MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
MITCHELL:
Do you agree these Telstra charges look greedy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they are a matter for Telstra and I can';t control the micro-economic policy decisions of the company, I have been told by way of explanation that since the introduction of competition in 1997 prices for telecommunications have actually fallen in real terms, Telstra points out that over the last 10 years telephony prices have increased by 2.7 per cent yet the cost of living has gone up by 30 per cent, gas by 34.1 per cent.
MITCHELL:
That';s ignoring improvements in the technology#8230;
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it may or may not be a completely relevant argument but if you actually are talking about the impact of it on the consumer the argument Telstra is putting, I repeat it';s the argument Telstra is putting, I can';t answer for the detailed operations of the company and I';m glad that you';re to talk directly to the company, I';m a strong believer as the, I suppose, the majority shareholder, I';m a very strong believer that Telstra should be publicly accountable, it does have an obligation to meet certain principles which are policed by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission. I am told that these latest increases have been given the go ahead by the ACCC because they accord with the principles that have been laid down by the ACCC.
MITCHELL:
You have been critical of banks in the past and given that you are the chairman of the major shareholders isn';t it reasonable to ask what';s your view? Do they look a bit over the top? $2.2 billion profit#8230;
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but it';s a very large company, the largest#8230;
MITCHELL:
#8230;very large profit.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but you';ve got to look at the capitalisation of the company, if you look just look#8230;
MITCHELL:
.. doubled in the#8230;
PRIME MINISTER:
#8230; any amount of money that goes into the millions in insolation sounds big#8230;
MITCHELL:
No billions.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s $2 billion#8230;
MITCHELL:
And it doubled in six months.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but you';ve got to worry about the people who have invested in the company and the share price is lower than what it was. Look I find myself, every time the subject of Telstra comes up, I find myself in this ridiculous position of in effect having to answer for the company but I don';t run it, don';t want to run it, wouldn';t be able to run it as Prime Minister and it';s a ridiculous situation that Telstra remains in majority government ownership, it should either be one thing or the other and we believe that Telstra should be fully privatised and it would then be fully accountable in a total sense and you wouldn';t have this ridiculous position that every time something happens then it';s the responsibility of the Government yet it is not within our control. It is not the business of the Government to run the largest corporation in Australia, it';s the business of the Government to provide a good economic environment.
MITCHELL:
What do you think it would do to charges if it was privatised?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t think they';d be any higher. I mean is anybody, can I just make the simple observation, does anybody really believe that telecommunications in this country were better, relatively speaking, allowing for technology back in the good old, as they say, PMG days when you were lucky if you didn';t have a party line in many parts of rural Australia? I mean this idea that there was a golden age of telecommunications when it was the PMG is ridiculous.
MITCHELL:
Just some, one area you can be involved, are you aware Telstra charges police around Australia several million dollars a year to do phone checks they need done to catch crooks? Now they';re allowed to do that under the legislation, Telstra tells me that if you change the legislation they';ll stop doing it? They';re charging (inaudible) corporate citizens.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just make an, I';ll investigate that, I heard that earlier today, I wasn';t, well perhaps I should have been aware of it but I wasn';t and I will investigate that.
MITCHELL:
Okay, I appreciate that. 9696 1278 if you';d like to speak to the Prime Minister. Mr Howard, asylum seekers, these children the High Court has said the five of them can go back to detention, or should go back to detention I suppose legally, will they?
PRIME MINISTER:
We';re looking at that, the High Court decision is one that I welcome. The Government didn';t believe that the Family Court had the jurisdiction to make the decision it did and I welcome the fact that unanimously the justices of the High Court have determined that the Family Court doesn';t have that jurisdiction. We';re not going to automatically send the children back to where they came from, we';re having a look at that situation and we';re getting advice. Just because that decision has come down, and it';s a very good decision and it clearly validates the whole detention system that is operating in this country, that doesn';t mean that we have to send the children back to where they came from and it doesn';t mean that that will automatically and immediately happen#8230;
MITCHELL:
But there';s room for compassion.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well obviously there is and we';re looking at the whole situation. I haven';t had an opportunity yet to talk to the Immigration Minister, I think in fact she';s overseas at the moment, but I';ll try and talk to Gary Hardgrave today who';s the acting Minister and we';ll have a look at what the options are, we want to be compassionate, we are very pleased that the legal basis which underpins the detention system, the mandatory detention system has been validated in such an in, so it appears, in such an emphatic way by the High Court, a seven to nil decision of the High Court. It couldn';t speak more powerfully about what the highest court in the country thinks of the laws passed by the Parliament and that is, if I may say so, is as it should be. Parliament clearly wants a mandatory detention system. It was, in fact, originally introduced by the Labor Party when it was in Government, Mr Keating';s Government I think first it produced the mandatory detention system. So we';re, in a sense, seeing the highest court in the country supporting and validating the will of both sides of Parliament on this issue.
