MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Neil.
MITCHELL:
Any idea who ‘Crean S'; is?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we all know it';s the Member for Hotham and it is fair to say that the policies that Mr Latham annunciated yesterday, were no different from the policies that Mr Crean had annunciated in so many areas. In one area he is weaker than, Mr Crean, and that';s in the area of border protection, but could I go back to the leaked drafts.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, sure.
PRIME MINISTER:
The other interesting thing I discover in reading the guide to this draft is that it refers to a particular paragraph and it says : “INSERTED: Draft with Mark';s corrections.” Now there';s nothing wrong with that except that Mr Latham in trying to explain away the leak has said – “oh look, these earlier drafts were the enthusiastic work of my staff. In a separate parallel exercise I was handwriting the whole lot which I delivered.” Well, if he was hand writing the whole lot, why was he bothering to correct drafts? This man has a dangerous tendency when something goes wrong that embarrasses him to blame his staff. Some poor staffer got the blame for putting that American flag in the Labor Party room. I think this is a dangerous tendency on his behalf. Could I make the other observation, Neil – I read the speech and there were a lot of glib generalisations in it, but when you get to detail this man is very sloppy with the truth. In his speech yesterday….
MITCHELL:
Sorry, sloppy with the truth?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sloppy, sloppy, in other words, he doesn';t tell is like it is. This is what he had to say about the long-term unemployed – he said, “surely, in a prosperous we shouldn';t have 370,000 Australians long term unemployed.” Of course, we shouldn';t. The truth is we don';t. According to the latest ABS statistics the long term unemployment for December last year was 117,200 – that';s the lowest level since September of 1990 and in fact the peak in long term unemployment in this country was reached in May of 1993 at 330,000 according to the ABS. So that was just completely wrong. And another example of his sloppiness with the truth was this morning on the AM programme he was asked – how would he fund his extra promises on health and education? He said, oh, you don';t really need to spend more money. You';ve got to better direct the money the Howard Government is spending. He then made the totally erroneous claim that our Medicare safety net will cost billions, in fact, the correct figure is in the order of 250 to $260 million dollars over four years. And he said that if you restored bulkbilling, you wouldn';t have to spend those billions. Well, not only do you not have to spend the billions but Labor';s additional proposals in relation to bulkbilling will themselves cost money.
This man when you go below the glib generalisations hasn';t got a grip on some of the basic facts. He was asked this morning about interest rates during the 1980s when the Hawke-Keating Governments were in power. He refused in that interview to acknowledge the damage that had been done to homebuyers and small business by the 17 to 20 per cent interest rates. And he has an interesting put and take attitude to the past. Whenever there';s anything embarrassing about something he';s said in the past, such as his attacks on George Bush or his attacks on female journalists he says, oh look, this election is about the future. Yet when it suits him, he likes to talk a lot about aspects of his own past. Now, I don';t mind him doing that. He';s not the only person in Australia who started in a housing commission home. He';s not the only person in Australia who has ended up better than he was financially and in an achievement sense from where he may have been earlier in life. In fact, the story of Australia since World War II has been the story of opportunity achieved and fulfilled.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, but he';s promoting himself as a battler made good.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I know. But look, he';s entitled to promote himself in anyway he wants to but he can';t be selective about the past. He can';t say, oh, I';m not going to answer for that. I didn';t say that really or doesn';t matter (inaudible) cancelled because I';m now the leader and the future commenced when I became the leader.
MITCHELL:
Have you decided to go after him?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I';ve just decided to expose him.
MITCHELL:
Does he worry you a bit?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, he doesn';t. The difference between him and Mr Crean is that we';ve essentially returned to normalcy and when Mr Crean was there I don';t think the Labor Party had any hope at all.
MITCHELL:
Now, they';re got a greater hope?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think of course. I think they do have a better prospect, I don';t think there';s any doubt about that at all.
[ad break]
MITCHELL:
I apologise for that. We';ve got it right. Prime Minister, we could hear you. It was just a little hollow. So we certainly heard everything you said, rather than the… the quality wasn';t as good as it should be. I apologise. You';re making the point, or attempting to make the point about Simon Crean versus Mark Latham. Now Mark Latham is a bigger danger to you, is he?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the situation is that we';ve returned to normal. Simon Crean, I don';t wish to be personally unpleasant about him, didn';t really cut through at all. I didn';t think that Simon Crean was nearly as effective as Kim Beazley. I think basically with Latham you';ve got more of a Beazley type situation.
