MURRAY:
Good morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Paul. Great to be back with you again and I'm sorry it's taken a couple of days...
MURRAY:
Thanks for giving us time. Prime Minister, this state, our state, is facing a severe water crisis, arguably the worst in the nation, we'll argue that anyway. Premier Gallop says there was nothing in last Friday's national water initiative for WA. Why is that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's not true. Last Friday's agreement was really in two parts. It was about establishing a national code, if you like, for regulating water flows and trading in water rights and there's a lot in that for Western Australia, there's a lot in that for Western Australian farmers because for the first time, they could have been part of an agreement which guaranteed compensation for them under fair rules if their current water entitlements were taken away. You go and ask the Western Australian pastoralists what they think of Dr Gallop's refusal...
MURRAY:
Yes, they're angry.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they are the people who are going to be affected, along of course with people who live in Perth. So it was very much about establishing a sensible set of national rules which I think Western Australia and Western Australians would really want to be part of because we are all short of water, we're all part of this and it has to be solved nationally and not solved parochially. And the second part of it was of course to get the Murray Darling flowing, well that doesn't affect Western Australian, but then Western Australia wasn't being asked to pay for it.. There's $300 million coming from the states that are affected by it, the basin states, and $200 million coming from the Commonwealth. It was never a question last Friday of having a debate about extra money for individual state projects. I'm quite happy to talk to Dr Gallop, and I've told him this repeatedly, I told him this when we had a private discussion about the matter on the way down to Mr Bacon's funeral, I'm very happy to talk to him about individual projects. But I wasn't going to have last Friday's opportunity to have an historic national agreement hijacked by individual premiers who said we won't sign this unless you give my state a bucket load of money, it doesn't operate like that anymore, not since the GST. Dr Gallop, I assume, would not have told you in his interviews with you over the last day or so that over the next five years Western Australia will be $1.1 billion better off as a result of the flows of GST revenue than it would have been under the old revenue sharing arrangements that we inherited in 1996. We have a new order now in commonwealth/state relations. For years premiers, including premiers from Western Australia on both sides of politics, have complained that they didn't have access to a growth tax. We've given them access to a growth tax and the grants commission has in fact rewarded Western Australia quite significantly in the sharing of the GST pie, Western Australia and Queensland have done very well thank you out of that arrangement. Now that's fair enough, they're entitled to every last dollar they get. But I'm not going to have this argument run that the premiers' conferences are like the old order where the premiers wouldn't agree to anything unless they were bought off with the few hundred million dollars extra. Now I'm happy to talk to Dr Gallop about individual projects, I'm happy to talk to other premiers. I also reserve the right as Prime Minister to initiative water projects of our own in Western Australia because I'm determined that the people of Western Australia will be treated just as fairly as other parts of the country. And I just think their premier has let them down.
MURRAY:
Well, just let me get this matter of cost to WA clear. In the statement he put out after Friday, after you refused, he said this: "we would be exposing millions of dollars of Western Australian taxpayers' money to a scheme that returns nothing, except the prospect of higher charges for water users."
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm sorry, I don't think it returns nothing if you're going to establish a compensation regime...
MURRAY:
But what's the exposure of...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think what he's getting at is this, that over a period of five years, I'm told, the nationwide cost of taking back water entitlements that have been over-allocated could be in the order of about $120 million. Now my information, and I think Dr Gallop would find it hard to dispute this, is that the state where the greatest amount of over-allocation has occurred has been in New South Wales and that relatively speaking there is not a big over-allocation problem in Western Australia. The problem that Perth has in common with Sydney and the other major capitals is, of course, water restrictions because of reduced urban water flows and there are separate issues that have got to be addressed there and, obviously, state governments have big responsibilities there because they run the water system. But the state that has the big over-allocation problem is New South Wales and I just think this is a phoney argument by the Premier. I mean, he just thought that he could come to Canberra and say - I want a few hundred million dollars more for Western Australia and I'll play the old game, I won't sign unless they give it to me. The old game is past because we now have the GST. But could I make a prediction - Dr Gallop will sign the agreement and just as he took a long time to sign the salinity agreement, which was of great benefit to Western Australia because Western Australia on that issue has a bigger problem than many of the eastern states, salinity is a huge problem in Western Australia and in the end he signed that agreement.
MURRAY:
Who made the decision that all the remediation funds at the start of this process would go to Murray Darling?
