COX:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Tim.
COX:
Nice to talk to you again. It';s been a fascinating week. Do you relish the Easter break after such an invigorating session of Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I always enjoy Easter but I also enjoy Parliament. What we';ve seen over the last two weeks is a very clear difference between the Government and the Opposition on a very important issue and that is whether we should see the distance and fulfil our international responsibilities in Iraq and it';s quite plain that the Labor Party has a cut and run policy and we don';t. The Australian public will make a judgement about that issue at the appropriate time.
COX:
Could it be argued, though, that Australia';s involvement in Iraq ends when the Iraqis resume power there on 30th of June?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, that can';t, in my view, be argued. The question of whether the circumstances are right for our forces to come home will be governed by practical considerations on the ground and although there';s going to be a formal transfer to an Iraqi authority, hopefully on the 30th of June, that doesn';t mean that the need to have people there ends on midnight that night. And it';s very important right at the moment that we don';t look as though we are reacting to what happened in Madrid, we don';t look as though this country is susceptible to the pressure of terrorists'; behaviour. It';s important that we stay very close to our allies and friends at the present time. That is the view held on both sides of politics in the United States, on both sides of politics in Britain. You have the Opposition Leader in Britain, who';s a conservative, saying what I';m saying. You have the democratic candidate for the Presidency in the United States John Kerry saying what I';m saying. It';s not the Australian way to get out before the job is finished and I';m very disappointed that the Opposition has said definitely without equivocation that even if we were asked by the Iraqi people, even if we were asked by the United Nations, even if we were asked by our allies, that if they win the next election they';ll bring the forces home immediately no matter what the circumstances are on the ground. Now that is the effect of what they have ended the week saying and no amount of backing and filling can alter that fact. That';s the issue and there';s a clear difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition on that matter.
COX:
What status will those Australian troops in Iraq and in the region have when they go from being an occupational force on the 29th of June and up to the midnight on the 30th of June, what will they be after that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they';ll be there with the consent and the permission, obviously, of the Iraqi authorities and they';ve made it very plain they want them to stay. And you don';t stay in a country without authority and it';s possible, I';m not saying it will happen, but it is possible because discussions are going on in New York, it';s possible there could be a new United Nations resolution. See what is interesting about this debate, Tim, is that the Labor Party';s position here is even more radical than the position of the new Spanish Socialist Government ,which said immediately it would bring the troops out, but if there were a new UN resolution, the new Socialist Government in Spain said it might reconsider that position. No such qualification has been entered by Mr Latham. So he is really one out. His position is quite different from anybody else I';ve heard of on this subject who';s in a position of responsibility. And the central issue here is whether it';s the right thing for Australia, taking all those factors into account, that we should set an arbitrary time for withdrawal. It didn';t exist before. I mean, despite all his protestations, he first mentioned Christmas, a deadline, he first mentioned that Christmas deadline in that interview he gave with Mike Carlton last week. I, for example, last night I found two additional interviews that he gave. One on the 16th of March this year and one on the 17th of March and which his answer on this issue was utterly inconsistent with what he';d been saying over the past ten days. So there was no reference to Christmas and there was an ongoing reference to what I thought their policy was and that was that they';d only leave at the point where they felt we';d discharged their international obligations…
COX:
His Shadow Foreign Minister, though, as you would know, stated unequivocally on The 7.30 report last night, as reiterated in AM this morning, that they will have the troops out by Christmas…
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, yes, I';m not, Tim I';m not saying their policy now isn';t what you say, of course it is. But the point I';m making is that as recently as a couple of weeks ago, that wasn';t their position – that';s the point I';m making.
COX:
Right.