MITCHELL:
Aren';t the costs getting out of control, are you aware that the mother of these children with only a six month old baby is living in a hotel under 24 hour guard. Now what';s that costing us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it';s probably costing a lot and if you';re only worried about cost, you';d stop that.
MITCHELL:
$400,000 a day over all we';re told, $376 per asylum seeker.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know#8230;
MITCHELL:
That';s#8230;.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is expensive, but it would be infinitely more expensive if we gave signals to illegal, potential illegal immigrants around the world.
MITCHELL:
What about speeding it up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we do try and speed things up but the processes available to people eat up time and if you don';t observe due process then you';re pretty quickly taken to court and I understand that the time taken in relation to determining people';s status is as much if not more due to the invocation of the legal rights of these people as it is to the processes of the Government. I don';t want to deny them the legal rights they have.
MITCHELL:
Why is that woman under 24 hour guard, though? A one person#8230;
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it';s a question of her status.
MITCHELL:
Why is she in the motel?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, she';s in the motel for I guess the convenience reasons.
MITCHELL:
And 24 hour guard for one person and a baby for convenience reasons?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but what#8230; how do you suggest we deal with her?
MITCHELL:
I don';t know, put her with her kids.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean maybe that is a possibility. I';m going to talk to Gary Hardgrave about this today. I don';t pretend to carry the details of all the ins and outs of that with me, I#8230;
MITCHELL:
Fair enough. Can I ask you about something else? The American abuse of prisoners in these photographs. What';s your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I was appalled, but I note immediately and it should be said immediately in defence of the military that they are court marshal people, people who did far worse than that under Saddam Hussein were promoted, they weren';t court marshalled. They were lauded, they were encouraged with an instrument of state policy to do far worse than to murder people and to not just intimidate them, but to actually torture them and mutilate them and kill them, they weren';t court marshalled they were applauded applauded. Now I condemn what has apparently occurred. But I point out that the American military has relieved the relevant people. They are being court marshalled. It';s been made perfectly plain that that is not the conduct that represents the attitude and the behaviour of the American military in its entirety and inevitably sadly in an army of 150,000 you will get some people who will misbehave. But, of course, it';s wrong and it';s very unhelpful. But it';s a transparent society that admits that this sort of thing that might have happened and then makes these people accountable before that country';s military justice system. So give the Americans credit for openly saying yes it';s a problem, we';re going to punish people if they';ve committed crimes.
MITCHELL:
I';ve read that we';re sending some new vehicles to Iraq. Will we be fiddling the nature of our commitment there, for example bringing back certain types of soldiers and sending engineers or mechanics or something? Will that be changed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t rule that out. We haven';t decided at this stage to do it. But I leave open the possibility that the mix could change, I wouldn';t call it fiddling. I';d say the mix could change. I don';t rule that out.
MITCHELL:
In what way?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you might, for example, you could have a situation #8211; I am talking hypothetically here, let me stress this please, so that my opponents don';t grab hold of it and say, ah he';s promised something #8211; you could have one of the small groups that are doing certain things, their particular task could be completed but there could be another task that could be done in another area by a roughly equivalent number of people and if we thought the circumstances justified it we might possibly replace the first group with the second. Now we haven';t decided on any of those things, but I don';t want to use such tight language that I am then later accused of ruling as such a change in the mix of our forces out.
MITCHELL:
We need to take a break, we';ll come back with calls for the Prime Minister and some more questions, 96 96 12 78. Just before we go to the break Prime Minister #8211; when you were on that Hercules flying out of Baghdad and there was ducking and diving, did you personally feel frightened?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I felt tense. I wouldn';t say frightened. It all happened so very quickly and all of the#8230; I feel very confident in the RAAF people. I think everybody#8230; let';s put it like this #8211; I had the intercom system on and I was hearing everything that was being said. I didn';t interrupt the conversation. I didn';t want to disturb their concentration.
