Subject:
Australia Day awards, water, Qantas, David Hicks, Iraq
E&OE...
MITCHELL:
Good morning Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil, nice to talk to you again.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for your time. I'm a bit outraged today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Why?
MITCHELL:
No medals for the Ashes winning cricketers, what went wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well these matters are handled by an independent committee and if there were a view by that committee that they should reward the Ashes winning team, they wouldn't turn it around as quickly as to announce it on Australia Day.
MITCHELL:
I'm not entirely serious. Can we fix it next time?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will note your comments and I'll write a letter.
MITCHELL:
You'd bring back knighthoods for them. Prime Minister water....
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
Do you have water saving shower roses at The Lodge and Kirribilli?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think so but I have made arrangements, well I've asked and we're debating it and the heritage people are raising objections, to having a water tank installed at Kirribilli. I asked that be done about six months ago and we've had all sorts of meetings and you can imagine, with an official residence as old as Kirribilli House, there are all sorts of objections. But I intend to get that done and then I'm going to look at whether we can do it at The Lodge as well.
MITCHELL:
You could just about bury it so nobody could see it, couldn't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, yes, but even the soil has got a heritage listing. You know what it's like with official residences.
MITCHELL:
But these small things are important aren't they, like the shower roses?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are important and I agree with you and I think it's important that as many Australians as possible do that. I think it's important that as many Australians as possible get their own water tanks. I think it's very important and people ought to spend less time in the shower as well.
MITCHELL:
How long do you spend in the shower?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I try and make it no more than three or four minutes.
MITCHELL:
That's not a bad effort. Do we need to look at dams in the future, more dams?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes we do, we should've been doing dams years ago, in both New South Wales and Queensland. Very bad decisions were taken in the late 80s, early 90s not to go ahead with the construction of more dams. Now it varies from state to state. One of the things you've got to remember about the city water supply is that dams are....in one part of the country it might work, in another part it won't. But I believe that state governments have made bad decisions about dams. I think there was an environmentally driven prejudice against dams in the 1990s, and it was misplaced, and if you actually trace the way we've handled this issue, during the years immediately after World War II where there was an enormous of growth, we actually did build a lot of dams and we actually did invest in a lot of the these large projects. And then as we got into the more environmentally sensitive 70s and 80s, dams became verboten and that was, I guess with some degree of retrospection, I acknowledge a big mistake.
MITCHELL:
Is it too late?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think it's too late but there is a sense in which the cities are scrambling to catch up. I think we're all on a learning curve in relation to this and we do have to understand that it's going to take a long time to turn it around. The plan I announced yesterday is a very long term plan.
MITCHELL:
But there's not much you can do about dams, it has to be a state decision?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, of course. But I can do something about the interstate river system and that's why we've put forward the plan that we have. And bear in mind that 70 per cent of the water consumed in Australia is consumed by agriculture, 70 per cent...
MITCHELL:
Just before we get to that, what about desalination, is that the future as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am more a supporter of recycling and capturing stormwater than I am of desalination. I'm not saying that it's inappropriate in every part of the country but the thing that bothers me most of all is whenever there's a storm, the water just races out to the sea and that is a terrible waste.
MITCHELL:
Have you tried the Singapore toilet water that they recycle and you drink?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know whether I have, what...
MITCHELL:
New water it's called and it really is recycled toilet water.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will.
MITCHELL:
I've got a bottle.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll find some and try it. I didn't answer immediately because I wasn't quite sure...
MITCHELL:
Well you may well have drunk it.
PRIME MINISTER:
I may well have done so without being aware of it. But I'll make a conscious effort to get some and try it.
MITCHELL:
Do you think we'll ever, Australians will ever accept that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do. I think Australians will accept that. I'm certain that we will accept that very readily provided the thing is done in a very scientific fashion. And we are very good on public health as a nation. We have very high rates of success in relation to matters relating to public health and we respond quite strongly to the disciplines that are required in relation to standards of public health. And I think once it's explained that it can be done in a scientific fashion, and there has to be room of course to substitute for a lot of industrial, and garden and other uses, recycled water, so that you have an even greater focus of the other on drinking water. But even allowing for that I think the public will accept it.
MITCHELL:
Just finally on the issue of dams, and you mention the environmental lobby concerns, do we have to accept that if necessary the environment takes second place to the issue of water and the dams and if the environment is going to suffer then we still have to go with the dam?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well part of an aggregate solution to this issue is to restore the environmental flows of rivers so it is not necessarily and either/or. It might be an either/or in an individual situation, but in overall terms you can't really fix Australia's long-term water problem without being sensitive to the environmental value.