PRIME MINISTER:
But in a way, when they firmed up on this is secondary to the substance of their position, it';s secondary, it';s important in terms of the credibility of Mr Latham';s narrative of what happened. But what is important to the Australian public is that they are saying come what may, come hell or high water no matter what the Iraqi people say, no matter what the United Nations says, no matter what the Americans say, they will bring the troops home by Christmas. Now that';s their policy. It';s clear, they can';t wriggle out of it, it';s fixed in cement. But it';s the wrong policy and it';s the wrong policy at a time when we should be sending a signal of strength and solidarity with our allies against terrorism. It';s the wrong policy for the Iraqi people and I believe that it will be seen by the Australian public as the wrong policy. But, of course, that is a matter for the Australian people to decide on…
COX:
30th of June…
PRIME MINISTER:
… argue my case. I can';t do more than that.
COX:
From the 30th of June, though, I gather it';s up to the Iraqis to tell Australia how long it wants us to remain, is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are, you know, there are discussions and so forth to go. I mean, obviously we will behave in accordance with international law.
COX:
The Prime Minister, John Howard, my guest on the morning show on ABC Tasmania. We';ll go to some calls and we';re going to start in Carrick with Rosemary. Good morning Rosemary.
CALLER:
Good morning, Tim. Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I';m very concerned about unemployment. I wonder do you acknowledge that there are not enough jobs for our young people to move in to? Even though they';ve completed year 12, university, done extra courses, they still find themselves ending up in the charge of Centrelink and this is very frustrating and disappointing for everybody concerned. Do you acknowledge that there are not enough jobs for our young people to move into? That is my question.
COX:
Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you. Well, Rosemary, unemployment now is the lowest it';s been for about 12 or 13 years. We have unemployment now which has been consistently below six per cent, youth unemployment is much lower than what it was when this Government came to office. Now that';s the good news. But if you say – is there still unemployment? Yes, but there';s a lot less unemployment than there used to be and although there are some parts of Australia that have higher levels of unemployment than others, there has been a nationwide improvement, a quite dramatic improvement in the unemployment levels over the past few years. We';ve got a million, 1.3 million more jobs over the last eight years and we have a much lower rate of youth unemployment than we used to have. So overall the scene is better, but there';s never room for complacency and it';s always very important for the Government to try and get through policies that create further job opportunities. That';s why we';ve remained continually frustrated by the failure of the opposition parties in the Senate to let through our unfair dismissal laws that would, on the advice of small business experts, create another 50,000 to 80,000 jobs in the small business sector.
COX:
Alright. Rosemary, thanks for that. Here';s Catherine in Hobart. Good morning, Catherine.
CALLER:
Good morning. Mr Prime Minister, I';m worried about what will happen if pharmacy deregulation occurs. I';m actually a locum pharmacist. I';ve worked in the United Kingdom where ownership is deregulated and I worked for a pharmacy owned by someone who wasn';t a pharmacist and I actually got sacked because I wouldn';t compromise my professional ethics and because I wanted to put the patient first. Can you promise me that this downgrading of medical system, the first step being the deregulation of pharmacies, not going to occur?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we';re not downgrading the medical system, in fact we';ve strengthened with the MedicarePlus system. We have a five year agreement with the Pharmacy Guild about community pharmacy and that doesn';t involve, as you put it, the compete deregulation of pharmacies. It involves a sensible balance between the sort of things you are concerned about and also the right of people to compete and the interests of consumers. We';re going to keep the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. We';ve strengthened Medicare by introducing the MedicarePlus system and we continue a very strong dialogue with Pharmacy Guild.
CALLER:
But if the National Competition Council, you know, gets its way and they make pharmacy ownership over to everybody, I have seen it both in the United Kingdom where I worked and in the USA where I';ve been a patient where you don';t get the level of service.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what happens in the United Kingdom or what… it happens, as you described it, will not happen in this country.
CALLER:
How can you promise that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you';ve asked me that… you';ve asked me the question. And… we have an agreement with the Pharmacy…
CALLER:
I realise that.
