MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
How long have you realised the superannuation deal was unfair?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in isolation the super is generous. It has always been my view, and it remains my view, that particularly for people carrying senior responsibilities, the overall remuneration package is not unfair - that's super and salary. But the super component is generous in isolation and no matter how many arguments you mount, and I have mounted many over the years, you can't persuade the public that in overall terms something is fair when part of it is a lot more generous than what they are used to.
MITCHELL:
So how long have you realised it was unfair?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think the overall package is unfair.
MITCHELL:
So you don't think it's unfair?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not the...
MITCHELL:
But you're changing it anyway.
PRIME MINISTER:
Not the overall package.
MITCHELL:
So why are you changing it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because it's clearly become a political issue that is going to divert our attention from a whole lot of other issues that are infinitely more important to the Australian public.
MITCHELL:
But was it the right thing to do or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's a question of how important the issue is. I tell you what is the right thing to do, and that is to offer the Australian public the proper policies on things that matter to them.
MITCHELL:
Well yes, but Prime Minister you're saying that there is nothing wrong with it, but you're going to change it. That's just political expediency.
PRIME MINISTER:
No what I'm saying is that the superannuation scheme in isolation is certainly very generous and if that is the only issue, then of course it's more generous than what the rest of the community has. But over the years what has happened is that salaries, particularly for senior people, have not kept pace with their responsibilities, but there has been a belief that there was some compensation for that in relation to the superannuation.
MITCHELL:
But you are still having a bob each way there, that...
PRIME MINISTER:
No I'm not having a bob each way.
MITCHELL:
It is generous but they're entitled to it. Now...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, in isolation it's generous. Look I don't think... I'm not embarrassed about the overall package that I have received.
MITCHELL:
So why are you changing it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because the focus, the entire focus of the public is on the superannuation component.
MITCHELL:
But that's political expediency. If it's right, you don't change it. If it's wrong, you do change it. Now you're saying you're changing it because the public is just obsessed by it. That's political expediency surely.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no, I think I'm being completely realistic. I want the Australian public to debate the issues that are important, and the issues that are important to them in the long run are not issues relating to pay of politicians, but in the long run the issues that are really important are their interest rates, their tax rates, the fact that we now have the lowest unemployment for 22 years, the free trade agreement with the United States, Medicare, education - all of those issues. And I frankly was not going to have a diversion from a focus on those issues by my opponent running a populist line on one part of our remuneration.
MITCHELL:
That means he can pop up any populist line and you'll accept it just because you want to talk about other things. I mean you've been in power eight years. Why haven't you addressed this before if it needed addressing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil I have taken the view that I explained to you at the overall package and we incidentally did address an element of it, a very important element of it, and that is younger Members of Parliament going out with very large superannuation payouts. We changed that for people who came into the Parliament at the last election and that no longer occurs.
MITCHELL:
So when you see a good idea, you embrace it and go for it. This good idea has been put to you many times over the years. I can quote a press release - quote "The parliamentarians' super scheme is a rort. The Government's inaction is a disgrace." Peter Andren MP, 4th of October 2000. This idea has been put to you many times. Why is it today you embrace it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil it has obviously become a very sensitive and debatable issue. I can only repeat my position - that if you focus on the superannuation alone, it is very generous compared with other people's superannuation. I can't deny that. I've never denied that. But I have always said in the past that if you put it as part of the overall package, particularly for senior people, the overall remuneration is not unfair. But this debate, because of the decision taken by the Opposition, has become the focus so far as public interest in remuneration is concerned, and I have decided to take it out of that focus.
MITCHELL:
So if Mark Latham hadn't raised it, nothing would have changed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know. You can't predict the future.
MITCHELL:
Well you just said you've changed it because he raised it and diverts everybody. What sort of Government is that?
PRIME MINISTER:
We changed our position in relation to another aspect of the superannuation several years ago, and that was raised by us.
MITCHELL:
Would this have changed if Mark Latham hadn't raised it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil I can only point to what has happened this week. I can't predict what the future might have been if other things had occurred or not occurred. I can only say that I have dealt with a situation that I believe was becoming a diversion. I wasn't willing for it to become a diversion. Although it is important in its own right, on the scale of priorities as far as the Australian public is concerned, it's a two or a three compared with issues like the free trade agreement and economic management and border protection and national security, and they are the issues that I wish to get back onto.
MITCHELL:
But Mr Howard, people... this goes to your credibility. People expect you to govern for what is right, to govern not for political benefit but to govern for the benefit of the people. If you believed this was right, you should have left it how it was. You shouldn't have changed it just for the sake of political expediency.
