COX:
Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Tim. Can you hear me okay?
COX:
Loud and clear. Are you getting us okay?
PRIME MINISTER:
Fine.
COX:
Good to talk to you this morning. You';re off to the north-west of Tasmania this weekend. Have you been there before?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, many times. But I';m going to the Liberal Party State Conference and looking forward to it.
COX:
What are you expecting to find there? A party perhaps in better shape than a year ago.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. I believe at a state level, the party has used the last 12 months to consolidate. I believe that Rene Hidding has done a good job in difficult circumstances. When you lose an election badly, as we did in the last Tasmanian election, it takes a while to gather yourself together and you have to be realistic about what can be achieved. But the party';s internal morale is higher and there is a sense that they';re starting to rebuild. There is still a long way to go and of course we have a big challenge federally. We don';t hold any House of Representatives seats in Tasmania and that';s been the situation now for a number of years. It';s not satisfactory and one of the things that I will be communicating to the Tasmanian Liberal Party organisation is that above everything else, they have to win at least one, I hope more, House of Representatives seats from the Labor Party at the next election because if you look at the state of the party around the country, to have no House of Representatives seats at all in Tasmania is just not good enough.
COX:
Do you have a seat in particular in mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m interested in scoping, if I can put it that way, our opportunities in the five seats. Clearly we have, if you look at history, done better in the seat of Bass than probably any of the others in recent years, but there was a time of course when we held all five. And then for a period of time we held two out of five, we held for quite a while, we held Bass and Braddon. But we don';t hold any now and I';m interested in whatever opportunities might be available. You can';t win back seats in Tasmania without strong local candidates who have an identification with their local communities. That is the character of Tasmanian politics.
COX:
Are you advising branches like the Tasmanian Liberal Party that now is the time to be preselecting candidates.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m advising them that now is the time to find potential candidates of ability. There is no merit in preselecting somebody just for the sake of saying I';ve got a candidate. It';s got to be the right candidate. It';s better to have the right candidate for six months before an election than the wrong candidate for 18 months before an election.
COX:
Does that mean the Liberal Party here has preselected the wrong people in the past?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we haven';t been successful in the past. I don';t want to get into criticising individuals. They all tried. But plainly when you don't hold any federal seats, something is wrong and you';ve got to acknowledge your role in it and you';ve got to do something about it.
COX:
Is part of the problem for Rene Hidding the very strong performance of the Bacon Labor Government here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well obviously if you';re an opposition party, your problem is the strong performance of the government and you';ve got to set about changing that. But I think Rene has done, as I said earlier, in very difficult circumstances he has got around the state and he is being realistic. When I talk to him, I talk to somebody who has a realistic appraisal of the task ahead. He is critical of the government in its weaker areas and is sensible in those areas where he believes the government might be doing the right thing.
COX:
There has inevitably been talk about the leadership, with one of the northern members in particular said to be interested. Would Rene Hidding be the best man to lead the Liberals to the next state election.
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course. This view that you solve problems by changing leaders on a regular basis when you're in opposition has been time and time again disproved and I would strongly counsel the party in Tasmania to recognise that Rene is their best bet. He has held them together and I wish him well.
COX:
Can I ask you quickly before we go to calls about the verdict in Bali yesterday. You said that you would respect the jurisdiction of the Indonesian court of course. Is there a danger do you think, and I would imagine your reading of terrorism must be almost a fulltime concern at the moment, but is there a danger that we do make a martyr of Amrozi?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that can be overblown. I really do. My view is a very simple one. This crime was committed in Indonesia by an Indonesian citizen and the law of Indonesia requires the imposition of the death penalty, and it would be sending a very distracting signal if the focus of public debate were now to be an exchange, a communication between the Australian Government and the Indonesian Government, about the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the person in part – or not in part, but along with others responsible for the murder of 88 of our citizens. I think the public would scratch its head and the international community would say, gee what';s all this about, I thought they were meant to be working together to fight terrorism.
COX:
Was it a verdict you were personally hoping for?
PRIME MINISTER:
I expected it. I don';t know that I got to the situation of hoping or not hoping. I just expected that if he were found guilty, he would receive the death penalty.
COX:
Let';s go to some calls. The Prime Minister John Howard is my guest here on ABC Tasmania where it';s 12 minutes past 9, and we';re starting in Howra where Donna';s on the phone. Donna, good morning.