PRIME MINISTER:
And it';s not correct to say that operation of National Competition Policy is going to produce the complete deregulation of the pharmacy industry of which you speak. And the policy that we are following at present reflects the agreement that the government made with the Pharmacy Guild several years ago. We will honour that agreement and the policy we are following reflects the agreement that we made with the pharmacist.
CALLER:
Well, it just worries me what will happen to patient care…
PRIME MINISTER:
The most important thing about patient care in relation to pharmacy, of course, is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and that Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme remains completely unimpaired and on foot as a result of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. One of the problems about the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme in the future will be its affordability and that';s why we continue again to be frustrated by the failure of the opposition parties in the Senate to pass a very modest measure in relation to the ongoing funding of that scheme, which Mr Latham when he wasn';t Opposition leader, in fact himself advocated.
COX:
Is there a competition policy issue there as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
What in relation to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? No, there';s no competition policy issue in relation to that. Look, the Pharmacy Guild and the Government signed an agreement. We entered into an agreement and we';re honouring that agreement and nothing that';s occurring at a federal level is out of wack with that understanding.
COX:
And what about the keeping the ownership of the pharmacies to the pharmacists itself, how does that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we';ve remained supportive of that.
COX:
But that won';t attract interest in the competition policy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it';s the not a question of attracting interest. It';s just that that remains our policy and what the Competition Council has done on my advice is not inconsistent with the agreement that has been made with the Pharmacy Guild.
COX:
Your Foreign Minister said that Richard Butler being Governor of Tasmania degraded his office with comments he made about the United States and foreign policy? Do you want to enter into that? What do make of the comments of Richard Butler and I guess of Alexander Downer?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t especially want to enter into this, except to say that he';s as plain as the nose on your face that it';s not the role of a vice-regal person to make partisan political points.
COX:
It hasn';t been historically though, but obviously Richard Butler is going to be his own man as Governor and is an expert on these things?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he';s the Governor of Tasmania – you and I know that, Mr Lennon knows that, everybody in Tasmania knows that and, you know, let';s move on to something else.
COX:
Should Alexander Downer have stayed out of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, he was asked a question. He';s given an answer but it';s not something that preoccupies him. I think it';s matter for the Tasmanian Premier, but the rights and the wrongs of this are plain for everybody to see.
COX:
Let';s keep going with calls then. Brian in Launceston, good morning to you.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I';m listening sorry.
CALLER:
Prime Minister, I sat on the 1997 Reforms Committee into aged care and fortunately the ABC have been able to give a very comprehensive analysis of what';s taking place in aged care and unfortunately our two major papers in Tasmania haven';t given it a (inaudible) and the (inaudible) comments that are being made about aged care are not substantiated and I think, I';m very concerned that the reports that we';re receiving back from some of the aged care providers are not accurate. We have a situation where some of them don';t even send in their correct financials to the corporate affair in Tasmania because they have other associations and they have been called upon by corporate affairs to turn around and submit their returns. Now, when they submit the returns, Prime Minister, you cannot turn around and see how much the nursing home or hostel or their community housing has lost or made a profit because they consolidated with their retirement villages. Now, my question to you Prime Minister is that because the huge amounts of Commonwealth funding that are given into these aged care providers that they should be reporting direct to ASIC and not hiding behind the situation of associations?
COX:
Alright, can I get you to answer that, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know that I have a strong view off the top of my head either way about that. I don';t know it necessarily is a good thing to shift the reporting destination from the Department to ASIC given that you have a special department dealing with aged care. I think there';s some merit because of the need to look at what they put in their returns against the other aged care policy consideration. But I';ll give some thought to that. But I';m not sure that overall there';s such a compelling case for change. But certainly information provided should be transparent and it should be able to unravelled from other information and if there is any evidence that a shortfall is being disguised then that is something that ought to be changed. But I certainly think that the aged care sector is now subject to because of the accreditation system a lot more scrutiny and that';s right because there';s a lot more taxpayers'; money involved. We';re very keen to do something further in that sector and we will be indicating quite soon additional support for the aged care sector throughout Australia.