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil there are some issues that you can feel very strongly about, and I will be prepared to be voted out of office defending something that I passionately believe in. When you say, you know, do I believe this thing was right, I mean there are a lot of issues where you express a view one way or the other that you don't feel strongly about, and this is one of them. I don't feel strongly about the question of politicians' remuneration. I didn't come into parliament to make money and I haven't made money in parliament. I came into the Australian parliament to, you know, fulfil my philosophy, to try and bring good government to the Australian people. And quite frankly, the fact that on balance I think the present system was defensible doesn't mean that I'm going to die in a ditch defending it. I'm far more interested in dying in a ditch politically defending our position on national security, the free trade agreement, economic management, interest rates, taxation reform, industrial relations reform. I will never change my views on that because of political pressure, and if that costs me my present position, I'm quite happy for that to occur. But something that I don't really feel very strongly about, I'm simply not going to allow to become a political diversion and I do not feel that strongly, even though I can defend the present arrangement, for it to become a major issue and therefore become a political diversion. That in a nutshell is my position. I'm sorry if you regard that as cynical. I regret that, but I can't change your view. That is my very strong view. I will die in a ditch politically for something that I believe is really important to Australia's future. Maintaining the present parliamentary remuneration arrangements, although on balance I think they are defensible, is not important to Australia's future and I'm not prepared to allow it to become a political diversion. Now I can't put it any more plainly or any more bluntly than that.
MITCHELL:
Two bodies in ditches this week are Peter Costello and Tony Abbott. Did you talk to them about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this was a Cabinet decision. They were part of that.
MITCHELL:
How did they feel?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not going to talk about what was discussed in the Cabinet.
MITCHELL:
They must feel dudded. They've been out there selling it. They've been out there defending it. And then suddenly the rug is pulled from under them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil I have been expressing similar views to what they have expressed. But we took a decision based on, amongst other things, the assessments that I have just outlined to you.
MITCHELL:
Fair enough. Some in the party are saying you're spooked. What's your answer to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know what different people are saying.
MITCHELL:
Well you understand why.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can understand people saying all sorts of things. But look I put up with that. I mean heavens above I'm not really troubled by that.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Do you still say Mark Latham is Mr Flip Flop?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do.
MITCHELL:
What are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly have changed on this. But he said he was going to have a joint funding model for education and then he changed it. He said he would support heroin trials, then he changed that. He said he would cut marginal tax rates for high-income earners, he changed that. Now he has changed back again. He has a very, very long list.
MITCHELL:
You said you wouldn't have the GST and you changed, you defended superannuation and you changed.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah well I tell you what Neil, in relation to the GST, I did change what I said on that, but I had the candour to go to the Australian public and ask them whether they were prepared to re-elect me even though I changed my position on it, and they did reelect me.
MITCHELL:
Should this change in superannuation mean pay rises for politicians?
PRIME MINISTER:
It doesn't mean that.
MITCHELL:
No I know it doesn't. But should it? I mean if you're going to take away their super, do you compensate them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think over time there could well be some adjustment, but we don't have anything in mind.
MITCHELL:
What do you mean over time?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know. I mean that could be years into the future.
MITCHELL:
But in principle, because you've removed their superannuation, as you say part of the package, (inaudible) pay rise?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think in principle there will be a case mounted in the future for some adjustment. I think the point about pay is this - that it depends a bit on your level of responsibility. With great respect to them, I don't think Upper House members of State Parliaments are underpaid, but I do think senior Ministers are. I think somebody like the Treasurer, who is paid a base salary less than $200,000 a year, I don't think he's overpaid.
MITCHELL:
What should it be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know. I mean I'm not going to pluck a figure out of the air, but it certainly should be more.
MITCHELL:
I think most people would agree with you...
PRIME MINISTER:
But in the end Neil, in the end I'm not going to spend my time talking about our pay. I didn't come into this job to get obsessed with pay. I mean I have been in parliament 30 years, I've paid off my house and I've got a few thousand dollars in the bank. That it. I didn't come into parliament to make money. I've had a very rich and rewarding public life in other respects, and I continue to have a rich and rewarding public life, and I'm not complaining for a moment. I never have.
MITCHELL:
But you will retire on $200,000 a year for life.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know what precisely, but it's in that order. I'm not arguing with that. And that is the condition on which I came into the parliament. I am retiring... when I do retire, in the same circumstances, exactly the same circumstances as Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and Malcolm Fraser and so forth. There was a certain arrangement. I've made contributions to that. The principle of non-retrospectivity applies to everybody.
