MITCHELL:
In our Sydney studio is the Prime Minister, he will take calls, homosexual and heterosexual (inaudible) discrimination. 96 96 12 78. Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
MITCHELL:
If consenting homosexual adults want to get married, why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because the common understanding in our society of a marriage is a union between a man and woman and it has over centuries acquired a special status in our society, primarily but not only of course for the having of children and the rearing of children. I'm not suggesting that everybody who gets married must have children. I'm not saying that at all. But it is seen as the bedrock institution. It's seen of a union of a man and a woman and that ought to be entrenched in law.
MITCHELL:
Why? I mean, time...
PRIME MINISTER:
Because in other countries it was taken for granted that gay people would never want the same status as heterosexual people in marriage but that has changed. There is a strong possibility that people will go to jurisdictions such as British Columbia and Massachusetts entering the gay marriages arrangements there, come back to Australia and seek declarations in this country that those marriages should be recognised under Australia law. Now I think this is something on which the representatives of the people should speak, not the courts. This is something which should be decided by the public and I think it's only right that the law should be affirmed, the law as we've always understood it but which might be under challenge should be affirmed by this change.
MITCHELL:
Where is the danger in change?
PRIME MINISTER:
The danger in change is that if you don't preserve it for what it is commonly understood to be, its value over time I believe will be reduced.
MITCHELL:
Things we've commonly understood over the years have changed significantly and probably changed for the better.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, some have and some haven't. I think society is generally better now than what it was several generations ago. But I think people would argue the toss in certain areas, but just focusing on this, obviously marriage has a special status and one of the reasons it has a special status is that there is... it is a union between a man and women, hopefully but is not always for life, and I believe if you allow unions between men and men or women and women to be given the same status it will over time erode the value and therefore, erode the special character and therefore the contribution to society of marriage.
MITCHELL:
Are you surprised Labor supports you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I think they're just being entirely political.
MITCHELL:
What, if they win the election will they change it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I'm not saying that. I don't know what they'd do. I just think they're into the business of not disagreeing on things because they don't want to have an argument about.
MITCHELL:
Have you been told my some of your Members of Parliament this is a threat to voters?
PRIME MINISTER:
Some people don't agree with it but the overwhelming majority agree with it very strongly.
MITCHELL:
96 96 12 78 if you'd like to speak to the Prime Minister. What about adoption... why the hard line on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's not a hard line. I think children, all things being equal, should be given the opportunity of growing up with a mother and a father. I think most of your listeners believe that. And when governments legislate, they not only legislate to have an effect in society but they also legislate to express a view, set a standard to establish a benchmark and I am unapologetic in asserting that every kid brought into this world ought to have the right to grow up with a mother and a father, I really do.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Can I ask you about something else.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MITCHELL:
Petrol prices are still high. Would you look at reducing tax to cap the price?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's very expensive. We, three years ago, got rid of the automatic indexation of petrol excise and we also cut the level of excise and as a result of those two moves I can say to your listeners that petrol is five to six cents a litre cheaper than it would have otherwise been. But if you take a cent off the excise and bear in mind that excise is levelled on the volume of the product, it's unrelated to price, it's the GST component, all of which goes to the states and that's governed by the .. it's influenced by price fluctuations.
MITCHELL:
And that's bringing in a hell of a lot more.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it will over a period of time it is and it's all going to the states and I suppose you have eight faxes on your desk offering from the states and territories offering to surrender some of that GST! We can't take that away under the intergovernmental agreement. But just going back to the excise - it's $150 to $200 million a year that would cost us to reduce excise by one cent a litre. Now if you thought you could temporarily, and I'm not saying that we're in favour of this, I don't want that to be thought, but if you were to argue, one were to argue that you could reduce it for a period of time while petrol was very expensive and then put it back up again - forget it, the Senate would never allow you to do that.
MITCHELL:
What about... well you've got a tax on tax, what about removing the GST on excise, that would save probably two to three cents.
PRIME MINISTER:
But we've already, Neil, we went through all of this about three years ago and...
MITCHELL:
And that was an election year too.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but it was also a great deal of justice in what we did with the automatic indexation of excise.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, but you have a GST on the excise. You've got a tax on the tax.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but Neil, there have been compensatory arrangements in relation to that. Look, we...
MITCHELL:
Not for motorists.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, Neil, I know the high prices are unpopular but they are not due to the Federal Government.
MITCHELL:
Oh, but you could do something about...
PRIME MINISTER:
And it would be $150 to $200 million for every cent and you take a cent off, you think that would...