MITCHELL:
But is Simon Crean pulling the strings?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly think there was a deal done between Crean and Latham, that Crean';s people would support Latham for the leadership. And he can generalise in his glib way as much as he likes, but it does strike me as fundamentally odd that a commitment not to increase taxes and not to have a deficit should first be considered for inclusion in a speech and then taken out.
MITCHELL:
There';s a simple way to address that, which I hope to ask him, and that';s just the question – do you promise you won';t increase taxes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s because he';s now been exposed. But why wasn';t it there in the first place? I mean this is the point Peter Costello made, and I find it quite amazing. See the Labor Party is weak on management of the economy. People remember the 17, 20 per cent interest rates, they remember the budget deficits. Mr Latham talks about opportunity. The greatest opportunity people need in life is a job. When I became Prime Minister, unemployment in this country was 8.5 per cent. It';s now 5.6 per cent. That has been a massive reduction in unemployment. The long-term unemployed, as I have said a moment ago, is at a 14 year low and it';s 117,000 – not the 370,000 that Mr Latham dishonestly said yesterday.
MITCHELL:
Dishonestly. So you';re saying that was a deliberate error?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t know how he can get something like that wrong. I mean, you know, this is a speech that has been trawled over. I mean this is the biggest speech he has given in his life. Now you mean to say that they would just sort of inadvertently get something like that wrong? I mean maybe they';re relying on some other dodgy source. I don';t know. The ABS is the source and the ABS has said the figure is 117,200. I mean he has not only got that wrong – he got those Medicare figures that I mentioned this morning wrong. I mean how can you say a safety net costs billions when a cursory look at our document will tell you the figure is something in the order of $250 million over four years. You see, he hopes that nobody will pick these things up. I mean, glib generalisations are one thing. Really answering with hard detail and fact is entirely another.
MITCHELL:
What about some of the broader points? Do you think Australians are too slack? Are we slackers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well some people are. Of course they are. But most people aren';t. I think one of the reasons why this country has done well economically over the last few years is that people are working harder and more effectively and more efficiently. And he seems to be at odds there with the rhetoric of his own people. If he thinks that there is a disposition to slackness, why does he want to take us back to an industrial relations system that did not encourage individual effort in the way that the current industrial relations system does? The biggest cheer he got yesterday was when he said he';d re-regulate the labour market. I think that';s the worst thing that could happen and of course if you have a Federal Labor Government, there will be no impediment to the re-regulation of the labour market around Australia because you';ll have wall to wall Labor Governments in this country. You';ll have all State and Territory Labor Governments and a Federal Labor Government, and you can imagine what the unions will say to that lot. They';ll say well now we at long last have got every government in this country – we want our regulation back, we want our control back, we want our say back – and he looks as though he';s going to deliver the goods.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, it sounds to me as if you believe you';ve got more of a fight on your hands and you';ve decided to take him on. I mean there must have been a temptation to say ignore him, don';t give him oxygen, but you';re going for him head on.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am going for him in relation to policy issues. That';s my job. I';m not attacking him as an individual. I mean I';ll correct errors he…
MITCHELL:
You';re saying he';s dishonest.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well how else can… I mean what';s his explanation for that 370,000? I mean it';s not an exaggeration. It';s not a rhetorical flourish. We either have a long-term unemployment rate of 370,000 or we don';t. And when the ABS figure is 117,000 – and this has been the most trawled over speech in modern Labor Party history – what other explanation… I mean if they can give me another explanation, I';m very interested in hearing it. What I';m saying is that he looks to me to be somebody who is great on glib generalisations, but when you actually look below the surface, it looks a bit different.
MITCHELL:
Superficial, are you saying?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would say glib generalisations. I mean I';ll just take it and I';ll use my terms and I';ll take it one at a time. I prefer to use my own language with these things.
