MINISTER:
I agree with you that some on both sides, I stress some on both sides, don't. Do we need to have an independent...well how would that work?
MITCHELL:
Well I don't know, you appoint a supreme court judge and he goes through these papers on....I'm sorry, he goes through them regularly on a random, well select......go through their figures.
PRIME MINISTER:
So you just have random....you go through their figures, they go through.....
MITCHELL:
We've got to keep them honest somehow?
PRIME MINISTER:
All of their assets?
MITCHELL:
If necessary. Well but just their share trades, their share ownership, what they're suppose to declare.
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand that but they tried that in Britain and I don't know, you have somebody in the....you have these police investigations in relation to these cash for peerage allegations. The point I make is, and I mean I totally agree with your frustration with people who don't comply with the rules, I'm not arguing that for a moment. Heaven knows at a political level I've been through some difficulty on this over the last couple weeks, very great difficulty, and it's damaged the Government, I accept that, but I'm not sure that having some kind of independent person necessarily will solve it particularly because some people are inherently less careful than others and some people take a more cavalier attitude to their obligations than others and that applies in the business community, it applies in all walks of life and it applies in public life as well. But can I just say in defence of the great majority who, many of whom make every effort to ensure that their register is fully up to date and they do the right thing.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a break, comeback with more from the Prime Minister in our Canberra studio. 9690 0693
[commercial break]
MITCHELL:
Now we did say at the top at the beginning of the program about a payment to the Fishlock family, Tyler Fishlock's family and a broader inquiry into the carers' allowance, the Prime Minister announced on the program. Georgette Fishlock has called in, hello Georgette, are you happy with this?
CALLER:
No I'm not.
MITCHELL:
Why?
CALLER:
I'm actually quite disappointed. My understanding of it was that this is going to benefit others in the same situation and similar situation. The reason I came out and I exposed my dirty linen to everybody to hear was I knew there was other families exactly the same as ours in different.....
MITCHELL:
But hang on you spoke to the Minister this morning.
CALLER:
I did. I was under the impression that it was going to be available for other families in the same position as ours.
MITCHELL:
What, the $10 000?
CALLER:
Yes, if I'd known it was just for me, I would have said thank you very much but I'll keep fighting.
MITCHELL:
Well you say you wouldn't take the money?
CALLER:
No....look, the money....it was a wonderful thing to wake up this morning and hear that the Government was going to do this. But I honestly thought it was going to affect other people's lives, there are so many kids out there and families in the same situation as ours. We are far from being the worst family. I am lucky I've got my son and my son has only got the blindness. There are other kids out there that have no quality of life and the parents don't either as well and they're in the same situation as us and I was trying to fight on behalf of those families as well as my own.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there is a misunderstanding. The decision the Government's taken is to have the investigation and as I indicated to Martin, if there are other people who feel they are in the same situation as Mrs Fishlock, we'll deal with that on a case by case basis. But until the investigation recommends, and the Government accepts a new set of rules, all we can do is to deal on a case by case basis with people who think they are in a similar situation to the Fishlock family. So, it's not right of her to say that this will only be available for her, but until the rules are established, the new rules are established, we can only deal with other cases on a case by case basis. I mean there is no other...
MITCHELL:
So people who are carers will be able to apply for $10,000 one off?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well people who think they are in the same situation, but it will have to be determined on a case by case basis, I said that in reply to what Martin said.
MITCHELL:
By whom, will that be done by Centrelink?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it has to be done by the Department, by Centrelink. There is no other way of doing it, I mean I am damned if I do and I am damned if I don't. I mean we are trying to assist here. As a result of the Fishlock case we have established a review of the eligibility criteria for this payment. We've said in the meantime because that situation we regard as necessitous and it's produced the review, we are going to make ex-gratia payment of $10,000, in reply to what Martin asked me a moment ago on your program, I said that if other people felt they were in a similar situation they should apply.
MITCHELL:
Georgette what do you think of that?
CALLER:
I am happy with that if they can actually apply for that same...
PRIME MINISTER:
But the question of whether they get it has to be assessed on a case by case basis because we have not established the new rules; I don't know how else we could...I mean we have tried very, very, hard to help here. I've spent a lot of time, Mal Brough's spent a lot of time, we are genuinely sympathetic, but we have to sort of have some order in it and I think what we are doing is fair.
MITCHELL:
Georgette, we'll have a further talk to you off-air about that. Prime Minister, an Australian diplomat has helped the injured activist in Zimbabwe.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes that's fantastic, I heard it this morning.
MITCHELL:
That is not going to please the Zimbabwe Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't care about that, and frankly I've run out of patience, most people have run out of patience about what is happening in Zimbabwe and I hear out of South Africa people saying there should continue to be internal debate about this issue in Zimbabwe. I saw the South African High Commissioner on television last night saying it's got to be resolved within Zimbabwe. That's what I was told five years ago when as Chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government troika meeting in London, I met the President of Nigeria and the President of South Africa and they said well it all has to be resolved inside Zimbabwe. Well that's a nice theory. I think it's time that the neighbouring African countries, particularly South Africa exerted political pressure on Mugabe to go. We pussyfoot around far too much using diplomatic language; this man is a disaster, his country is just a total heap of misery, the living standard is...life expectancy, amongst the lowest, if not the lowest in the world. You've got what a 1800 per cent inflation rate, the police are using brutal tactics, they are bashing up opposition politicians, they are fracturing skulls, they are behaving in a totally unacceptable fashion and I think it's time that the collective African leadership...and the people who can get Mugabe out are his neighbouring African leaders. He was a brother-in-arms against apartheid, I know that, but that's a long time ago. He's been a disaster as a leader of his country and I think there is a very special responsibility on his neighbouring African colleagues to do things.
MITCHELL:
Something else, the Budget, how big is the surplus likely to be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know finally what it will be, you mean this year?
MITCHELL:
Yes, $15 billion is the speculation.
PRIME MINISTER:
This year, yes well the Budget won't affect this year. The Budget will affect next and subsequent years, but we have a healthy surplus as a result of the Government's economic policies and it's just as well we do. I noticed the Labor Party is very keen to help itself to spending the surplus, although it opposed us accumulating it, but that is a matter for them to explain.
MITCHELL:
Can we expect a fair deal of spending in the next Budget?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can expect one that produces a strong surplus, you can expect investment in or spending on things that are important, but you also should not expect a Budget that is going to in any way imperil the Government's very strong fiscal record and the country's economic future.
MITCHELL:
Will it be a Budget that helps you win the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that will be a matter for the public to decide. This next election is going to be very hard, we obviously want to do things that are good for the economy and do things that the public like, but on the other hand just because we are behind in the polls, we are not going to abandon economic responsibility and start spending in a reckless fashion and we won't be raiding the Future Fund to pay for our investments. The Future Fund is meant to provide years into the future for the extra burden future generations will have as our population ages and we think it's a long-term bad thing for the Labor Party to be proposing to raid the Future Fund to pay for infrastructure.
MITCHELL:
I assume if you lose the election you would step down soon afterwards wouldn't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not going to speculate about what might happen if we lose the election.
MITCHELL:
Okay, what if you win, how long will you stay?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil, the position obtains that I remain Leader of the Liberal Party for so long as the Party wants me to and it's in the Party's best interest that I do so, and that applies...
MITCHELL:
But you couldn't be expected to serve the whole next term.
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, that's my answer, that's my position.
MITCHELL:
As long as the party wants you to, but it's not really an answer is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil I think it is, what else can I say?
MITCHELL:
You could say you would step down; we need to go Prime Minister thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
I am glad you're going, I am not.
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister in our Canberra studios.
[ends]