COX:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Tim.
COX:
Can I ask you first of all about this, obviously very important news this morning and that's the attack on a RAAF transport plane in Iraq this morning. What detail are you able to give us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the information I've been given is that it was attacked with small arms fire, sadly an American civilian defence contractor travelling on the C-130 was killed. I don't know more detail than that. There were no Australians killed or injured. The C-130 returned to Baghdad Airport and further information I await. But I'm given to understand that the damage to the aircraft was not extensive, but the sad thing of course is that one of the passengers, an American civilian contractor, was killed by the small arms fire. This does illustrate yet again just how dangerous is the task being undertaken by the Australians and these pilots of C-130s are in the direct line of fire.
COX:
Do you maintain your position that Australia's troops should be where they are, particularly now and after an attack on Saturday as well, are coming closer perhaps to a front line as the return of power to the Iraqis...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I certainly do maintain my position. These incidents, and we hope and pray they won't get worse, these incidents involving Australians drive home the fact that there is a job and work to be done, there is a security risk and if we were to leave now it would send a terrible signal. There's a very crucial fight going on in Iraq at the present time, here is a country, an Arab country trying to embrace democracy and every attempt is being made by admitted terrorists to stop the transfer taking place. And I admire the stance that has been taken by the provisional prime minister Dr Allawi. He'll be in charge of his country's affairs later this week. He's making it very clear that he's speaking on behalf of the majority of Iraqis in asking the multi national force, of which Australia is part, to stay. We'll only stay there while we're asked to stay by the Iraqis. There's no indication however that they want us to go and there's no indication they want the Americans or the British or the Koreans and the Japanese and the Thais and the other forces from different parts of the world, there are something like 33 countries that in different ways are contributing forces to Iraq.
COX:
Will it be appropriate...?
PRIME MINISTER:
If the terrorists win and they succeed in driving countries out and they succeed in stopping Iraq becoming a democracy that will be enormously significant around the world and it will be a huge victory for the terrorists. And if it's good enough for us to go why isn't it good enough for other countries to leave as well?
COX:
Is it appropriate, Prime Minister, for you to ask the incoming prime minister in Iraqi if he has a timeframe for how long Australian, Thai, United States troops will be required there?
PRIME MINISTER:
We've already received indications that they want us to stay until the country is stabilised. It's impossible for anybody at the moment, it might be possible as weeks and months go by, it might be possible for people to start talking about likely departure times, but right at the moment for people to be talking about a departure when we're right on the eve of transfer is counter productive.
COX:
While this is the first time an Australian aircraft has been hit in an attack, I understand it's not the first time one's been fired on, there was a school of thought Prime Minister that the plane on which I think you left Baghdad was fired on as well. Is that right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there was a suggestion at one point that there was a missile attack but then nothing was sighted. But flying out of Baghdad on a C-130 is hazardous and has probably become more hazardous in the past couple of months and the journalist who reported for Channel Nine this morning, Robert Penfold, indicated that he had come in on the very aircraft that had been fired upon. This is a dangerous operation, any suggestion that our troops are there in a tokenistic way is so wrong. It's been demonstrated to be wrong, dramatically wrong, by these tragic events this morning.
COX:
I don't wish to appear unnecessarily pessimistic about this but is it perhaps drawing inevitable that there will be an Australian casualty and possibly an Australian fatality in the coming weeks as the change over happens?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I am not going to be speculate about something like that, don't ask me to speculate about something like that please. All I can say, I know on behalf of all Australians, is that I hope and pray there are no casualties for Australia.
COX:
I don't think anyone would disagree, but are you concerned at having to break that news to the Australian people?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, Tim, I'm not going to hypothesise about something as serious as that.
COX:
We'll go to calls for the Prime Minister, 23 minutes to ten. Here's Matthew in Queenstown, first up. Matthew, good morning.
CALLER:
Oh, good morning, Tim. Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
The substance of my call was mostly to see if you could give some more light on that issue whether you're going to remain in politics for the full next term and it looks like you very well may get back in. And secondly, I was just wondering if you could comment on whether or not you thought that the Liberal Party was becoming more of a conservative party under your tutelage?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the question of whether we're going to win the next election, I hope you're right. I don't take it for granted, I think it will be very hard for us to win and I never take the Australian people for granted. As far as my own future is concerned, I'll remain leader of the Party for as long as the Party wants me to and it's in the Party's best interests that I do. I don't put a time on that, it's foolish to try and do so. Now, as far as whether we're becoming a conservative party or a liberal party, the Liberal Party in Australia has always in a way been a mixture of conservatism and liberalism. I have conservative views on some things, I have very liberal views on others and I think it's a mistake to try and define the party as being either liberal in a small l sense or conservative, it contains elements of both because that is our tradition as a party. I don't believe in changing practices or institutions unless they are failing the national interest. But when they do, I'm in favour of very significant change. I, for example, have argued very strongly in my political life changes to Australia's industrial relations system because I thought the old conservative system was failing the national interest and I'm glad I did argue that. On the other hand, where institutions continue to function effectively and promote the national interest, I'm not in favour of changing them. It's a question of adopting a pragmatic attitude and the Liberal Party of Australia has always been able to combine elements of both conservatism and liberalism in the classical sense in order to promote the national interest.
