JONES:
The Prime Minister is on the line, it';s 16 after seven. PM, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Alan.
JONES:
PM, are you going to be making a decision today to slaughter 50,000 sheep at sea?
PRIME MINISTER:
We';re still trying to find another country that will take them. As of last night when I last checked, we have made approaches to no fewer than 27 countries. The preferable outcome is to find another country that will take them and we';re still working very hard on that. At the moment, the best advice the Government has is that if you can';t get them into another country then they should be brought back to Australia and under very strict quarantine conditions naturally landed in our country. The advice I have at present is that to slaughter all of them at sea is well nigh impractical. Now that';s the accumulation of advice that the Government has. Now this is a very difficult situation. It is not of our making, rather abruptly and apparently without any good reason, the Saudi authorities said that they had scabby mouth disease, we don';t believe that was the case and….
JONES:
Is that getting square for Australia';s part in the Iraqi war?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think so. My information is it has more to do with commercial rivalry between different families and companies inside Saudi Arabia.
JONES:
But if the animals were diseased, firstly we';d have to re-examine how sheep are selected. But if, as you say, the animals are healthy, than surely we have to have a new focus on the kind of people we do business with.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan, clearly this whole thing will provoke a re-examination of the conditions under which the live sheep trade takes place. But I want to emphasise that the Government does not want to abandon that trade, it is a legitimate trade, it is important to many producers and…
JONES:
As long as the animals are treated properly.
PRIME MINISTER:
As long as the animals are treated properly. Look, Alan, I want to assure you that I know how sensitive this is. It is upsetting to me. I don';t like these creatures stranded at sea any longer than need be and I understand the anguish of so many people. But we have to look at what the alternatives are and the alternatives are find somebody who will take them – and we';re still working on that – or alternatively, try and slaughter them at sea. I am told that would involve significant structural changes to the…
JONES:
I assume it would and it';d take weeks to do.
PRIME MINISTER:
And it would take weeks to do and I can just imagine that if anything goes wrong, quite properly, people will say well this was an outrageous decision in the first place, why didn';t you bring them back home? Now my advice at present, and I have to rely on the advice of experts, I don';t understand these things in detail, is that the better course of action is to bring them back. But clearly… those two – slaughter at sea or bring them home. But clearly, the best outcome, and we';re still working very hard. I repeat 27 countries have been approached.
JONES:
Is it demeaning for Australia to be hawking itself around to 27 countries trying to find one of them willing to take 50,000 odd increasingly forlorn sheep?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, I wish I didn';t have to do this. But what is the alternative? We can';t just pretend the thing will go away and leave the poor creatures to drift around in the ocean indefinitely. I mean, we';ve got to try and find a solution and there are three solutions – an alternative destination and we';re working on that, or alternatively try and slaughter them at sea, our advice is that';s impractical. So, inevitably, if you can';t find somebody to take them you have to bring them back…
JONES:
But to bring them home would require state governments, would it not, to have some say in the quarantine laws that would apply?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, we would expect… I mean, there';d be a full quarantine operation and the advice I have is that that can take place and obviously we would expect the states to be sensible about it and not to play politics. I mean, you';ve got a thing where Labor Governments should try and score points off a Federal Liberal Government. I mean, all the states support the live sheep trade. I haven';t heard until this incident any state government saying the live sheep trade is wrong. I think in fact back a couple of weeks ago I heard a state Labor member in New South Wales come out very strongly in favour of the live sheep trade. So, look, let';s take party politics right out of this. I mean, it';s very easy for a state minister to take pot shots at the Federal Government because there is a clear difficulty for Australia for actions not of our making. I mean, we have a difficulty, I acknowledge that. But it';s resulted through, in our view, an unreasonable decision by the Saudis to reject the sheep. Now that';s what';s caused the problem…
JONES:
What I want to do…
PRIME MINISTER:
…. Going there at the moment and they';re not being rejected.
JONES:
Right. Can I just say this, and I hate saying this because it is at breakfast time, 20 past seven in the morning, but we just have to let our listeners know we';re talking about. If these sheep are to be shot, they have to be shot in the head and then the sheep would put through a giant mincer and the remains squirted into the sea and the ship would have to be reconfigured to deal with what would be a massive task which would take weeks. Can you as Prime Minister therefore set your face entirely against that and say that that will not happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, all of the advice I have is that that is impractical and my current intention and the current intention of the Government I can tell you is clearly to bring them home. I can';t see the circumstances in which they could be slaughtered at sea.
JONES:
PM, the business about reforming the Senate is a bit boring, but I do want to ask you a couple of questions about that because you put out a paper and proposed reform. A predecessor of yours, Bob Hawke, told me once that the biggest mistake he ever made was to increase the size of the Senate from 10 to 12. The constitution does say that the House of Representatives should only be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth and the number of such members, that';s in Reps, shall be as near as practicable twice the number of Senators. So that';s why we';ve got 150 members of the House and 76 Senators. Would you though consider changing that very (inaudible) constitution, that very nexus between the number of Senators?
PRIME MINISTER:
You could do that, but that of itself doesn';t solve the problem. And can I say, I';m glad Bob Hawke has finally agreed that that was a mistake. And just for the record, the Liberal Party in 1983 voted against the enlargement of the Parliament and it was in fact that increase from 10 to 12 Senators from each state…
JONES:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Largely caused the problem because you have an even number of Senators, namely six, retiring every three years and it';s impossible, no matter how strong the support for the Government of the day is for you to get four out of six Senators in any one state.