PRIME MINISTER:
That was a decision that was made by COAG, by the council... organised by an earlier meeting because that is... I mean, all environmentalists agree that the biggest challenge we have at the present time is to do something about the Murray Darling Basin because of its critical importance to the food bowl of Australia and because the Murray Darling Basin affects a number of states. I mean, rivers flow across state borders, you can't look at this from a state point of view, you've got to look at it nationally - aquafiers lay under state borders. The Great Artesian Basin doesn't respect the border between New South Wales and Queensland. I mean, for heaven's sake, we have got to think as a nation on these issues.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, the Premiers are obviously very sceptical about the fact that you're saying you'll deal with them individually over projects in their states, what they're saying, and Peter Beattie has actually come out in (inaudible), they're saying that you'll just use this as an environmental pork barrel running up to the election.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we will commit resources, any commonwealth resources committed will be to worthwhile individual projects. But we're not going to have a situation where having given the states what they've asked for for generations and that is a growth tax, the states will be $9 billion collectively better off over the next five years under the GST arrangement than they would have been under the previous revenue sharing arrangements. And that is unconditional extra money and they can do what they like with it. Well they cannot take that, say thank you very much for the dividend from a tax system I opposed anyway, but thank you very much and then say, righto despite that the old rules still apply, we won't agree to anything that's in the national interest unless you give us a few hundred million dollars to buy us off. I'm not going to... I'm sorry, I'm not going to conduct commonwealth/state financial relations like that. The states assert their rights, well they have to accept their responsibilities and when they get access to an unconditional growth tax, which is the GST, something they've asked for for years, and they're $9 billion over the next five years better off and Western Australia $1.1 billion, I mean Western Australia is doing brilliantly out of this arrangement, brilliantly.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, just to finish off on water here, what's the down side for WA in not being in the agreement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the downside is that their pastoralists don't have access to the certainty of compensation and title arrangements that other people do and that's why I'm sure in the end they'll sign it.
MURRAY:
Well, yeah, but if we don't sign it, do we still get access to the other project money?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, let me make it very clear - I'm not in the business in any way penalising the people of Western Australia. I mean, the only person who's potentially penalised the people of Western Australia is Dr Gallop because he hasn't signed an agreement that is going to bring some certainty to his own people. But let me say to the people of Western Australia who are listening to this interview that if we in the future announce any funds for water projects, Western Australia will get her fair share, Western Australia will get her fair share, we're not going to in any way penalise the people of Western Australia. I just think Dr Gallop has dropped the ball on behalf of his state rather than kick the goal for his state.
MURRAY:
Okay, if I could move on to some other issues. Prime Minister, I'm sure you're aware of a security problem on a Korean airlines flight out of Sydney...
PRIME MINISTER:
I have just been informed about it, yes.
MURRAY:
It does appear that there's been a security glitch at Sydney Airport with this matter. What's the Government planning to do about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the first thing I should say is, I have got the barest detail. I understand that the plane was brought back and the search on it was okay and rather than that being evidence of lax security, it's probably evidence of a determination by the authorities to make sure that the security rules are observed. As to the rest of it, John Anderson will investigate it and will say something about it I'm sure later today.
MURRAY:
Okay, Prime Minister, the $600 per child family bonus - has the payment of that turned into a political negative for the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't believe so. I mean, what has happened is that in the limited number of cases I'm told about 2,200 there has been a double payment and the double payment has occurred typically in a situation where in 2002-3 a family was claiming the family tax benefit off their tax in a lump sum at the end of the year and they have decided for the following year to take .... fortnightly and where say, dad was taking it off his tax in the '02-'03, mum applies at the Centrelink family tax office in '03-'04. So you've got the two separate names and there hasn't been a cross checking with the names of the children so that in those cases two cheques have been drawn. Now that's essentially what has happened and it's a very limited number of cases. It really is a very limited number of cases when you're dealing with over two million families. So we have to preserve a sense proportion and what we're doing is to write to those people encouraging them to repay the excess. I mean, obviously if people are in the situation where they've spent it and they literally can't then we're not going to, sort of, sell up their houses and chase them. I mean, that would be ridiculous and we certainly don't intend to do that but we'll be writing to them and encouraging them if they can to repay it. But that is the dimension, so I am advised, of the issue and whilst it obviously attracts headlines and attention and I can understand that, I don't think it's a minus. People appreciate these payments and the reason is that they're, you know, most people find it hard to save. They spend everything they get. They need to on their children and their families and their living expenses. And if $600 in a lump sum comes along and helps to reduce the credit card and helps to buy some new clothing, it might buy a new DVD, well what's wrong with that? Something new for the family - what is wrong with that? I mean, why shouldn't people have the benefit of that? Why shouldn't they share the dividend of our good economic fortune? Why shouldn't ordinary families get it? I mean, this attitude that because in a small number of cases there might be a mistake or an abuse you penalise the 99.9% who appreciate these sorts of benefits - that argument just leaves me cold.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, I've got a caller for you here. Alan from Bayswater wants to talk about these issues. Go ahead Alan.