CALLER:
Yes, good morning to you. Prime Minister, I wanted to ask you about the Solomon Islands. Obviously it';s a very volatile time at the moment and it';s good to see us actually standing up to help our neighbours. Do you think this will make the region a safer place?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do. I';m very worried that there are a lot of very small countries in our region that could become failed states. They have small populations. They don';t have a lot of money. They';re trying to run the apparatus of an independent country. They';re often corrupted by criminal and other elements, and this is what has happened in the Solomon Islands and I believe if we can intervene, as we have, and we can stabilise the country. That will help them and it will help us.
COX:
Do you see our engagement there being a long-running one?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I hope not too long. I would imagine that the military presence can be wound down before too long, but the police presence is likely to be required for some time, perhaps a couple of years.
COX:
Let';s go to Tom in Hobart now. Tom, good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning. Prime Minister, the safe injecting room in Sydney has saved the lives of drug users and if allowed to continue will save more lives. A heroin program for addicts would save lives yet you oppose both those programs. The Liberal Party receives substantial donations from tobacco companies, despite the fact that tobacco kills many times more people than do illegal drugs. Prime Minister, why are you opposed to drug programs that save lives, and how can you morally justify taking money from tobacco companies? You purport to be a Christian. Surely if you were genuinely a Christian, you would do everything you could to save the lives of drug users and you would refuse donations from tobacco companies because the tobacco industry is so immoral.
COX:
Alright. Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t accept your rather rosy depiction of what those safe injecting rooms have done. As far as saving lives are concerned, I believe that our Tough on Drugs program, which has reduced the supply of heroin coming to Australia or coming on to Australian streets, has done more to save lives. There has been a significant fall in the number of heroin-caused deaths in Australia and that has occurred incidentally in jurisdictions such as Victoria where there have been no heroin injecting rooms, so people can';t quickly say oh it';s because of the injecting rooms. Victoria is a very good example of a state that doesn';t have them, although they were playing with the idea for a while. But as far as the question of tobacco companies are concerned, people who smoke – and I used to smoke, I smoked for 22 years and I gave it up at the age of 40 and I';m glad I did, it was a good decision for my health and I hope I gave it up in time – it is a legal substance and it';s appropriate that any political party take, and let me remind you that the Liberal Party to the extent that it takes donations from tobacco companies, is no different from the Labor Party or I suspect any other political party. It';s not illegitimate in my view to take donations from companies that are engaged in lawful activity. The same thing applies I guess to breweries, to hotels – you can say that the abuse of alcohol causes road accidents and domestic violence and other personal trauma, and it does. Smoking is one of those things that until it ultimately affects your health, providing you don';t do it in the face of other people, is something that isn';t quite in the same category as getting drunk every night.
COX:
Can you see the dichotomy Tom is talking about though .?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, but that';s the sort of dichotomy that has been there for a very long time. You might also say you shouldn';t take a donation from people who sell types of food that from time to time are regarded as injurious to your health. But I mean, society makes collectively judgements about what is legal and what is illegal and my rule is that if, in the case of something like a tobacco company, it is still in the assessment of our community engaged in a lawful pursuit and until that is changed, to the extent that funds are accepted and I personally don';t know the full extent of that, I don';t pretend and don';t want to be across all the fine detail of the party';s fundraising activities, I would defend anything that it does in that department.
COX:
Alright. Tom, thanks for the call. It';s 16 past 9. The Prime Minister John Howard is my guest. Here is Pamela in Launceston. Good morning Pamela.
CALLER:
Good morning. Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I want to thank you very much for all you've done for us during the past year, some terrible decisions you have had to make and I was so thankful that you decided to remain. And I am in a nursing home now and the day you said that you would stay on, I went round singing, "will you still feed me, will you still need me, when I'm 64". God bless you sir.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you're very kind. Thank you.
COX:
She'll be giving you a hug at the airport I suspect.
PRIME MINISTER:
I reckon. Thank you very much.
COX:
Well you just turned 64. How much longer will Pamela be able to sing you praises, do you think? Hopefully not here, with all due respect Pamela.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I'll… I said… I made a statement about the sort of things that would influence me in June. And look I'm carrying on, I'm doing the job and very keen to keep doing it.
COX:
Sally's in Launceston. Good morning to you, Sally.