JONES:
Plus somebody can into the Senate with a vote of somewhere between a naught and seven per cent of the vote.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but we';re not trying to stop the public electing minor parties or candidates of minor parties. But nothing that I put out yesterday is an attack on minor parties, it is to provide a very modest, moderate alternative device to the sledgehammer of a double dissolution to resolve these deadlocks. The answer to your question about the nexus, that would have to be done by referendum, you can';t pass an act of Parliament to break that link. That was tried in 1967 at the very same day that the referendum to properly recognise indigenous Australians and although the Labor Party and the Coalition supported the breaking of the nexus, it was overwhelmingly defeated by the Australian people.
JONES:
So, you';re talking about a joint sitting of Parliament if the bill is rejected twice during the same term. But surely therefore if during that term you can have a joint sitting of the Parliament you';re capable of completely neutering the Senate.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m not seeking to neuter the Senate and there is an alternative which I think…
JONES:
It';s called an election not a double dissolution.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the alternative is to have the joint sitting after an ordinary election and you put up for decision bills that have been twice rejected during the previous Parliament. Now, it';s not going to neuter the Senate, it';s going to provide a simpler method than the sledgehammer of a double dissolution to resolve deadlocks.
JONES:
How big a problem is that? Now John Faulkner, and we to be fair to the other side, is at pains since 1996, 1,269 bills have been passed by the Senate and only 25 rejected, seven of them twice, 11 of them were later signed by the Government after some difficultly through the Parliament. Yet between 72 and 75 when Labor was in Government the Liberal Coalition rejected 93 bills, 25 more than the total number in the first 71 years of the Parliament.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Alan, all of those figures are true but like all figures you have to understand what they mean. Most bills that are put up by the Government of day be it Labor or Liberal are non-controversial. And therefore you will always have a situation where the overwhelmingly majority of bills by number get passed. It';s the important ones that get held up. I mean, you mention a figure of 25, all of those have been important pieces of legislation, such as the unfair dismissal laws proposals to help small business and to reduce unemployment such as the proposals in relation to Telstra, such as the proposals to reform our cross media laws, such as the proposals to put our Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme on a sustainable basis, such as a proposal to put disability support pension on a more sustainable basis. I mean, these are all very important measures. The great bulk of the measures that we put up, of course they go through. Now, I agree that between '72 and '75 the Senate of that time did object to a lot of bills, it';s reviving an old argument. We thought a lot of those bills should have been rejected. In the end, of course, in 1974 there was a double dissolution.
JONES:
You backed the blocking of supply in 1975. Should the Senate be able to block supply as happened then? You have continued to argue in favour of that. In 87 you said I';ll defend to my last breath the action taken by the Liberals and National Party in 1975. If you';re reforming the Senate, should the Senate have the power to reject supply?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I guess the majority view amongst Liberals and National Party members at present, let me stress I haven';t asked them in any detailed way, would be that you were to leave that there. Although, I have to say I can';t ever see that power being exercised in the foreseeable future.
JONES:
Just on healthcare, PM, and forgetting the detail here. In the philosophy and I wonder whether we shouldn';t be addressing that first, can you understand that while Medicare enshrines the concept of totally free access to public hospital facilities for all Australians regardless of income or assets, then whatever then happens we';ll eventually run out of money, people will abandon private health care, as they';ve done, because the public health system was intended for the poor and underprivileged, but now you and I can use that and say oh well I pay a levy anyway and away we go. Don';t we have to change the philosophical structure of health care in this country?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I wouldn';t agree with that. I think providing you keep making necessary changes to keep the system operating effectively, I think the basic structure of having the guaranteed access to free treatment in a public hospital supported by a strong and healthy private sector, and that means the total maintenance of the 30 tax rebate for private health insurance. I think if you have a mixture of the two you have the best system. Those countries that have tried a predominantly but overwhelmingly public based system, and Britain is one of them, don';t have as good a system as we do. Those that have relied too heavily on the private sector, namely the United States and America. America doesn';t have nearly as good a system as we do. It';s too expensive for ordinary people to get treated. The cost of private health insurance unless the employer pays it is prohibitive for many ordinary Americans. Now for all that people attack our present system, it is infinitely better than the system that obtains in those two countries alone and they';re countries that we';re very familiar with and we ought to make comparison…
JONES:
Okay, just on the medical indemnity question. You are aware, of course, that Mr Justice Ipps report….
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JONES:
… that';s been adopted in Queensland and New South Wales.
PRIME MINISTER:
Very largely, yes it has.
JONES:
Right, where he';s redefined what medical negligence or how you evaluate medical negligence. If those principles could be enshrined across Australia, do you foresee a circumstance whereby the kind of levy that we';re talking about for doctors and the extent of it would be very very significantly diluted?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the levy is about the past. You';ve got to separate the levy, which is about acts that have already been performed by doctors that might subsequently give rise to a claim. Then there are the increased premiums that doctors have to pay to cover themselves against future mistakes. So you';ve got to keep the two of those quite separate. Ipps' report can have an impact on both, but it will have potentially a much greater impact on the premiums. But they are two separate issues and what we have said to the doctors, and I say it again, is that if they are concerned about the levy let';s sit down and find a way of looking at the basis of its calculation again. I';m not saying that there were any mistakes made with it. This idea that we';ve admitted that there were mistakes made with the calculation – that is wrong, we';ve made no such admission. The calculations were done by the Government actuary in good faith.
JONES:
Just a quick one before you go though, are the doctors becoming far too militant in all of this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I want to achieve an honourable fair solution and when you';re trying to achieve an honourable fair solution you try and use encouraging calm language.
JONES:
Good on you. Okay, good to talk to you and thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]