COX:
On which issues Prime Minister would you say you are more liberal, that is less conservative?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, certainly on economic policy. I mean, the debate on economics in this country over the last 20 or 30 years has been between the conservatives in an economic sense who want to continue to highly regulate the economy, who supported high tariff protection, who were against areas of deregulation, who wanted as much government intervention as possible and those such as myself who argued that the benefits of a freer more open economy would be better for the national interest. So certainly in economic policy, I would regard myself as being very liberal.
COX:
Let's go to Ruth in Glenorchy now. Thank you Matthew for your call. Good morning, Ruth.
CALLER:
Good morning, Mr Howard. I belong to a group of grandchildren, grandparents raising grandchildren. Now we are a huge group...
PRIME MINISTER:
And a very admirable group.
CALLER:
Thank you and most of us are on pensions and we are struggling to bring up our grandchildren on our pensions and what little money they get. And I was wondering if there's anything in your budget that can help us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if any of you fall into the category of carers as defined under the relevant legislation, there are quite a number of significant things that were included in the budget, including a one off payment and also an extension of the carers' payment. Now, I know not all of you would fall into that category, but I just take the opportunity of mentioning it. Where you obviously have the direct care and custody well there are entitlements that you should have. But separately from that, I agreed at the meeting on Friday because this issue was discussed very briefly, that's the Premiers' conference, well it's called the Council of Australian Governments but I think everybody knows it as the Premiers' conference, this issue was raised and I undertook to see whether there were any further areas in relation to the responsibilities of grandparents that could be covered. But where obviously there is a custodial responsibility well you should be entitled to certain payments.
CALLER:
Yeah, we get a carers' allowance which is $28 a fortnight. Now, I mean, that's laughable. I mean, you can't feed a child for $28 a fortnight and then we get, well some of us get the family tax benefit and...
PRIME MINISTER:
Do you get the family tax benefit?
CALLER:
No, I don't because my grandchild is over 16 and she's at college, so she... that turns into the youth allowance and...
PRIME MINISTER:
... yes it goes into the youth.... Yeah, well, I mean, the point I'm making is that in many cases if you do have the full care and responsibility for your grandchild you get the same benefits that would apply if it were your own child and what you're really asking is whether in certain circumstances that can be made more.
CALLER:
Yeah, I understand that, but I mean this $28 a fortnight, I mean that's laughable, I mean what can you do with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the family tax benefit is of course not laughable and the family tax benefit in relation to children under 16 has been significantly increased in the most recent budget and those grandparents who are entitled to the full family tax benefit of course would not only have received a one-off $600 payment in the last couple of weeks but they would be entitled to receive the $600 increase on an annual basis that is going to take effect from and after the 1st of July. We can always, I mean in all of these areas there is always room to do more and one of the responsibilities that is always a guess a need to do more let me put it that way, and what governments have to try and do is to assess where it can best provide additional assistance. We believe that in the family support area the provisions contained in the last budget were good and they were helpful and the reaction I have received around Australia is that people who have the care and responsibility of children, whether they're parents or grandparents, if they're getting the family tax benefit they appreciated very much what effectively is $1200 per child increase this year and $600 per child increase in subsequent years.
COX:
Ruth, we'll need to leave it there, thanks for the call. It's 16 to 10 on ABC Tasmania, my guest is the Prime Minister John Howard and we go to Shirley in Dynnyrne, g'day there Shirley.
CALLER:
Good morning. Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
Last time you were here on Tasmania talkback some questions were censored. I tried to ask you then a question on Mr Latham's decision to bring the Australian troops back from Iraq before Christmas but I wasn't allowed to ask that question, this time I am. Can you tell me what Mr Latham actually intends to do, as Mr Rudd seems to have altered that position.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not entirely certain as to what the Labor Party will do if it wins the election, I am confused, I think everybody's confused. The general position is that we should really be pulling our forces back after the 30th of June and the reason that Christmas has come into it is from a practical point of view that is the earliest opportunity that forces could be withdrawn if a Labor government were to be elected at the election later this year. But as a matter of policy Mr Latham has said, and he's never retreated from this, that our forces should really come back once power has been handed over to the Iraqis and that will occur in a few days time, now that is plainly an irresponsible position to have and one that the Government doesn't support. What is unclear is precisely what elements of the Australian forces would be bought back, would we bring back the C-130's, would we leave some military units to protect our embassy in Baghdad? The Labor Party tends to chop and change on that, depending on who is articulating the policy. And I can only take them at their unambiguous word and the unambiguous articulation of their policy is that all of the people come home on the, you know as soon as possible after a Labor Government is elected and that would include the whole 950 and in the absence in a full explanation of precisely what the policy is it's very hard to work out. See the difficulty with this is that Mr Latham never really puts out a full statement which explains in detail exactly what he intends to do, he deals with it on a bit by bit basis as he answers questions on radio interviews and this is too serious a matter to leave up in the air like that. So I'm not the least bit surprised that you are confused because quite frankly I am too and I think many Australians are. But the most unambiguous statement of his policy is that they all come home by Christmas, but in reality he's saying to us that we should start pulling them out later this week, well not literally later this week but once the handover has occurred his policy really is that there's no need for them to be there anymore because their job has been completed. Now that is plainly a ridiculous position to have and not one that we would embrace.