MITCHELL:
Just onto the plan, the $10 billion plan, mixed reaction. Victoria wants a contractual agreement from you. Would you sign such a thing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know what they mean by that.
MITCHELL:
Well they want an agreement on certain things that... I think there is three points that the Premier has raised, Mr Bracks has raised; no privatisation by stealth, fund vital projects that have been stalled by red tape...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we don't intend...
MITCHELL:
...and the irrigators won't be disadvantaged.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this is not a plan for privatisation, it's an integrated plan and I will write to each of the Premiers next week with the detailed proposal regarding a referral of powers.
MITCHELL:
But you are not going to sign contracts are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if we invest money, we will agree to the...we will require certain conditions on which that money is spent. But look I don't quite know what Mr Bracks means by that. If he is saying to me that he wants to be satisfied that the money will be spent I will certainly do what is reasonably required to satisfy him that it will be spent, that's the first thing. The second thing is he says that no individual irrigator will be worse off, well as a group irrigators will be, in some respects, the greatest beneficiaries of this because we will be saving an enormous amount of water and returning 50 per cent of those savings to irrigators and taking the other 50 per cent, amongst other things, to restore the environmental flows of the river system. So they do very well out of that. But most importantly of all, the Government is setting aside $3 billion as a fund to deal with the problem of over-allocation, including if necessary, going into the market to purchase water entitlements. Now we did not over-allocate water, water was over-allocated by the states. What we are saying is that we are prepared to pay the full cost of the over-allocation that has occurred on the watches of all of the states. Now that is a very generous part of the offer, it is good for irrigators. I might also say it is extremely good for state governments. Now, what was the third thing he wanted?
MITCHELL:
Red tape, get through the red tape?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you know, we are all in favour of getting through red tape and if you eliminate one layer of government in decision-making concerning water management, you get rid of a lot of red tape. There's an enormous amount of red tape involved in individual projects. I mean I had an example yesterday where I looked at an announcement I had made in South Australia I think of about $38 million in July or August of last year and we still haven't signed the contract to give the money to the local authorities because the local authorities are still waiting confirmation from the South Australian Government that it will contribute its share of the project. Now we decided in July of last year that we'd make that money available. Now I am not criticising the state government, it may have a good reason for not having given its go ahead but that is an illustration that when you have more than one layer of government involved you inevitably have red tape so if Mr Bracks wants to reduce red tape, he will agree with our proposal about governance arrangements for the Murray-Darling Basin area.
MITCHELL:
Calls to the Prime Minister in a moment 96900693. I think in the cities people look at this plan and it all looks terrific, but it's a bit hard to relate to. What does it mean if you are sitting Melbourne or Sydney or Brisbane or Adelaide or Perth?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what it means is that, when fully implemented, we will stop wasting about 20 to 30 per cent of the 70 per cent of water that is consumed by agriculture.
MITCHELL:
Is that going to help you in Melbourne?
PRIME MINISTER:
It must help you in all sorts of different ways, it will produce a more thriving agricultural sector. In some parts of Australia including in Melbourne, improved water availability in some of the irrigation catchment areas could mean more water available for the city of Melbourne because of the proximity of those catchment areas to the city. Now that will not be the same in other parts of the country.
MITCHELL:
See people in the city say water restrictions, that's where they focus their concern...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can understand that.
MITCHELL:
Are we stuck with water restrictions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you are stuck with them until essentially state government policies increase the supply of water and that will depend on a lot on how water is priced and I think we all have to face the reality that water is going to be more expensive in the future. And it is disingenuous for any political leader in Australia who is seriously trying to address this issue to pretend there won't be some increase in the cost of water. I think the second thing that...
MITCHELL:
Would that be soon, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends on decisions made by people other than me. I think the second thing that has to happen is that state governments around the country have got to stop using water utilities as a revenue raising device and allow the charges and fees and dividends they would otherwise collect from those agencies to be invested in water infrastructure. One of the reasons why we have this water problem is that over the years, the water utilities have not invested enough of their profits into infrastructure, but have paid them out in dividends to government. Now that has got to stop or be significantly reduced because there is a desperate shortage of infrastructure investment. If there hadn't been so much money collected from these bodies by governments perhaps over the years they might have invested more in re-cycling. They might have invested more in ways of reclaiming storm water or preventing storm water going into the sea. They may indeed have done all sorts of things, but if they are required to pay significant dividends and they don't have that money available for re-investment in infrastructure, well obviously they can't. Now all of things bear upon the urban water thing. There are things that the Commonwealth can do to help. We have some projects, big projects from the states in front of us at the moment, some of them we will agree to because they are sensible, some of them we won't, because they are not. And this is not the $10 billion, this is the separate water fund. But in the end, the water needs of Melbourne are very different from the water needs of Sydney.