COX:
Is that financial support?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, coming off the back of the Hogan Report.
COX:
Alright, Brian. Thank you for the call. There hasn';t been much good news in aged care as I';m sure you';d appreciate.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m sorry, that';s not right. I mean the good news is that the standard of care in the overwhelming majority of aged care places is very high and very dedicated and very committed and I think it';s very important that we don';t because of the misdeeds of a very few denigrate the whole sector. I don';t think that';s right and I think it';s unfair to the people who work so very hard in it.
COX:
Do you see that the need for aged care beds is one of the most pressing ones, particularly for a community like Tasmania with its more senior population?
PRIME MINISTER:
We had an investigation carried out by Professor Hogan and we are going to respond to that investigation and I think respond very sensibly.
COX:
Alright. I look forward to seeing what';s in that. It wouldn';t be talkback with the Prime Minister John Howard on the Morning Show here without a call from Pamela in Launceston. No singing today Pamela. Good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Pamela.
CALLER:
I watch on the television Question Time in the House. I watch it very regularly and my assessment is the leader of the Opposition gets up and he continually makes unsubstantiated announcements and then we go over to your side, to the Government';s side and you through his argument out of the water, backed up by Alexander Downer. In other words, the Opposition Members in my opinion are amateurs and you sir and your side and our Government are the professionals and I have a new name for you, Sir. I call you David and Mark Latham and Goliath. Now, we all know that David won and you are going to win, Sir.
COX:
Thank you Pamela. What do you make of that David?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Pamela, you';re very kind. I';ll leave it to the Australian people to decide who ought to win. I';ll try very hard, I have a big fight ahead of me. It';s always hard to get elected for the fourth time in a row but we';ll be working very hard at it and trying to serve the Australian people both for the rest of this term and well into the future. Thank you.
COX:
When you say well into the future, Prime Minister. Do you mean for the entirety of that next term?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m talking generically of the great party I lead. You know my position in relation to the future. I';ll continue to serve as the leader of the party for so long as the party wishes me too and while its in the party';s best interest.
COX:
Well, what sort of factors would make it not in the party';s best interest then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tim, ask the next question.
COX:
Seriously, Prime Minister, what would change the equation as the most popular Prime Minister we';ve had for a long time? What could possibly change that?
PRIME MINISTER:
What';s the next question, Tim?
COX:
Here';s Geoff Butler from the Pharmacy Board of Tasmania. Good morning, Geoff?
CALLER:
Good morning, Tim. Good morning, Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Morning.
CALLER:
My question or discussion is primarily related to the National Competition Policy and how it affects pharmacy in particular – my major concern is that, as a member of a Pharmacy Board, where the future of community is going…
COX:
I agree with that.
CALLER:
Yeah, now, I know you';ve come out in the past and certainly indicated your strong support for maintaining the present system. What I have concern about is if deregulation occurs it';s certainly going to allow the development of ownership of supermarkets, for instance with pharmacy and what my greatest concern is the National Competition Council';s report has been virtually supported by your Treasurer in as much as he';s indicated and that he would support the recommendation of penalties for non-compliance within NCC. Can you give me some sort of balance as to where you stand on this matter given the Treasurer';s approach to this?
PRIME MINISTER
Well, Mr Butler, we';re not going to fully deregulate pharmacy. I mean, the expression deregulation is sort of used, I';m not saying by you, but by some as a sort of a scare word. We';re not arguing that and the fears that you';re going to have supermarkets owning and running pharmacies is just not going to materialise. You can';t and what you';re asking me to do is to say what';s my position been vis a vis the Treasurer, well the Treasurer';s position and my position is the same. We support the community pharmacy agreement. There was an inquiry led by Warwick Wilkinson which made some recommendations and those recommendations were endorsed by the Pharmacy Guild and we put them into effect and we intend to respect those agreements and I';ve recently met the Federal President of the Guild, John Bronger and others, and I';m very strong supporter of community pharmacy and I can assure you that we won';t be doing anything to create the unregulated situation of which you';ve spoken.