COX:
I think most people Prime Minister see that the deadline is still Christmas. If I can ask you something about...
PRIME MINISTER:
It's not really a deadline, I mean that's a practical date, I mean the point I'm making is that he himself has said that the earliest practical date that they could bring them home, meaning they a Labor government, would be Christmas. But as a matter of policy he has argued that if they were in office now, literally, they would be saying that they can home straight away.
COX:
There's no equivocation at all, and thanks to Shirley for the call, there's no equivocation at all from Labor on whether or not the parties, the political parties, should be paying for advertising and Mark Latham suggested yesterday that the advertising blitz the Government is conducting is in fact Liberal Party and Coalition...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't support that...
COX:
... bill for $123 million.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this is a stunt, I mean I think the Australian public are entitled to a refund of the money from Centenary House where the Labor Party is getting straight out of the taxpayers' pocket a rent which is way above the market rate. But I can just deal for example with the criticism that Mr Latham has made, the changes to Medicare, there was a necessity to explain those changes, the new safety net arrangements are very valuable and it's very important that people understand how they work and I think it was necessary to have an advertising campaign and that is a campaign that has been running very strongly and the new safety new arrangement means that if you're on family tax benefit A as a family or you're a concession card holder once you're out of hospital, out of pocket expenses get to over $300 a year you get 80 per cent of the excess back, for the rest of us the threshold is $700. Now this is an extremely valuable protection, it's an extremely important addition to the social security safety net and it's very important that the Australian public hear about it. So I mean I would understand Mr Latham's argument if you were spending public money attacking him, that would be political, I can understand his argument if you're spending public money promoting the philosophy of the Liberal Party. But when you're actually explaining a new government policy I don't agree with him.
COX:
So are the new guidelines Labor's talking about with regard to political advertising not appropriate for the sort of advertising that's currently in place?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't accept that the sort of ad that I've just talked about is political, that's the point I'm making. Now I mean I'm not quite sure what their new guidelines are and I read the statement yesterday and then I read this morning that he was going to have an independent body to make a determination, well I mean I'm not quite sure once again what he has in mind, I think it is more in the nature of a stunt to try and divert attention from his embarrassment over Centenary House.
COX:
Is that funding, the number he's come up, $123 million, accurate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends where you start from and it depends what you include in it. I mean there's a lot of government advertising that goes on all the time, I mean does anybody seriously regard government advertising dealing with things like recruiting as unjustified or political? Surely not.
COX:
Alright, well (inaudible) see what other people say. Let's go to Kettering where Trevor is on the phone. Trevor, good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning, good morning Prime Minister. Just a question about the safety net, that's a great improvement to what it was. Why couldn't it have been extended to concession card holders that go into private hospital to have surgery done, after all it does alleviate the pressure on the public hospitals. In one question of...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the purpose of the safety net Sir was to deal with out of hospital expenses. The view being that Medicare provides you with free in-hospital treatment and if you are privately insured well you get the benefit of that private insurance and it's the out of hospital, out of pocket expenses that the safety net was designed to cover because that is an area...
CALLER:
I understand...
PRIME MINISTER:
... not adequately covered at the present time.
CALLER:
But your private health fund, even at the top level, only covers you for 25 per cent. So the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look you can always do more but it's a question of whether doing even more is justified, but the great thing about the safety net is that if you go, if you have an illness and you've got to go and see the doctor a lot and you haven't got a bulk bulling doctor, or even if you have got a bulk billing doctor you've got to go and see a specialist and a lot of the specialists consultations levels of bulk billing are not high, you can pretty quickly, if you're a family, rack up that $300 a year or even without a family as an individual rack it up and it's a huge additional piece of reassurance.
CALLER:
Granted that is, it's been a major help, it's just that the point...
PRIME MINISTER:
You'd just like it to be even more generous.