MITCHELL:
Were they going#8230; was the fear they were going to shoot at you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, well, they had these sensors and there was some reference at one point to the possible missile fix but it was very quickly dismissed as you know almost within the next breath. I think there was a reference made to a possible missile and then the fellow said nothing sighted. They claim to have these sensors and they';re trained to pick things up and sometimes they pick up a lot of things that aren';t threatening. But you do have to when you';re flying over that kind of zone, they fly them at a very low altitude for a long distance. And you can do that coming out of an airport like Baghdad because the terrain is very flat and it';s much harder for missiles to hit low flying aircraft than it is ones that are rising steeply. They';re a far easier target I am told and that seems to make sense, my recollection of physics.
MITCHELL:
We';ll take a break. Come back with more for the Prime Minister, including some calls in a moment.
[Commercial break]
MITCHELL:
It';s eleven to nine. The Prime Minister';s in our Brisbane studio and Lachlan, you';re speaking to him. Go ahead Lachlan.
CALLER:
Are you going to fund the Geelong bypass, Mr Howard please?
PRIME MINISTER:
That matter is being considered. I';m not in a position to announce the Government';s response. It';s one of a number of propositions. I should point out to you that under the existing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States that is a State responsibility. It is not a joint responsibility. It is a state responsibility. That doesn';t mean that in all cases where things are absolutely State responsibilities we don';t contribute additional funding. But we look after national highways. We fund local roads. We have what are called roads of national importance where we share funding with the states and the rest are the states'; responsibilities and under those rules the Geelong bypass falls into that category.
MITCHELL:
Thanks Lachlan. Ronan go ahead.
CALLER:
You mentioned recently, you wanted people to work longer. I';m still working and I';ve just turned 70 and I';ve found that my employer now no longer has to have an obligation to pay any super into my super scheme because the law says they don';t have to. Now, you want us to work a bit longer #8211; wouldn';t that be something worth looking at?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can see your point. I guess, you';ve got to strike a balance between obliging people to pay up to a certain point and then recognising that most people are to that point no longer in the workforce and it';s not reasonable to oblige the employer to make the contribution. We';d be very happy if most Australians felt they wanted to work up to about the age of 65 let alone as you have done and I applaud you for it #8211; up to 70. Our present position is we don';t want people to feel they have to, but we want the situation where if people wish to go on working they should be able to so and I';ll have a look at this idea of it being changed but it';s probably not a bad balance up to 70. The great problem is that there are too many people between the age of 55 and 65 who are prematurely retiring. If we could get people in that age cohort staying in the workforce longer then our problem would largely be solved.
MITCHELL:
Okay, Prime Minister, if bypass all of the chest thumping and attention seeking for a moment, can I ask you this #8211; are you comfortable with the head of one of your semi-judicial bodies, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the head of that, Professor Flint having what seems to be a close personal relationship with one of the people he';s supposedly helping to keep honest?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have sought some advice on those letters and I haven';t got the full advice yet. I understand why people would say that. But equally to be fair it';s not of itself a hanging offence to write one letter. I haven';t seen the other letters and obviously I';m seeking some advice on that and there are questions of judgements people have always got to exercise and I don';t know what the nature of their relationship is. I haven';t sought to inquire.
MITCHELL:
Have you spoken to Alan Jones or Professor Flint since this began?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven';t had any discussions with Flint and I have had one conversation with Alan Jones.
MITCHELL:
Was it on air or privately?
PRIME MINISTER:
Privately.
MITCHELL:
What was the nature of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it was a private conversation.
MITCHELL:
It';s a very public issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yep, I understand that but, I mean, you ask me a question and I give an honest answer.
MITCHELL:
Particularly when it';s alleged that he';s been attempting to use influence with you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he didn';t.
MITCHELL:
What about this time?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Definitely not.
MITCHELL:
Did he ring you or did you ring him.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, we had a conversation and I forget the sequence. But there';s no law against that is there?
MITCHELL:
No there isn';t provided it';s proper.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well providing, of course, I mean you and I perhaps#8230;
MITCHELL:
We';ve had private conversations.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah and has there been anything improper about those?