MITCHELL:
That's over a year, nobody's saying you'd need a year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, Neil, how would you put it back up again?
MITCHELL:
Well, I don't know. You've got rooms full of bureaucrats who can...
PRIME MINISTER:
... these things are governed by law, they're not governed by bureaucrats. If we cut the excise, to cut the excise you've got to put a bill through the Parliament, put a law through, and I can be as certain as I talk to you that if we put a bill up to cut the excise for a period of time with the intention of putting it back up again the Opposition would find a way of yes, voting for it to come down but stopping it going up again, why wouldn't they? They'd be politically opportunistic. But quite apart from that, there is an argument that many people might agree that much in all as they don't like high petrol prices, maybe there are other things that a government could better spend, even for a short period of time, about $150 to $200 million a year.
MITCHELL:
Do you agree though that petrol prices is inflationary, the diesel price is high, airlines are putting on fuel levies? It is a risk to inflation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I agree with that.
MITCHELL:
And that's ... interest rate.
PRIME MINISTER:
But I also agree that we are living in a time of very low inflation and I also know that the current high price of petrol is due to the high price of crude oil around the world and that, although it's likely to continue for a while yet, it's not indefinite and I believe it will over time return to a more normal level.
MITCHELL:
Just a final point - and there is almost, in a dollar, almost 50 cents of that is tax.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well... when you say... I mean, of course we can cut the excise, but I'm arguing that given the other priorities that governments have, many people would assert, certainly in the short term, you could better spend that money on something else.
MITCHELL:
Mark Latham's got a press conference at the Sydney service station on Sunday. Do you know what he's up to?
PRIME MINISTER:
No idea.
MITCHELL:
Right, we'll take calls for the Prime Minister. Sally, go ahead.
CALLER:
My question for the Prime Minister is, and he's said many times that most Australians tolerate the lifestyle choice of gay and lesbians, there's no proof that most Australians tolerate it, it's not a choice, it's innate and it begs the question why the Prime Minister wants to create a second class citizenry of the gay and lesbian people just for them being who they are.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not, that's...
CALLER:
You are.
PRIME MINISTER:
We will have to agree to disagree that that is not the case and I don't think most reasonable people would agree with you.
MITCHELL:
Thank you Sally. Elliot, hello.
CALLER:
Good morning Neil and good morning Prime Minister. First up call, so I'm a bit nervous. Mr Howard, Prime Minister Howard, I am a long time Liberal supporter, I am an immigrant, (inaudible) that I voted for you. I've been in a long term relationship with my partner for eight years, we are both Liberal supporters.
MITCHELL:
What sex is your partner Elliot, I wouldn't normally ask...
CALLER:
Male. We are a gay couple, in a committed monogomous long term relationship and I couldn't imagine voting for anybody else. I support the Prime Minister on Iraq; I supported him on his economic principles; I am a chartered accountant by profession; we pay lots of taxes, we are in small business. And I'd like to ask the Prime Minister how does he expect me to vote for him when he's so clearly discriminating against myself and my partner.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can argue a whole lot of reasons. I mean, for example, do you have any superannuation arrangements with your partner?
CALLER:
No, we are both (inaudible) individuals.
PRIME MINISTER:
But you could under the new laws that we're proposing which liberalise the taxation treatment of superannuation passing between people in your relationship, you could gain a significant, your surviving partner rather, gain a significant tax benefit.
CALLER:
I do appreciate the change in superannuation and I...
PRIME MINISTER:
You asked me why, well if you're small businessman you'd agree that we've had the best economic conditions in this country for 30 or 40 years, you may not have experienced them earlier but I'm sure you realise you've got very low interest rates, if you want your business to prosper you shouldn't have a Labor Government. If you don't want union heavies coming into your business, I don't know (inaudible) chartered accountant, I don't know if union heavies have come around to the accountancy firms yet, they will in time. I mean, there are a whole lot of reasons I can give.