MITCHELL:
But when you are talking about these plans, they are all long-term, which probably they have to be.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well they have to be.
MITCHELL:
It probably means we are stuck with water restrictions long-term.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not saying in the end that the decisions that are taken at are taken at a state level are going to determine city water restrictions. We have no power over that and we are not seeking power over that and it would be absurd for the Federal Government to intervene in something like that, we are not trying to. But in the end, state governments will decide that. You asked me are they going to disappear quickly, I don't think they are going to disappear quickly, no. Do I think they're in the long term...they shouldn't have been necessary, but they've happened. I think we have to address some of the issues I have talked about, if they are to disappear.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a break and come back with calls, more questions for the Prime Minister in our Canberra studio on Australia Day.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister's in our Canberra studio, we'll take a quick call, Judy go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yes I would like to know, good morning Mr Prime Minister. This Tim Flannery is politically motivated considering this is an election year.
PRIME MINISTER:
What you are suggesting that I chose him?
CALLER:
I am not saying you chose him but you must have had some influence on the committee.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well actually I didn't, and Tim Flannery has been very critical of me.
MITCHELL:
Even today.
PRIME MINISTER:
And very critical of the government. I don't think you can say it's political motivation. I respect him, I read one of his books, but the idea that he is a Liberal Party stooge in an election year is nonsense.
MITCHELL:
Did you have to approve his appointment?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, there is a committee which is made up of some representatives from the national Australia Day committee and the state committees. What happens is that individual states put up their recommendations and then the federal committee or the national committee makes a choice amongst the state and territory nominees.
MITCHELL:
Well does it embarrass you in a sense? Here we've got the Australian of the Year, he describes Australia as the worst of the worst on global warming, he talks about being principal players in world chaos, he's having a go at you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's had a go at me, he was also very strong in his praise of the plan I announced yesterday. But does it embarrass me? No it doesn't. We do live in a democracy and I am not so thin skinned and not so desiring in uniformity that I want every Australian of the Year to engage in fulsome praise of the Government or of me that would be ridiculous. We are a nation of individuals and we choose people according to their contribution and I've always acknowledged, naturally, that people who might violently disagree with me on a whole lot of issues make a massive contribution to the country. It would be an absurdly churlish thing for me to think otherwise.
MITCHELL:
Well do you now accept that climate change is real and permanent?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think climate change is occurring. I said yesterday I'm a climate change realist, I react to evidence. I am not as fanatical about it as others, I am not as bowled over by some of the doomsday scenarios, I thought there was a bit of an over-reaction to the Stern Report last year, but the accumulated evidence is undeniable. There is global warming occurring, we do have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Australia does have to play her part, but I want it to be in a way that does not damage our economic advantages, our natural competitiveness, and we've got to remember that many of the international rules in this whole area, particularly Kyoto, have been written by Europeans to suit Europeans with scant regard for the interests of countries such as Australia.
MITCHELL:
What Tim Flannery has said today there has to be a price for carbon producing, a tax or carbon trading, do you agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I think, well I am not in favour of a tax, but I think we do have to see in time a price for carbon, but it has got to be in a way, I've said this before, but in approaching this area we've got to do it in a way that is as protective as possible of Australia's natural advantages.
MITCHELL:
Hello Peter, go ahead please Peter.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
One of the biggest wastes of water is the men's automated urinals. Would you consider a rebate for the initial conversion cost?
MITCHELL:
Oh it's a sort of flush-less urinal.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I guess in the period in which we are living you don't dismiss everything out of hand but I do think there is a limit to the rebates we can propose in these areas.
MITCHELL:
Just on the issue of rebates, the CFA volunteers are recognised in the honours, what about their employers? Would you look at some sort of tax deductions for employers who are paying their volunteers while their workers' wages while they volunteer to fight fires?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they are tax deductible.
MITCHELL:
What the whole wage?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well wages are tax deductible yes.
MITCHELL:
Oh I see what you mean. Well some other sort of tax relief. The employers losing a person from their job, they are going off and doing vital community service, what compensation can the employer get?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I guess that opens up the whole question of paying volunteers.
MITCHELL:
Yes but you are not paying the volunteers, you are compensating the employer.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but if you compensate the employer why don't you pay the volunteer?