CALLER:
Good morning. Prime Minister, I'd just like to ask you about stamp duty and the GST. I have some family members who have property and there's been a lot of talk about stamp duty and the GST in the States, and I'd just like you to explain that to me.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, this has arisen out of the concern that people have that for people buying their first home it is very expensive. Nobody's complaining about the fact that the value of existing property owned is going up, I think everybody quite likes that. I've said before that I haven't found anybody who's stopped me in the street and said, John I';m angry with you, since you've been Prime Minister the value of my house has gone up. And nobody says that. And the debate is whether the impact of taxation is one of the things that is pushing up the cost of housing for first homebuyers. And obviously, taxation in different forms does contribute to the cost of buying a first home. It's a question of whether it's reasonable or unreasonable. We introduced the GST, the GST does apply to new houses. It doesn't apply to what you could generally call a pure land component of a purchase, it doesn't apply to the purchase price paid on an existing home. And in addition, of course, when we introduced the GST we brought in a first homeowners scheme, which is designed to substantially offset the imposition of the GST. So those people who say that the GST has been imposed on top of everything else forget completely that the first homeowners scheme was designed to offset the cost.
COX:
Would you say though the GST has directly, or indirectly perhaps more to the point, had an impact on the price of real estate across the board?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it's very hard to quantify that Tim. As I say, it had been introduced without the first homeowners scheme, then undeniably the question would have been yes, undeniably. But the introduction of that first homeowners scheme has had a very significant mitigating effect. I mean, it was calculated by direct reference to the estimated cost impact of the GST. Now I can't say there's been no impact, I'm not going to argue that. But I think it has been substantially mitigated by the first homeowners scheme. Whereas in the case of stamp duty, now what I'm arguing here for is not the abolition of stamp duty, that would be unrealistic to say to State Governments you should abolish stamp duty - that's not my call at all, it's not the Federal Government's call. We understand they need to get their revenue from certain sources. But what has happened with stamp duty is that there's been absolutely very little… I mean, there may have been some small increases in exemption levels. But there's been essentially no mitigation. I mean, there's no first homeowners scheme to offset the impact of stamp duty, the way there is a first homeowners scheme to offset the impact of the GST.
COX:
What happens though, when the first homeowners scheme is phased out and…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's not being phased…
COX:
I imagine it will be at some stage.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we don't have any plans to phase it out.
COX:
So… how… it'll stay?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we said it would stay. Who said it's going to be phased out?
COX:
Yeah, but wasn't it for a finite period?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, that was the doubling of it in 2001. It was introduced in the middle of 2000 with the GST at $7,000 for each dwelling. And then when there was a housing slump at the end of the year 2000, we doubled it from $7,000 to $14,000 for new houses and then we, after a period of about nine months, we began returning that $14,000 to the $7,000. But it now sits at $7,000 and there's no… I don't have any plans to phase it out.
COX:
Alright. This is good news for first homebuyers obviously. Here's Bill Watson from the Unemployed Peoples Movement. Bill, good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning Tim, how are you?
COX:
Very well thanks.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister, how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Pretty good, Bill, thanks.
CALLER:
Prime Minister we are waiting with bated breath wondering when the Government is going to call an open public inquiry into Centrelink and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations over the … handling of unemployed people and the indiscriminate breaching of unemployed people, as well as the [inaudible] called the job search network that was introduced at the 1st of July?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not persuaded just on the basis of that…
CALLER:
When…
PRIME MINISTER:
…there is a case for a public inquiry. What is the particular complaint you have as to… apart from, you know, some rhetorical criticism of a policy you obviously don't like?
CALLER:
When you have people being referred to… males being referred to the sex industry, when you have women being not only referred to the sex industry as well as to logging contractors and then on yesterday's investigation we find that the internal jobs for the Government where only Australian public servants may apply are also being found on the website for unemployed people [inaudible] referred to and to apply for when they can't even apply for them because they're not Australian public servants…
COX:
Does it need a clean out? This is what Bill was asking Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't know that it needs a clean out. There was a new system introduced from the beginning of July and one of the features of that system was that you were required if you had benefits to be in touch with a part of the system, and a lot of people just simply ignored that. And as a result of that some action were taken in relation to their entitlements. Now, I don't think it's unreasonable if you're getting a benefit that there should be as a minimum the requirement that you have contact with the job network provider. Is that unreasonable?
CALLER:
No, it's not unreasonable. When you are an unemployed person who lives in Huonville for the last three years and you have been referred to the job network agency [inaudible] where there is no public transport to get to it, it's very hard for those people to actually access the same thing. And when a phonecall is made to the actual call centre they said catch a bus. That seems to be…
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, I haven't…. I mean obviously you will from time to time get exchanges over the phone or perhaps some inappropriate responses. But my mail on this, my advice on this, is that there were some initial teething problems as a new system but they have now been sorted out and I'm not satisfied particularly as it's now what the 8th of August, and this new system's only been in operation for five and a half to six weeks, I'm not persuaded that we need a full public inquiry. But we are following very closely how the system is bedding down and as there are glitches in it we're very keen to eliminate them.