MITCHELL:
We';ll take a call. Michael, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yeah hi Mr Howard. I should preface my comments by saying I voted Liberal the last couple of elections, but I can';t believe what I';m hearing. You talk about Mark Latham shifting the blame and telling lies. Your government over the last year or two would have to have one of the poorest records in terms of those two issues – in terms of shifting blame to other parties and in terms of lying to the Australian people.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t agree with that. You';re entitled to your view and you';ve made the statement that you voted on the Liberal on the last two occasions. Anyway I note that.
MITCHELL:
Okay, thank you Michael. Dot, go ahead please Dot.
CALLER:
Prime Minister, on behalf of the Australian people who don';t get very much of a voice these days, would you please convey to Mark Latham that with the state the world is in today, I will be a deputy of the Americans forever. How in the hell does he think we';re going to go it alone with 20 million people?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Australia is not a deputy sheriff to the United States – never has been, I';ve never said it. It';s been alleged I did. I didn';t. It';s not an expression that I used in that interview with somebody else. Our relationship with the United States is one which is based on mutual respect amongst very close friends. It is a very important alliance and there is no doubt that under our leadership the alliance has got closer and better and stronger, and that is enormously to Australia';s benefit.
MITCHELL:
Are you going to appoint a Minister for Happiness?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I';m not going to do that. I think that';s a bit nebulous. Although I have for years talked about the issue of loneliness in big cities. I agree, or he agrees with me – whichever way or order you want to put it in, that that is an issue. I';m not sure having a Federal Minister is going to cure the problem. I mean one of the difficulties for older people especially in the outer suburbs is that they rely very heavily on public transport, and one of the sad things of modern life is that older people feel increasingly vulnerable in the streets, even in the middle of the day because manners are not what they were. They get pushed aside sometimes by people who are not behaving well. And they don';t feel as secure as they should, and I think that is a sad reflection on our society.
MITCHELL:
Does all this affect what';s going on in your head about the election timetable?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, the timetable is really no different from what I have outlined Neil. The probability is the election will be held in the second half of the year. Unless there is some great intervening circumstances, that would be the time to have it, and I don';t see any great intervening circumstance on the horizon.
MITCHELL:
Are you confident of winning it still?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it';s going to be hard, but I said that when Mr Crean was the leader, remember?
MITCHELL:
It must be harder now by your own definition.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s quite tough. I want Liberals to understand that any thought that we had a cakewalk in front of us is completely wrong. We have to work very hard. And whenever a party gets a new leader, there is always a bit of interest, and gee this is new, this is different, maybe this will be the answer, and of course people are entitled to react in that way and they';ll have a look at it, and over time they';ll make a judgement and they';ll look at the accuracy of what the person says, they';ll match the glib generalisation with the truth and the reality, and then over time they';ll form a view.
MITCHELL:
What would Mark Latham, Prime Minister, do to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s for him to talk about. I';m working hard to stop it happening because I don';t think it would be in Australia';s interest. I believe that if we want a continuation of the national security, economic strength and social stability we have, if we want a continuation of what is… for the first time since 1968, this country has unemployment below six per cent and inflation below three per cent. You have to go back 35 years to find that measure of our economic strength. And Mr Latham';s policies and certainly Mr Crean';s policies, and I don';t think there is any real difference on the economy, will put that very much at risk.
MITCHELL:
Could I ask you about something else. The cricket tour to Zimbabwe. Do you want them to call it off?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I respect in the end it';s a matter for them. I';ve had some discussions about it with the people in Cricket Australia. I don';t want to go into those. I simply say in the end it is a matter for them to decide and we won';t be pressuring them…
MITCHELL:
But Alexander Downer has already pressured them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no he';s expressed a view. If you look at the totality of what he said, he does acknowledge in the end that it is a matter for them to determine.
MITCHELL:
He said he doesn';t want them to go. Now do you agree with it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think in the end, they';ve got to decide that.
MITCHELL:
What';s your view? Should they go…
PRIME MINISTER:
I think they should decide in the end what they should do.
MITCHELL:
But do you think they should go?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m just saying, in the end they should decide whether they want to do.
MITCHELL:
Well it';s significantly different to what the Minister said.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I think if you look at the totality of what the Minister said, there is not that much difference.
MITCHELL:
Well I think he said it to me, so I think I…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m conscious of that and I';ve seen… well I';ve given you my answer.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Do you have any security concerns for the cricketers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Now that';s the separate issue.