CALLER:
Yeah. It was just the point...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's something that obviously governments like to have these areas of support as generous as possible but on the other hand, I just have to say again that if you're treated in a public hospital, Medicare covers the in-hospital expenses and if you're privately insured it is really against hospital expenses that you have the private insurance.
CALLER:
Yeah, yeah but it's still not adequate really to cover you because on a $4000 overnight stay in a private hospital the patient was out of pocket, a concession card holder, of $1,000.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'd have to say to you sir that we do have a system where people can either opt to have that or opt to be treated under Medicare, where that out of pocket expense doesn't occur.
COX:
Trevor, we'll leave your call there, thank you. It's six minutes to 10 on ABC Tasmania, the Prime Minister John Howard is my guest. Can I ask you about Telstra and your plans for Telstra if re-elected, Mr Howard, and it comes following a fax from Rosalie at Scottsdale in the North-East of the state who wonders why Scottsdale, 67 kilometres from Launceston, a 50 minute drive, doesn't have broadband internet yet. So what are you thinking about Telstra and also the provision of services in regional areas in states like Tasmania?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in a way they're not completely identical issues, obviously we remain of the view that it's foolish to have Telstra neither fish nor fowl. It's half government owned and half privately owned, and because of that, it's impossible for it to operate in the way that a major corporation should be able to operate and there are a lot of limits on what it can do, and that is not of great benefit to the many hundreds of thousands of individual Australians who are shareholders in Telstra. We are putting more and more resources every year into expanding things like broadband and also expanding telecommunications, and I think it's fair to say over the years in relation to the sales of the two parcels of Telstra to date, different parts of Tasmania have been very well treated. Some people would argue that different parts of Tasmania have been better treated than any other parts of Australia. I think they've been fairly treated, and I think all the extra investment that we've put into Tasmania in relation to the proceeds of the sale of Telstra over the years have been very well justified. But we'll continue to argue for full privatisation and we obviously can guarantee that the people of Tasmania will not suffer as a result of that, and in fact I think they'll be better off.
COX:
The Premier here, Paul Lennon, has said that this state has been particularly poorly treated. We have Michelle O'Byrne, the sitting Member for Bass, on this morning saying that the budget measures pretty much missed Bass as well and that the Medicare bulk billing visits are plummeting in Bass. Does there need to be special consideration for other aspects of the state?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I saw Mr Lennon's statement. It was wrong, factually wrong, in so many areas. He said that I've been dealing in smoke and mirrors with the financial treatment of Tasmania. Tasmania as a result of the GST over the next five years is going to be $450 million better off as a state than it would have been if the old former Labor Government financial formula had been continued. There's nothing smoke and mirrors about the extra $450 million. The local Member talks about bulk billing. Tasmania is the only state in Australia that as a state has been given the extra $7.50 for bulk billing of children under 16 and cardholders. In other words, Tasmania as an entire state has been equivalent treatment to rural and regional areas in other parts of Australia. So it is absurd and it couldn't be more wrong of the local Member to make that comment. Perhaps she doesn't read policies closely enough or Government announcements closely enough. But the entire state, not just the rural areas of Tasmania, but the entire state, gets $7.50 extra, or the doctors do, for bulk billing children under 16 and cardholders. Now in other parts of the country, you have to be in a rural or regional area for that to occur. If you're living in Melbourne or Sydney, the figure is not $7.50. It's $5.00.
COX:
All right.
PRIME MINISTER:
So I really think therefore the claim by the local Member is based on ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.
COX:
How important is Bass to your reelection chances, do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well every marginal seat is important in an election campaign, whether it's held by the Opposition or whether it's held by the Government, and I know the electorate of Bass very well. I think in Michael Ferguson we have a very good candidate. But in the end the Australian people living in Bass will make a judgement whether they want the economy run by me and Peter Costello in the years ahead or whether they want it run by Mark Latham and Simon Crean. They will make that judgement and I hope they will make a favourable judgement. But it's going to be quite hard for the Liberal Party to win not only Bass, but also win the election generally, because when you've been in office for eight and a half years, people sometimes start thinking that change is desirable. But I think it's also fair to say that they want somebody who is experienced, and I think the great problem Mr Latham has is that I don't think anybody really knows what he believes in and what he stands for. He's sending a very confused signal. I was explaining his position, or trying to explain his position, on troop withdrawal a few minutes ago and you could see the difficulty I had, and it's a difficulty that growing numbers of Australians are experiencing.
COX:
Not that you'd put his weights up. Can I ask you just in five seconds if that chance for people to have their say on whether it be you and Peter Costello or Mark Latham will be sooner or later?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I haven't made up my mind when the election is. It has to be some time in the next few months, but exactly when I don't know. And people ask me these questions every time I do an interview but Tim, very genuinely I have not made up my mind. I don't know.
COX:
All right Prime Minister. We need to leave it there. Thanks indeed for your time today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]