CALLER:
Yeah, look, I'd like to be able to accept you've (inaudible) but mine is going to be a bit more than $600 - is there a chance that you are going to bribe me with $2,000 or so I can get a (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think you're making a critical comment about policy rather than asking a serious question.
MURRAY:
Okay, well he's certainly made his point. Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, the Opposition spokesman on these matters is saying today that his reading of the legislation says you so have power to claw this money back and he's saying that you'll do that after the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're not going to behave differently after the election. Let me repeat that, we're not going to behave differently in relation to these overpayments after the election. So you've got that on record. I mean, I don't even know whether we're going to be in office after the election, that is up to the people who are listening to this programme. But what I can say is, I mean, that is the sort of thing I'd expect Wayne Swan to say. I've never heard him say a positive thing in his life.
MURRAY:
But you can understand the confusion here because the Government's been speaking with different...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. I know what you're getting at. But we've been tough on chasing up other debts. But that is an exaggeration. We haven't chased people and forced them to sell homes and sell assets. In fact, I'm told that where there are over payments as a result of somebody's income being underestimated or them not notifying in relation to changed circumstances then very fair and reasonable repayment programmes have been worked out and overwhelmingly those repayment programmes have simply involved a person taking a lesser amount of a future entitlement in order to repay a past over payment. So, I think, this idea that we're weilding the big stick in one hand and because it's before an election we're going to do it quite differently afterwards is quite an unfair charge. I mean, I can understand Wayne Swan thinks - well, if I can make a bit of merry hell out of this and score a few political points I'll do so, but people who are getting the $600 and spending it wisely for their families and that is 99.9% of Australians are very grateful and they say, well why shouldn't we get our fair share of this country's economic good fortune.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, Warren of Girraween is on the line. Go ahead Warren.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
Yeah, just the point about the people who've got the double payments. Well, there's another payment due around about September. Why not just cancel that one?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think, you then have arguments in relation to good faith and so forth and you may find that that could create some further anomalies and I think when people in my position make commitments to do something like that on the run you often haven't taken account of certain anomalies.
MURRAY:
Thanks Warren. Ken from Lesmurdie, Prime Minister, is on the line for you. G'day Ken.
CALLER:
Yes. Good morning, Mr Howard. Good morning, Paul. Mr Howard, you just made the statement - you're not going to behave any differently after the election than you are at the moment, assuming of course you win the next election.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't assume that, Sir. I don't assume it.
CALLER:
I am assuming, Mr Howard. Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, thank you very much.
CALLER:
No, I'm saying - based on that premise that you would win the next election. At this particular stage you're pursuing through the courts old aged pensioners who have been over paid, putting (inaudible) etc - would you extend your largesse to them at this particular stage or you will continue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sir, I would like to confirm the circumstances or be advised of the circumstances in which that is being pursued, if it is being pursued, before commenting further, I've learnt enough in situations like this not to make generalised comments based on particular circumstances when I'm not fully aware of what those particular circumstances are. Let me say this, that if there is a particular case for reasons of privacy you don't want to mention on air that you would like to give to the station, I'd be very happy to investigate it and then come back to you. But I'm not going to give a generalised undertaking about future behaviour based on a particular case of which I know very few details.
MURRAY:
We'll take that up with Ken off air, Prime Minister. Jodie in Armidale, Prime Minister is listening.
CALLER:
Hi Paul, how are you going? I actually took a bit of offence at you saying that people that have underestimated their income quite rightly should be chased up. I have fallen into a situation where I started work half way through the year in January and because of that first from June to January I was paid no income and January, there after they altered my income to what it should have been and I will still have a debt at the end of the year of at least $3,000. Now, for me I have informed them from day one of working, I've done everything in my power.
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand that and I think I know your circumstance.