MITCHELL:
Because that';s the only… under the ICC rules, that';s the only reason they can call it off, isn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is understood Neil. If the security situation changes, then it could be different.
MITCHELL:
Do you have security concerns for them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is something that I will take the advice of experts on. I mean I can';t make an independent judgement on that.
MITCHELL:
I get the sense that you don';t want to isolate an Australian sport here.
PRIME MINISTER:
I have always been a bit conflicted on these issues. I guess going back a long way I';ve been somebody who thought perhaps idealistically that you could separate politics from sport. But at the time of the World Cup, I had the view that if all of the countries agreed not to play against Zimbabwe, then that would be sending a very strong message to Mugabe. One thing I wasn';t willing to do then was to try and stop the Australian team going and thereby expose the Australian team to the risk of penalty, and therefore disadvantage the Australian team in the competition.
MITCHELL:
You are reported today, Prime Minister, as saying people who criticised your decisions on involvement in Iraq owe you an apology?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what I';ve said is, is that people who said I took the country to war based on lie.
MITCHELL:
They owe you an apology?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, because I didn';t lie about it. Look, we don';t know yet and the jury is still out on the ultimate accuracy of the intelligence we got, but what I do know was that we did have detailed intelligence at the time and I formed the bona-fide view that that intelligence justified our military involvement. Now, people can disagree with that.
MITCHELL:
But it';s only the British intelligence that';s been cleared in this inquiry. It';s got nothing to do with what… (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Except that the point that I was making yesterday is that although that';s Britain and this is Australia, much of the intelligence that we relied on, the Americans relied on, the British relied on is the same and a very large high percentage of the intelligence we relied on was American and British intelligence. That';s all. (inaudible)…that';s the nature of our intelligence relationship. The point I was making was that if, Lord Hutton can find that the allegations of lying and pressure levelled against Mr Blair were wrong, then …(tape break)...relevance for that in Australia.
MITCHELL:
Was the intelligence we got accurate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the jury is still out on that. It was convincing, it was detailed and I believed it.
MITCHELL:
That means we could have gone to war on the false premise, not a lie but a false premise?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, ultimately you have to make judgements and that';s what intelligence is all about. But can I just remind you that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq was not disputed by the Labor Party a year ago. What the Labor said was, yes, they';ve got weapons of mass destruction, we agree with that but we should handle the matter differently. We should persevere with the United Nations, we should allow two or three hundred thousand American and British and Australian troops to stay forever in the desert and do nothing –thereby exerting pressure on Iraq, but not doing anything. Now, I just have to say this again – there was no argument between myself and Mr Crean and Mr Rudd a year ago about the possession of weapons of mass destruction. They all agreed Iraq had them, the argument was that we should go down the United Nations path. Go down the French, German, Russian paths rather than down the American and British paths. That was the point of difference, not the possession of the weapons.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, just finally, welcome back for the new year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
MITCHELL:
Apart from taking off Mark Latham';s head, what is your agenda for the new year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the agenda for the new year is first and foremost to get the Medicare safety net through the parliament. This safety net will not only pick up out of pocket expenses over $500 or a $1,000 according to your income in any one year if you go to a GP. But a point completely overlooked by Labor is that is will also pick up extra pathology expenses, tissue biopsies, a whole range, radiology, a whole range of services which are out of hospital that are not the subject of rebate. So I want to get through because that safety net will protect people against very high expenses and for the life of me I can';t understand why Labor opposes it. Because even if Labor wins the next election, if they want to do other things they can but the safety net will still be valuable for Australian families.
MITCHELL:
Okay, that';s step one. What else?
PRIME MINISTER:
I want to continue the economic growth that we have. I want to make sure that after we';ve spent money on necessaries over the next few months, that if we do have scope for tax relief that we will provide it. I want to continue economic policies that will keep interest rates as low as possible and on that we have an extremely good record. I want to continue to have this extraordinary low level of unemployment. I want to press ahead with further reforms to our industrial relations system. And I';m going to try again to get the unfair dismissal laws accepted. I am not all that optimistic, but we';ll keep trying and we';ll argue again at the next election that if we';re returned we have a mandate to try and implement them.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much. As I said, welcome back for the year. Thank you for speaking to us.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]