MITCHELL:
Okay. So even if the system is wrong, and you could be benefiting from that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No but what I'm saying Neil.... please to be fair, I mean I accept that people are going to have a go at me today because I've changed my position. I accept that and I'll wear that. But just listen please. The argument I'm mounting is that in overall terms, I don't think the existing remuneration is unfair, but taken in isolation, the superannuation component is well above community standards. But correspondingly, particularly for senior people, the pay is too low. Now when you get a political partisan focus by the Opposition party on the superannuation component, you're on a hiding to nothing trying to defend it in public. And because it to me is not the most important issue, I am simply not going to shed political blood on something that I don't regard as important, I don't feel that strongly about. I mean I care about defence and border protection and keeping low interest rates for your viewers and keeping unemployment down and reforming the industrial relations system. I care about those things. I will shed political blood over those, I will go to the wall, and if it costs me my job, well so be it - that's the democratic process.
MITCHELL:
We will take a break and come back with more for the Prime Minister. We'll have a couple of quick calls and we'll take calls on this issue through the morning, but we'll cross back to the Prime Minister with your calls in a moment, and I have some questions on other issues.
[break]
MITCHELL:
A couple of quick calls for the Prime Minister. Please keep them brief. We'll have plenty of time for calls after nine o'clock on this issue. John go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yes, good morning Mr Howard. I'd just like to say I heard your quote there that you haven't made money in parliament. For a bloke who is on a wage of over $200,000 a year, you get free travel, meals, accommodation, car, etcetera - I'm glad you're the Prime Minister and not in charge of Treasury.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a fair... you know, I think that's sort of a cheap political shot, but I expect people from time to time to take those. I'm talking in relative terms. I mean make money is... I mean when you go into parliament, particularly as a Minister, you can't invest. I don't own any shares. I don't own any property other than my own home. I haven't let that home since I have been Prime Minister and living in a taxpayer funded residence. That's what I mean by not making money. I have been paid a salary which by community standards is generous, but by the standards of people with senior corporate responsibilities, many senior media figures, it is not high. Now that's the point I was making and I stand by it, and with respect John, I think it's fairly, you know, it's a political point you have scored and I expect that on an occasion like this.
MITCHELL:
Thank you John. Ian go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yes good morning Mr Howard. I'm just wondering - Mark Latham raised the issue of the republic, which you wouldn't die in a ditch about because it doesn't change anything. Just to get rid of it, would you agree to have another plebiscite?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't. I feel rather more strongly about that issue than I do about politicians' pay. We've had a debate on the republic and I allowed a free vote in the Liberal Party and I voted no and I campaigned for a no vote. And certainly I see no occasion at all in the immediate future to have another plebiscite.
MITCHELL:
Ian has sort of raised an interesting point though Prime Minister that we need a list of things about which you feel strongly enough not to change.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can just keep asking me. I think the Australian public...
MITCHELL:
An inquiry on weapons of mass destruction (inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay, well let me go through them. In relation to an inquiry on weapons of mass destruction, I have said we've got one and it's coming out I think on the 1st of March. The report has been given to me. I'm not at liberty to talk about it because it's not my report. It's a committee report.
MITCHELL:
It's reported that it's recommending...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I know what has been reported. I am in no position, for reasons of confidentiality, to talk about it. When it has been tabled, then everybody will know what it has found and what it recommends.
MITCHELL:
Tax indexation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we can't commit ourselves to tax indexation automatically. We have, where we've had the capacity to do so, hand back the proceeds or the proceeds of the surplus, and it remains our philosophy that after we have paid for certain things, that we will hand back what might be available by way of tax relief.
MITCHELL:
It is a silly situation, isn't it, for me to be listing a whole list of things and saying well do you feel strongly about this not to change. But that's the situation you've created with this.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil, I mean you can express it any way you like. I mean I can't... I mean you've asked me why I changed my position. I think I have been very frank with you. I can't do more than that. And if you're going to take an axe to me over it, well fair enough, that's your right and I accept that. You're a fair commentator and journalist, you give me stick on some things and your supportive on others and I don't complain about that, I take the rough with the smooth in this game, I think you know that.
MITCHELL:
I do, can I ask you about the man on the floor of the parliament yesterday, I was looking at your face in the footage, you looked quite shocked. Were you in fear or anything...
PRIME MINISTER:
No I wasn't in fear, I was shocked. I hadn't quite seen it happen like that before.
MITCHELL:
Is there a need to review the security?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a matter for the Speaker, I felt a bit for the attendants, they're not trained for combat and he looked a pretty young vigorous fit bloke, I felt a bit for them. That's a matter for the Speaker and I'm sure that he's having a look at it.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe the man should be charged?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if he's broken the law he should be but I'm not going to make a song and dance about it just because that might be seen as... (tape break)... possibly concerned about our own safety.