COX:
What about the publishing on the network of jobs that are meant to be advertised internally for Australian Commonwealth public servants? That's a fairly major mistake.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if that has occurred it's an error.
COX:
What does it say to people who are unable to apply for jobs that they appear on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think it indicates that there some teething troubles with the system but my advice is that they've been ironed out.
COX:
We've a call now from Peter Partridge, the Mayor of Dorset in the north-east of our State. Peter Partridge, good morning to you.
CALLER:
Good morning, Tim. Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, Mr Partridge.
CALLER:
The Roads to Recovery program was one that interests us a great deal. It's been one of the most beneficial programs I believe in recent years in local government, particularly in rural areas. So what I'd like you to tell us that it'll be an ongoing program and that'll be indexed and it will be paid direct to local government. I understand the program is possibly ending at the end of 2004. We would really hope to see it continue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the program was… this is a $1200 million program, of money coming from the Federal Government direct to local government and designed to help local government in the construction of local roads. And it represented a 75 per cent increase in the amount of money flowing from the Federal Government to local government. And I'm told that there's been about 600 to 700 million dollars of the $1.2 billion already dispersed. So there's another, what, 500 or 600 million to go. The question of whether it goes on after the $1200 million has been exhausted is something we haven't taken a decision about. And there's no indication, when we made the original announcement we said it was $1200 million over a period of about four years and the question of whether we commit another $1200 million or less or more is something we have to make at some time in the future. I mean, I can't at this stage indicate whether we're going to do so or not.
COX:
Are you satisfied though, Prime Minister, with the progress of Roads to Recovery?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I think it's gone very well. I think it's been a very successful program. There's some evidence in some states that the states have reduced their money on local roads and said, well the Commonwealth is now providing for this and we can pull out. Now to the extent that that has happened, that defeats the whole purpose because this is meant to be clean, unconditional money over an above what was previously being offered. And could I say to Mr Partridge, we'll continue to pay it direct to local governments and I think that's very good, passing it through the States is just a waste of time and money.
COX:
Alright. Peter Partridge, how important is it to Dorset that the funding continue?
CALLER:
Well, it's extremely important to us. It's been perhaps one of the most successful projects that I've been involved with in local government and I'm just urging the Prime Minister to give serious consideration to continuing the program beyond 2004.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we'll certainly do that Mr Partridge and I can appreciate why you'd like it to go because it was a 75 per cent boost. But we obviously have to make a judgement about that compared with the other priorities that we have to assess. But I will certainly keep in mind how successful it has been, how valuable it is and how appreciated it would be if it were to continue.
COX:
They'll sing to you if you go there, you know, if you keep the funding up. Not sure if you'd like that. But it's 28 past nine. Time for one last call for the Prime Minister. And it's Ian in Somerset who's been hanging on for some time. Ian, good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning, Tim. Prime Minister there was a decision in the High Court yesterday that would have to be a setback to your Government's plans to destroy coastal shipping, and that decision was that the Canadian Shipping Line who has been employing foreign workers on our coast, imported workers, that they now have to pay them Australian conditions. Now we're an island nation, we've got an extensive coastline and yet your Government has pursued continually a policy of destroying local jobs and our local shipping fleet.
COX:
Ian, I'll need to just get to wait there because we're going to loose the line in one minute Prime Minister. So could I get a response from you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we haven't been trying to destroy the industry, I reject that completely. And I think the decision obviously must be obeyed by everybody. It's a decision of the High Court and I certainly don't quarrel with a decision of the High Court that says if people are employed on the Australian coastline they should all be employed on equal conditions.
COX:
Alright, we'll need to leave it there. Ian, I'm sorry we didn't have more time for your question, I've only just found out we'll lose the line. Prime Minister, it'll be the steady hand on the till will it, as far as the Liberal Party in Tasmania is concerned?
PRIME MINISTER:
We'll, are you talking about Rene Hidding or what, sorry.
COX:
As far as your concerned with your appearance this weekend and…
PRIME MINISTER:
We'll I'm looking forward to talking to them and explaining the advantages of working hard to win at least one or two federal seats in Tasmania at the next federal election.
COX:
Alright. I hope we talk to you again several times between here and then. Thanks indeed for your time this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]