CALLER:
No, you don't. I actually haven't contacted anybody before. But from day one of me letting them know exactly what I was earning, then comes debt at the end of it is ridiculous. Why should I have to pay that back when that was not my fault and yet these other people don't have to pay their money back?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, these people will be asked to pay it back, will be encouraged to pay it back. In your situation, I think there is an anomaly, there is a problem and that is why one of the measures that we announced in the budget was that there would be effectively a year of grace for a person who was getting, and it sounds as though you may have been in this category, was getting a family tax benefit B payment and you returned to work part way through the year, is that your situation?
CALLER:
Yeah, I've started work half way through this year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, and what we're going to do in future is to have a situation where any family tax benefit that has been received during the period that you were fully out of the workforce will not be affected by your changed circumstances after you re-enter the workforce. Now in your situation what arrangement was suggested in relation to the repayment of the amount that you mentioned?
CALLER:
Would that be to the 2003/2004 tax year?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I'm sorry, no it's applying in the future, it doesn't apply in relation to past arrangements, no I'm sorry I can't say that. I was inquiring how, you mentioned in your situation you were told that you'd been overpaid $2000 or $3000, what arrangements were proposed for the repayment of that?
CALLER:
Had to pay $40 a fortnight back.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry?
MURRAY:
$40 a fortnight Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
And are you receiving any other family tax benefits?
CALLER:
Yeah, that's what receiving from Centrelink still because we're still not on a huge income.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but you're still receiving the, you'd be receiving the family tax benefit A, because you wouldn't, and that $40 would...
CALLER:
Come out of that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Come out of that, yes.
CALLER:
But still...
PRIME MINISTER:
I think your situation was a real, does represent one of the anomalous cases and we are, you know, in recognition of that was one of the changes that was announced in the budget. I'm sorry I can't tell you that it's going to apply retrospectively.
MURRAY:
Okay, Prime Minister, I'll just move onto our final issue with you, your Government's pre-election advertising campaigns are causing a lot of political debate, one of them is aimed at domestic violence, many people would see that as a state responsibility, little to do with federal politics.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's not the view of the Federal Opposition or the Federal Government.
MURRAY:
Well it's dealt with by state police forces in the main.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but people for years have been saying that the Federal Government has a national leadership responsibility on this and in fact the Federal Opposition has been asking me questions as to when the campaign was going to start, let alone criticising it for being run. But anyway, leaving them aside because they're not the sole determinants of whether anything is federal or state, I think there are some issues where a federal government, a national government, a prime minister, should speak out on even though the enforcement of the law is a state responsibility, I mean the idea that I would remain silent on violence against women because the prosecution of men who bash up women is a state responsibility is just not sustainable, I have a view on that and the Australian people are entitled to have my view and they're entitled to know whether the Federal Government is going to do something about it and I think you do need a co-ordinated approach, I think you do need a national campaign, I think young men have got to be told it is unacceptable to hit women.
MURRAY:
And older men too maybe.
PRIME MINISTER:
All men, all men, let me say all men. It's something that I find, I personally find quite repugnant and men of any age.
MURRAY:
There's a high profile case here in Western Australia at the moment, should serious allegations of domestic violence against people in public life put question marks over their suitability for office?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I know the case you're referring to and I'm aware that anything I say will then be juxta posed with that case, I have read the newspaper this morning, I know what was said in...
MURRAY:
Well you put it on the agenda Prime Minister...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I didn't put this particularly case, well come on don't say that, I please Paul...
MURRAY:
... the issue...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's been on the agenda for quite a while, I don't think I alone, I mean if you want to say that I've put the issue of domestic violence on the agenda, well I'm happy in a sense to wear that...
MURRAY:
It's a very powerful advertising campaign.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's an important issue and I have a strong view about it and my Government has a strong view and I would have hoped it's something that could transcend party politics, I would have thought one thing I and Mr Latham might not argue about is the need to have a strong campaign on this. I'm not going to talk about a particular case...
MURRAY:
Well talk generally.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well...
MURRAY:
... question marks over the suitability of people in public life.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's not asking me to talk generally, it's asking me to say something in the context of the specific issue and inevitably it will be seen as a comment on that and you know that, I'm not going to do that. I am going to say this, that I find any kind of violence against women by men of any age is completely unacceptable and it's something that there should be a strong view about in our community and it's always been my view, it's what I was brought up to believe in by my parents and it's a view that I've adhered to all my life.
MURRAY:
Okay Prime Minister, thank you very much for your time today, we appreciate it.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's always a pleasure.
[ends]