MITCHELL:
But it's amazing if there's not a law against jumping on the floor of parliament.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I said if he's broken the law he should be charged.
MITCHELL:
Okay. The aged care industry, a lot of attention this week with the Salvation Army decision, some people are arguing for the reintroduction of nursing home bonds. Will you look at that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we haven't had any, to my knowledge, we haven't had a concrete recommendation. We had a look at that some years ago and put it aside, it hasn't come back and don't know that it's going to come back.
MITCHELL:
You accept the significant concern in the industry at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's concern about two things, there's concern about the indexation arrangements in relation to the costs of running nursing homes and there's concern about their capital needs and they're the two areas. We have commissioned from Warren Hogan a report on a lot of those things, we've had an interim report from them, an assessment if you like of his thinking, and I hope to have the final report very soon, it's a difficult issue and the nursing homes do have a case in relation to the disparity between the salaries they paid, or the salaries they're able to pay and the salaries that are paid in hospitals and is creating a staffing difficulty for a lot of them.
MITCHELL:
Gallipoli, there's a report today and I think there are some denials about it but there are also some confirmation of a plan to charge an entrance fee at Gallipoli. Has the Government been consulted about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No we haven't been and I'm going to arrange through the Foreign Minister enquires to be made of the Turkish authorities to establish the correct position. It seems at this stage that the reports are being discounted, but I'd like to get to the bottom of it in a calm way through the normal channels.
MITCHELL:
Are you aware of any plans for a sound and light show at Gallipoli?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not aware of that.
MITCHELL:
What do you think of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
First reaction negative, negative, first reaction.
MITCHELL:
They're pretty good on consulting Australia over these issues though aren't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are and I'm full of praise for the Turkish authorities, they go to a lot of trouble, I wouldn't like any kind of charge introduced, not from a financial point of view but you just don't charge for those things and idea that people would be charged to go there does sort of go against the grain, obviously it's their territory but Australians regard it also as theirs and I hope it doesn't happen. But I don't want to jump the gun, it may be a completely false report and when I find out I'll know one way or the other.
MITCHELL:
Kim Beazley going to the United States with Mark Latham to help sell him, should we be paying for that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I read about it in the papers, I haven't been approached to approve it, I would have to approve that. But Mr Beazley could well have a travel entitlement. I wouldn't as a matter of principle, I don't think it would be wrong of Mr Beazley to accompany Mr Latham, I mean I'm not going to be churlish about those things, I don't look at those things just from a point of view of cost, from a point of view of good government Mr Beazley is somebody who's worked with the Americans, he's not anti-American the way that I believe Mr Latham and others are on a lot of issues, so that might be good from the nation's point of view. Maybe on the way Mr Beazley could explain to him the benefits of supporting the Free Trade Agreement.
MITCHELL:
The Air Services chair has left, did he quit or was he pushed?
PRIME MINISTER:
My understanding is that he resigned.
MITCHELL:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't fully know. John Anderson mentioned it to me yesterday but I had a couple of other things that I was fixing up and I didn't go into the details of it.
MITCHELL:
Well has he, is it because he has not properly implemented the safety changes?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not in a position to answer that Neil, I would have to get more information from Mr Anderson.
MITCHELL:
Telstra's profit yesterday looks huge on the surface, 94 per cent in six months, but when you make adjustments it's about 5.7 per cent. Which is a pretty good profit still, is it ripe for sale?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's academic because we don't have authority to sell it, it's completely academic, we don't have authority because the Senate is still blocking it and we're left with this absurd half pregnant situation which is unsustainable in the long run but this is eight years of the Labor Party being negative in the Senate, as they're being negative on the Medicare safety net.
MITCHELL:
Is that one of the things that you'd die in the ditches for, the sale of Telstra?
PRIME MINISTER:
I support the sale of Telstra and it will be in our policy at the next election.
MITCHELL:
Won't be changed?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Prime Minister, you have to agree it hasn't been a bad week for your opposition has it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well that happens in politics. What is it, the first week of February?
MITCHELL:
So what do you do to him next week?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's no question of what I do to him, I think it's a question of what I say to the Australian public about things that are important to them. I tell you what I will be saying is that Australia gains from the Free Trade Agreement and I'm amazed that the Labor Party is opposing something which is so obviously in Australia's interests. That's what I'll be saying next week and I'll be saying that not only next week but for weeks and months ahead because the position they have taken on this once in a generation opportunity to link Australia into the most powerful economy in the world is not only politically expedient and negative but it's against Australia's interests and that's something that is very important and that's something that I will die in a ditch politically about.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
[ends]