MITCHELL:
Well I think that's a little bit different. I think that the employer is running a business and is losing a person.
PRIME MINISTER:
I actually have never had an employer approach me for some kind of compensation for letting somebody go off and do volunteer work, I've never had that. And I, I mean it's attractive in one sense, but in another sense, doesn't it defeat the whole idea of volunteering. Doesn't an employer who is willing to bear the cost of letting one of his employees go while he fights the fire, feel that he or she is making, that's the employer, is making a contribution to the community and if he is compensated for that, doesn't that take some of that away? I think there is a very neat balance, I am not looking at this from a parsimonious point of view, I am looking at it from a point of view of the community spirit that's involved. People like doing things for the country and some of that satisfaction that you've done your bit can be lost if everything that's involved in doing your bit is in some way compensated.
MITCHELL:
Hello Brett go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yes good morning Mr Howard. You've stated before how the state governments have made poor decisions on water, on saving water or building dams. Now if you can see that they are making such poor decisions, why can't you just overturn or step in and build more dams or do other things to improve the situation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we don't have the power constitutionally and land management decisions are in the control of the states and building a dam involves making decisions about the use of land, it involves making decisions about the flows in a river. We don't control those things, they are currently controlled by states and we are not seeking to control those things.
MITCHELL:
Do you have a view on where the dams should be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think... a view on where the dam...well I don't have in front of me of individual dams. I do know there was debate about a dam, a couple dams, one in Queensland and one in New South Wales through the 1990s, but frankly I would have to get out a map to, and get some advice. I do know that over the years decisions have been taken not to build dams but because we don't do it, we've not had a policy of saying there should be a dam here, there or over there, that's just not something within the remit of state governments...of federal governments. It is rather like saying you know what is my plan for the urban transport system of Melbourne because that's not something I control, I don't have an immediate plan for it.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, the sale of Qantas, there was debate while you were on leave about conditions...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I followed that.
MITCHELL:
...conditions are being put on the sale of Qantas. Has a decision been made yet, will conditions be put on the sale?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the matter is still in the preliminary stages. I am not aware that a formal application has been made and I don't think it has. My reading is that it is a few weeks before we reach that stage. But what Mark Vaile said was said on behalf of the Government, that's about the conditions.
MITCHELL:
So they may be necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
What sort of conditions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well conditions about the headquarters of the company. Conditions about staff and conditions about, reasonable conditions, about operations. But until we get the formal proposal, and I am not aware that it's been submitted, it's a bit early to be talking in greater detail than Mark did.
MITCHELL:
Just quickly, a couple of things I noticed your comments on David Hicks, you want charges by mid Feb, action by mid February. What if you don't get it, what can you do?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will wait until we know whether the charges are being laid by then before indicating what we might do.
MITCHELL:
You've got some ideas though?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have given the thing a great deal of thought.
MITCHELL:
Australia Day, is this appropriate language, you seem to be suggesting if we pulled out of Iraq we are dudding a mate, is that what you mean?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I did mean that, yes. I think what Mr Rudd is trying to do is to have it both ways. He is trying to take advantage of the unpopularity in the community about our involvement in Iraq, but he is pretending that it would be absolutely costless in terms of our alliance with the United States. You can't have it both ways. This is a difficult issue for the Americans, I know it is unpopular, and I know it hasn't gone well and I know there are many people in Australia who are very critical of the Bush administration. When you have a close alliance with an individual or with a country, it's how you react to when that individual or that country is going through difficulty that is often remembered longer than something you do when it is easy to do it. And I don't accept for a moment that it would be costless in alliance terms if we were to pack up and go now because if it is good enough for us to pack up and go now, then it's good enough for the British and the Americans to do so. And if that were to occur, the terrorists win, the Middle East collapses into chaos and the terrorists all around the world, including in south-east Asia trumpet an enormous victory over the mightiest country the world has ever seen.
MITCHELL:
It is going to be a long year isn't it, did you see the Kevin Rudd election ad? Are we going to have a year full of election ads? What do you think of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are not running any election ads, certainly not in the next few months. People have a pretty good idea of my background, they have a pretty...and I am not criticising the Labor Party for running an ad, they are perfectly entitled to run an ad but...
MITCHELL:
Are you going to win, do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know, I think it will be quite hard.
MITCHELL:
Confident?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I have got a big fight and I have thought that for a long time. You'll remember, and I've said this before, I think I've got a big fight, but I tell you what I have got plenty of energy and plenty of enthusiasm and plenty of ideas and plenty of commitment and plenty of extra things to do.
MITCHELL:
Thanks very much for your time.
[ends]