MITCHELL:
I don';t believe so, but I might have a different way to Alan Jones. I';m not a string puller, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t accept that Alan Jones has pulled strings with me. I know Alan Jones. I like him. I don';t deny that, but it';s perfectly possible to have a friendship with somebody without that person exserting undue influence.
MITCHELL:
What about Danna Vale, your Minister writing almost sycophantic letters to Alan Jones #8211; #8216;stay brave and true';?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, everybody has their own way of expressing things.
MITCHELL:
Are you embarrassed by that letter?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I don';t want to comment on it. I mean, everybody knows what was in it and there';s nothing wrong with somebody expressing a view is there?
MITCHELL:
I think there';s something improper about it. #8216;Thinking of you, Alan, and write to assure you of our warm support and add our names to the long list of all your friends. Stay brave and true';. Don';t you find that strange coming from a Minister to an independent broadcaster?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think she probably regrets now having sent it. But I haven';t spoken to her.
MITCHELL:
Did you urge Alan Jones to stay brave and true?
PRIME MINISTER:
What';s your next question?
MITCHELL:
What';s your view of politicians getting so close to people in this sort of position?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there';s nothing wrong with having a friendship providing it doesn';t lead to improper influence.
MITCHELL:
Well, the argument is that either you#8230;
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, there were friendships in the past, there have been very close friendships between people on the other side of politics and certain journalists. You know that as well as I do. But I';m not suggesting that there was impropriety.
MITCHELL:
The argument as put by John Laws was either you were lying or Alan Jones is #8211; what';s your answer to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m certainly not lying.
MITCHELL:
Is Alan Jones?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I wasn';t at that dinner party. I mean, there are two separate issues here, Neil. Aren';t there?
MITCHELL:
Yes, there are.
PRIME MINISTER:
What happened at the dinner party, I don';t know. I wasn';t there.
MITCHELL:
Is he given to boasting, Alan Jones, because that';s what the other possibility is?
PRIME MINISTER:
I was not at the dinner party okay?
MITCHELL:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I don';t know what happened. But I do know that the conversation claimed of Jones with me, that conversation did not take place, whether it was at Kirribilli House, at no stage has Alan Jones ever threatened me. He puts views about things, of course, he does. People know that. He writes to me about things.
MITCHELL:
Does he visit you at Kirribilli?
PRIME MINISTER:
He would have visited me at Kirribilli House, I think, in eight years he would have been to Kirribilli House three or four times in eight years. And I don';t think #8230;and there';d probably be 20 or 30 journalists who';ve been to the Lodge or Kirribilli House as frequently or more frequently than that in the time that I';ve been Prime Minister.
MITCHELL:
As I said, the real issue here isn';t all of the chest thumping, it';s independence. Are you satisfied with the integrity and independence of the Australian Broadcasting Authority?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I am. I know David Flint. I have known him for quite a while, not well but I have known him for quite a while and I';m satisfied with him. He';s an independent person and a person of integrity. He gets criticised by some because he expresses public views on political issues. But he';s not the first person who';s been head of a body like that to have done that. I mean, there was a time when the Chairman of the ABC took a very partisan political position on certain issues.
MITCHELL:
On to another issue #8211; are you satisfied with the security that will be available to the Australian team at the Athens Olympics because a document seems to have al Qaeda naming Australia as a possible target at the Olympics?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven';t because it';s still a view months. It';s not something that I';ve made some specific inquiries about to date. But I will as the event gets close. I mean, I have been told that all sorts of precautions have been taken. I';ve been told that and I will actually satisfy myself of that, as much as possibly can.
MITCHELL:
And I assume the Government will make a recommendation to people on whether it';s safe to travel or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will continue to issue travel advisories. Yes.
MITCHELL:
Just finally, the health funds are looking for an 8% increase #8211; will they get it, it be the fourth year in a row?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I just saw that report. I haven';t been given any advice as to whether that';s correct or not. They';ve only just had an increase and I would say to them any talk about a further increase is unwelcome.
MITCHELL:
But will the increase be approved?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, of course, how can I talk about something that I don';t know is going to happen and if it does happen, it won';t happen for another year.
MITCHELL:
Fair enough.
PRIME MINISTER:
You know, I try and be prescient but I am not quite that good.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
In our Brisbane studio, the Prime Minister Mr Howard.
[ends]