CALLER:
And the result of that would be, of course, there won';t be compromise or there won';t be any compromise or there won';t be penalties towards them?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what I';ve said is we';ll honour the agreement that we';ve made with organisation. We have a five year agreement and then we had a deal that arose of the Wilkinson Review and we';re going to honour that. We';re not going to walk away from any commitments that we have made to the pharmacists. I mean equally we would expect as part of the agreement that the and I know the Guild itself will honour the commitments it entered into at the time that agreement was made.
COX:
Geoff Butler there from the Pharmacy Board of Tasmania. Thanks for the call. Gordon in New Norfolk. You';ll probably be last. Good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning, Tim. Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I wanted to ask, after the call from Pamela – how are you going to feel if Goliath wins?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m working hard to prevent that occurring, but I';ve always respected the wishes and the judgment of the Australian people. I';ve fought very hard to present my case and if the Australian people decide against me, well that';s it, that';s the judgement they will make. I hope they don';t and I believe there will be very strong grounds in the long-term interests of the country that they don';t.
CALLER:
I sometimes think that supporters can be quite a burden.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, you have plenty of detractors in this game. It';s very nice to meet somebody in the opposite direction.
COX:
Look, Prime Minister, is Goliath, Mark Latham, making you work harder as the leader of the Government then you';ve had to work for some time?
PRIME MINISTER:
I always work very hard.
COX:
Has he changed the equation at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, that';s a matter for the commentators to talk about. I don';t fall into commentary. I';m working very hard to propound the Government';s record. To put forward alternatives, to deal with the inadequacies in what the Labor Party says. But I';m not going to lapse into commentary.
COX:
Is Australia a safer place now then it was 12 months ago?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Australia has continued to be a safe place on the scale of ten, but certainly this country is vulnerable to a terrorist attack. I';ve always said that.
COX:
Are we more vulnerable now than we were?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know that the situation has changed in the last 12 months. I think we have been a target for a terrorist attack stretching back some years. Certainly before we entered Iraq and certainly according to some advice stretching back to before the 11th of September 2001. All western countries are targets, but equally the terrorists are quite indiscriminate. They';ve probably killed more people of the Islamic faith over the last few years or certainly since the 11th of September 2001 then they have people of other faiths or of no faiths.
COX:
From what I understand though, of the Islamic faith, whether it';s intended or not – a death in the holy war is an honourable one and a glorious one. So do you feel it is only a matter of time before there is an attack on our soil?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not sure that that';s a fair representation of moderate Islam. In fact, I think it';s an incorrect one.
COX:
No, but the perpetrators aren';t exactly moderates are they?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, but you said in the Islamic faith?
COX:
No, no.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I';m sorry.
COX:
But he way that it';s extrapolated by extremists, by terrorists.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but that';s the qualification you';re now adding. I don';t want to go on about this. But you did make a, sort of, generic observation about Islam and I now acknowledge that you didn';t mean that.
COX:
Those undertaking the holy war of course, and any Muslims they take with them, that';s part of the price, but is Australia more likely, more susceptible to an attack now then it was, say 12 months ago?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think the situation has changed in a year. I think we were susceptible 12 months ago. We';ve continued to be susceptible over the last 12 months and we';re susceptible now. Although, the level of risk here is not as high as other countries because there is not evidence of the existence of active terrorist cells in this country and we are different in that respect and some other respects from other like countries. But we are all to a degree vulnerable but it';s quite impossible for anybody to try and grade the level of risk. We can only say we are at risk and more at risk then we were ten years ago and more at risk then we have been five years ago, I can';t give you….
COX:
We must leave it there. Thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay. Thank you.