CALLER:
I agree with you Prime Minister. My question is, once again, I have been in a relationship for eight years with the same person. We haven't even discussed marriage. The issue comes across to me as a staunch Liberal supporter that you are using this purely as a wedge issue. Now the debate is whether I could vote for Labor by definition it's something I've never considered (inaudible) I am in a marginal seat. But I do have taken this onboard personally and I just think that you should consider that and consider the position of myself and people like myself. We are not all the typical (inaudible) you see on television. We are the conservative libertarians who sit at home and watch you and appreciate the work that you've done and you have offended us.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not setting out to do that. I realise in public life what you do sometimes offends some people. It's not designed to do that. But I equally don't apologise for putting to the law the simple proposition that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman hopefully for life. That doesn't in any way prevent people having same sex relationships. It doesn't express a view on whether they should have same sex relationships. What is does do is to affirm in our law that marriage is a bedrock institution of our society and I would put to you, and you're obviously a highly intelligent man and I respect the candour with which you've expressed your view, I would put to you that there is absolutely nothing incompatible and nothing intolerant about it. On one hand, respecting a same sex relationship and the sincerity of it but on the other hand saying that given the history of the institution and its contribution particularly to the bringing into the world of children and the rearing of future generations, marriage is a special institution that does deserve a special status and I don't seek any incompatibility between that and complete tolerance towards the sort of relationship that you have.
MITCHELL:
Elliot, thank you for calling. We'll take a quick break and come back with more from the Prime Minister in our Sydney studio.
[advertisement break]
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister is in our Sydney studio. I have a lot of issues to raise, so I'll try to be quick. Mr Howard, this probably is a state matter, but it does involve the Australian Crime Commission. We're getting daily reports about corruption issues in Victoria. Do you believe we need a further state crime commission?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would... I think there is a case for it. I don't really want to buy into an area that is particularly related to Victoria, but there does seem to be growing concern in the community and I support the decision that has been taken by Robert Doyle on this.
MITCHELL:
The three Australians now being held without charge - two at Camp X-ray, one in Iraq. Another eyewitness says Mr Habib is being tortured at Camp X-ray. Two years without charge is too long, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would like them to be brought before the military commission. I have been pressing for that and it is an issue that I will pursue again when I am in the United States.
MITCHELL:
What will you put to the United States government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm just saying that they should be brought to trial as soon as possible. Now I understand that discussions, plea bargaining discussions have been going on. There has been a whole lot of discussions. And I know progress is being made, but I would like that accelerated.
MITCHELL:
What about the torture?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have sought an official investigation into that by the United States authorities. Previously, assurances have been given that that hasn't occurred. And beyond what has been asserted in public, and bear in mind some of that at least involves a person who was sympathetic to and worked with the Taliban, now beyond that I'm not aware of other allegations, but we have sought assurances and guarantees. I can repeat that when our consulate people have visited David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay and when the Red Cross have visited him, he has not complained. In fact his lawyer said in November or December of last year that he was very grateful for the kind treatment he had received from his guards. And it is the case that the great bulk of the complaints about alleged torture and ill treatment have only arisen following the publication of those awful photographs Abu Ghraib.
MITCHELL:
Could I ask you about those photographs at issue, and it's quite a simple point. When did Australia or Australian officials find out about prisoners being abused?
PRIME MINISTER:
The advice I have is that the abuse allegations or allegations in relation to abuse, as distinct from a Red Cross report in October that was critical of conditions - that is food, of clothing and of communications opportunities with families - that was in earlier this year, I think about February, I'd have to check the file to say exactly which, and reference to those reports was communicated from Baghdad to other officials in Canberra. The complaints have been made to the American and British authorities. The American and British authorities had indicated that they were responding, and in fact the Americans had made a statement I think on the 16th of January to the effect that allegations had been made and they had been investigating them. I have said before and I repeat, I became conscious of them along with a lot of other people when those photographs were published in April.
MITCHELL:
So when this report went to Major George O'Kane in October, it didn't specify abuse of prisoners?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. This is what I'm told by the Defence Department.
MITCHELL:
Well who did Major O'Kane inform about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand he would have informed some of his Defence superiors.
MITCHELL:
And that wasn't raised with Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it certainly wasn't raised with me.
MITCHELL:
Should it have been?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well not necessarily because if he... if it didn't involve... firstly it didn't involve any Australians. I mean that's the first thing. I mean can I just say again and again, in fairness to the Australian personnel who are serving in Iraq, they've had nothing to do with this business.
MITCHELL:
Well I wanted to ask you about that because Amnesty are saying that Australia is as guilty...
PRIME MINISTER:
Amnesty is wrong. I mean so in other words we now have a situation where if an abuse is committed by personnel of another army and we're not involved in it, we disapprove of it, we condemn it, in some way we are responsible. I mean I think that is the kind of, you know, absurd, unjust guilt by association which is an impression attempted to be generated by the Government's critics on this. You keep talking about it, when did you know, what did you know. The whole idea is to build the impression that in some way we are part of it.
MITCHELL:
Well let's address it just one other way. Major O'Kane found out in October, he told his authorities. Did they tell the Defence... did they tell Senator Hill?
PRIME MINISTER:
My understanding is that, and Senator Hill has made a statement in Parliament about this, that Senator Hill's awareness of the allegations of serious abuse was the same as mine.
MITCHELL:
So he wasn't told what Major O'Kane had reported.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but you've got to understand that if he weren't told, there is nothing...
MITCHELL:
Well shouldn't he have been told?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not necessarily.
MITCHELL:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say again it did not involve Australians. We didn't have anybody in our custody. We were not involved in any interrogations. We did not witness any interrogations.
MITCHELL:
We have taken prisoners.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but all of those prisoners were in the formal legal custody of Americans who were embedded or placed in our units. And the reason for that is that because our force was the size it was, we had no capacity to take prisoners of war. The only powers that had a physical capacity to take prisoners of war were the Americans and the British, and therefore the arrangement was that even if custody, physical custody, were taken by Australians, there were American officers or personnel there who accepted the formal legal custody of those prisoners of war.
MITCHELL:
But isn't it reasonable, say as part of the coalition of the willing, we can either be seen as an accessory after the fact or at least...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, an accessory after the fact is somebody who does something to help or harbor or relieve...
MITCHELL:
At least have a...
PRIME MINISTER:
... after they've committed a crime, and we have not done that. It's quite unfair on our defence personnel for that...
MITCHELL:
I'm not having a go at the defence personnel. I'm having a go at the Government because I argue that the Government should have objected strongly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well I'm saying it's unfair on us. I mean 'accessory after the fact' has a particular meaning.
MITCHELL:
Well what about...
PRIME MINISTER:
...it's not fair. I mean we became as a Government, we became aware... I mean speaking for myself as Prime Minister and it's my understanding that this applies in relation to both Mr Downer and Senator Hill, that we became aware, conscious of this in April, and of course by then an American and British response was well underway. I mean the Americans, to be fair to them, did announcing in January this year that allegations had been made and they were investigating, they did appoint Major General Taguba to carry out a major investigation. I mean the Americans, to be fair to them and to be fair to the 140,000 Americans who are serving in Iraq, they have been very active, they are bringing people to justice, they're putting them on trial. I mean whatever you say about the Americans (inaudible) thing is brought out, they do do something in a very transparent way to try and deal with it.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Can I ask you a couple of other things quickly. I'm told your private polling shows you could lose 35 seats at the election. Is that right?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't comment on my party polling.
MITCHELL:
Well you agree the public polls show you can't win.
PRIME MINISTER:
The current public polls, if repeated, would mean we'd lose, of course they do.
MITCHELL:
Do you see another Tampa on the horizon? What's going to win it for you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, it's a long way yet before the election. Polls have been bad for us in the past, but I'm a realist. If an election were last weekend, of course we would have lost it. We didn't have an election last weekend and we're not having one the next couple of weekends either.
MITCHELL:
Peter Costello complains about tricky questions from journalists, so no trick, just a simple and direct one. If you win the next election, will you stay the full term?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll stay as long as the party wants me to and it's in the party's best interests.
MITCHELL:
With respect, that's a tricky answer.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not a tricky answer. It's a truthful answer.
MITCHELL:
Do you not know if you'll stay the long term?
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I'll stay as long as my party wants me to and it's in the party's interests that I do.
MITCHELL:
And if the party wants you the full term, you'll stay?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll stay, Neil, I'll stay as long as my party wants me to and it's in the party's interests. I mean it's not tricky. It's a statement of the truth. Somebody who has been in parliament for a few years, as I have, who enjoys very good health, who likes the job, but sensibly that is the attitude I should have and it's the attitude I do have and it's the attitude I will continue to have.
MITCHELL:
This man in Sydney, Izhar Ul-Haque, the Pakistani man who has now out on bail. Held in solitary and high security for six weeks. Now we're told he's no threat to Australia. Now this has been mucked up. I mean he shouldn't have been made...
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to comment and I won't comment. This is a matter for the courts. I don't want to say anything that could have any conceivable effect on the proper dispensation of justice.
MITCHELL:
You're meeting the Californian Governor Arnie Schwarzenegger next week, who did have a career before he was Governor of California. What's your favourite Arnie movie? Have you ever seen them?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've seen Terminator, of course I have, but I haven't sort of fixed the appointment to talk about his movie career. I want to talk about selling some natural gas.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay.