MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning. How are you Neil?
MITCHELL:
How's Perth?
PRIME MINISTER:
Raining. Terrific. As somebody who has spent a lot of time in Canberra and Sydney over the last couple of weeks, to see some rain is fantastic.
MITCHELL:
Now while you're in Perth, there is a very strong rumour around Canberra the election will be called this weekend for September 4th.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me tell you what my plans are for this weekend. I'm addressing the Western Australian conference of the Liberal Party tomorrow morning. I then come back to Sydney. And Sunday I'm celebrating my daughter's birthday. And then Sunday afternoon I'm flying to Townsville to take part in a welcome home parade the following day for about 400 of our soldiers who have been doing such a fantastic job in the Solomon Islands, and then parliament is sitting on Tuesday.
MITCHELL:
So you are... we'll rule September 4th (inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't rule out individual dates, but I've given you a pretty good idea of what I'm going to do over the weekend.
MITCHELL:
Are you in Canberra at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not in Canberra until Monday evening.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Presumably the Governor General is in Canberra.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know where he is, to be perfectly honest Neil. I don't. I mean I could find out for you.
MITCHELL:
No, no. Well I think that answers that. The confusion with the Australian Olympic cycling team. Do you believe it's undermining the standing of our Olympic team?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's difficult, but I don't want to sort of heap criticism on the team. It's a difficult time for those who are training hard and playing fully by the rules and I'm sure that's the overwhelming majority of our athletes. And I feel a bit for the officials. They're trying hard to do a conscientious job, but it's difficult. But sportsmen and women have a great capacity to shut those things out of their minds and to be very purposeful and committed and dedicated to the task they have. I don't think it will affect the performance of the team, but obviously it's hard on the particular sport and it's a bit stressful for those who love it and are connected with it, but I've got a lot of confidence in Peter Bartels and others to handle it and handle it effectively.
MITCHELL:
Mark French's family want you to get involved in seeing whether he's had a fair deal. Would you...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm very reluctant, much and all as I follow support very closely, I don't think it's fair for the Prime Minister of the day to be intervening every day in particular issues. If you have confidence in sporting bodies, which I do - I have a lot of confidence in the Sports Commission, in Peter Bartels' chairmanship, I think by and large the major sports in this country are very well served by their administrations. I think of the AFL and the cricket and rugby and rugby league. They're all pretty well served by their administration... tennis. So I think for the Prime Minister to inject himself is probably not a good thing. I don't think it's fair. I'm not in possession of all of the facts, and I support sport. I make the odd comment. But by and large, I don't think I can second guess them. There is a court of, what, sporting arbitration, isn't there?
MITCHELL:
Yep.
PRIME MINISTER:
And that's been set up to see that people are given a fair go. In those circumstances, I don't think it's the role of the Prime Minister, with respect, to get involved.
MITCHELL:
Speaking of the safety of our athletes in Athens, have we decided yet whether we want our security officials to take... to be armed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's not acceptable and we're not pressing it. The latest information we have is that, you know, a lot of precautions are being taken, that the risk to our athletes is assessed at medium, not as high as that for the Americans and some others. I said yesterday and I repeat now, you can't give absolute guarantees. I hope they'll be okay and I believe that the Greeks are taking all the precautions they can to guard. But we're just living in a different sort of world and I gave an answer to a question...
MITCHELL:
Well the Greeks seem to be offended by that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they shouldn't be offended. I don't mean any offence to the Greek Government. I'm just stating the obvious. I can't guarantee that there won't be a terrorist incident in Australia, and to expect me to in effect guarantee there won't be a terrorist incident that might effect Australians somewhere else in the world is therefore unreasonable. But I'm not expressing any new or different level of concern than what I have expressed in the past.
MITCHELL:
I would have thought the whole country would be a little bit edgy until it's all over.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well of course, and that is... isn't that stating the obvious? And to run away from that and to sort of pretend oh no, there's absolutely no prospect of anything happening, there is nothing to be worried about, is just unrealistic. And I really think, with respect, the Greek Ambassador should understand that. I don't mean any offence. I understand their difficulties. I respect what they say about ticket sales. But I have a responsibility to just call it exactly as I see it, and that's what I've done.
MITCHELL:
But if it is correct that the Greek officials will not allow us to be armed...
PRIME MINISTER:
I am told, as of now, that they will not allow arms to be carried by any others. Now that's what I'm told as of now.
MITCHELL:
What does that include the Americans?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, so I'm told.
MITCHELL:
Americans or Israelis or British?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm told that they're not allowing arms. I mean that situation might change.
MITCHELL:
Okay. If we want it, I mean if you get security advice that we want it, we'll obviously...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I will always take security advice. I operate on the principle that they are the experts and if I got security advice to dramatically change the position, I would. But I haven't got it as of now.
MITCHELL:
David Hicks' trial next month, and I assume you welcome that. How will Australia be represented in that case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he will be represented.
MITCHELL:
Will we be there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there will be... I'll need to check this with our Embassy in Washington, but I understand there will be representatives of the Government present. Just who that is and what form that takes, I can't tell you off the top of my head.
MITCHELL:
Are you confident he'll get a fair trial?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am confident that the arrangements for the military commission do respect the basic principles of our criminal justice system. We did obtain a lot of changes from the Americans, and I'm therefore, provided everything that we've been promised happens, I'm satisfied that he will.
MITCHELL:
Will it be open to the public, do you know, and should it be?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it is open to the public. Should it be? Well I think that depends. I mean I always prefer these things to be open to the public, although I don't believe criminal proceedings should be televised. I've always opposed the televising of criminal proceedings. I think the Americans make a farce of some of their court proceedings by allowing televising. I thought televising of the OJ Simpson trial was very ill advised, and I would always very strongly oppose the introduction of television cameras into criminal trials in this country. It has never been the practice of the Anglo Australian legal system to have that, and I think it would be a retrograde step if we ever adopted it in Australia.
MITCHELL:
But you would prefer this to be open to the press to report in this case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there's always advantages in that, but I don't think that in the end is going to determine whether or not he gets a fair trial.
MITCHELL:
We'll take some calls for the Prime Minister. Cathy, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Oh, good morning Sir. I've been on both sides of child support and I think it's extremely unfair to the men in just about every way. Are the payments being reviewed by you, we are paying ourselves $2,200 per month to my husband's ex-wife for two small children...
PRIME MINISTER:
$2,200 a month.
CALLER:
Yes, sir we are. And then we had to pay her out $240,000 as a house payment as well. So we're paying 48 cents in a dollar tax and then we're paying a mortgage off for a very humble home and paying her all that money as well while we have two teenagers. So there's four adults in our family as well.
PRIME MINISTER:
Does she have another source of income?
CALLER:
She has a husband who works full time and she also works just about full time also. They're on an absolute fortune, yes. Plus she got the $600 from the Government, I believe, for each child recently. It's a huge problem.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's a very controversial system. Is it being reviewed? Yes, in the manner recommended by the House of Representatives Committee. Is there an easy resolution to it? I wish I could say there was. I suppose one resolution to it that wouldn't be acceptable to the general community would be to abolish the system altogether and therefore the taxpayer generally speaking would carry a heavier responsibility. I don't know all of the circumstances of your case. I'm not surprised that you raised it because as a local member I get a lot of complaints about this system. People do suggest that it seems to work more against men. I hear that a lot, I'm not saying that I necessarily totally accept that. But I think it's a pretty controversial system. But the alternative, which is to in effect say well the taxpayer should pick up more of the tab, it would also be certainly unacceptable. I mean, I support the principle of the child support system. I guess I'd like to see if we could make it easier and the only way you can make it easier is to actually lessen the amounts that people have to pay.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, with due respect to your pre-politics profession, wouldn't we be a good deal better if we could lawyers out of family law?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not totally because in the end, and I've practised in the divorce area a little bit before I went into Parliament, admittedly it was under earlier legislation. But I'm aware of the difficulties and the irrationality of the way people behave when their relationships and marriages break up. I think what you should try and do, and this is what we announced yesterday, is to create a system whereby going to law in a contested adversarial fashion becomes the last resort. But in the end, if you can't resolve differences where legal and property rights are involved people have a right to get legal advice. I mean, I know it's easy and fashionable to say it's all the fault of the lawyers. But in the end, if you cannot agree on something you cannot reach a compromise, you cannot settle your differences, you do have a right to have your legal interests properly protected and that is the role of a trained professional lawyer. But what I think we are going to achieve out of the changes announced yesterday is that we'll create through these family relationship centres, an initial shock absorber where people go, and they have to go, they won't be an option, they'll have to go and see if they can't resolve their differences over custody and related matters. And if they can do that, you will dramatically reduce the number of cases that end up going to court and therefore dramatically reduce the involvement of lawyers. But where they must be involved they should be involved and people have a right to use them.
MITCHELL:
We'll take another call for the Prime Minister and then a quick break. Collin, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Hi Prime Minister. My son's on the HMAS Adelaide, it's leaving today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, so he's leaving today from down in Stirling?
CALLER:
That's correct, yes. Are you going down there...?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I can't. I was only in... I'm sorry about that. I would have liked to have. And, as you know, I am very conscientious about welcoming back and farewelling our forces, but I only learnt of this a few days ago of this particular departure and I know that Maritime Commander, Rear Admiral Gates, is going on behalf of the Navy to farewell them and I have been on the Adelaide in the past. But I unfortunately, because of other commitments that I had make weeks ago in Perth, I looked at my programme and it literally does not prove possible for me to do it. I'm sorry and I wish him well.
MITCHELL:
We're are they going Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
They're going to the Middle East.
MITCHELL:
How is he Collin?
CALLER:
Good, it's his first time over to the Middle East.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, gee. How long has he been in the Navy Collin?
CALLER:
Nine years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what I can say to you is that the Navy has done a fantastic job in the Middle East and I'm sure he'll do a fantastic job for us. And I wish I could have gone and I did look at my programme and it just hasn't proved possible on this occasion and I wish him well and he's doing a great job for the country.
MITCHELL:
But you will be at Townsville at the weekend instead of calling an election.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll be in Townsville on Monday.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much. We'll take a break and come back with more for the Prime Minister in a moment.
[advertisement break]
MITCHELL:
21 past ten. The Prime Minister's in our Perth studio. Mr Howard, health has been a big issue in Victoria this week. Do you believe the hospital system is working as well as it can?
PRIME MINISTER:
Health system ever works as well as people would want it to. I make the obvious observation that that the administration of the hospital system is a state responsibility just as the administration of Medicare is a federal responsibility. And I don't seek to shift blame onto the states in the administration of the hospital system. I respect the fact that it is a difficult issue to handle because there's always a lot of public expectation and public criticism. And I focus very heavily myself on making sure that the Medicare system works as well as possible and we've improved the Medicare system a lot over the last year.
MITCHELL:
We do have problems, certainly definite problems here, and the State Minister tells me that we wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if you've provided the money that you should have
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, this, can I just say, I mean I have just said what the responsibilities are. I haven't criticised the state government.
MITCHELL:
But you fund as much.
PRIME MINISTER:
No we fund half of it and the states fund the other half and they run it. We have no say in the running of the hospitals...
MITCHELL:
(inaudible) been dudded out of opinion.
MITCHELL:
Well that is just... can I just say that is just the sort of typical blame shifting that goes on. When you ask me a question about health, I don't immediate hop into the Victorian Government and say it's all their fault. I simply point out that they run the hospitals, we provide them with almost half the money. We run the Medicare system. And I accept responsibility for flaws in the Medicare system. But I can't be expected, unless we're going to wind up the federal system altogether and give power over everything to the Federal Government, this idea that whenever something goes wrong in a state, their cop out is to say - oh everything would be hunky dory if only the Federal Government gave us more money. I mean, we have given the states more money through the GST. The states over the next five years are going to be collectively $9 billion better off as a result of the GST than they would have been under the old arrangements. Now that was our response, to give the states unconditional additional money under the GST, but if we're going to have this situation where whenever something goes wrong the states say well if only the Federal Government would give us more money, what you're in effect saying is that they're prepared to exercise power and strut the stage but when it comes to the acceptance and responsibilities they will never accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong, but their convenient excuse is to blame the Commonwealth Government. Well, I don't blame the states when something goes wrong in the defence area or in areas for which I clear responsibility and I frankly think it's an evasion of political responsibility for the states, whenever something goes wrong to say oh well, if only the Federal Government gave us more money.
MITCHELL:
I wouldn't normally get to the detail but I have asked you about this before, and you may not be aware of it, the children's cancer centre at the Royal Children's, we've talked about it before, the State Government's put in $6 million, I'm told the health department has knocked back funding from the federal area. Are you aware of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Which health department?
MITCHELL:
Your health department.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me examine that.
MITCHELL:
Fair enough, I wasn't...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not briefed on it, but let me have a look at it.
MITCHELL:
Tony Abbott did say I think he'd give more funding to the hospitals if the Federal Government had more responsibility with the hospitals, do you agree with that? I mean if...
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Tony has thought out aloud about the idea of the Federal Government taking over hospitals, I don't think, and it's certainly not the Federal Government's policy to say well look you know we're getting less money because they're run by the states, I mean we give the amount of money that we believe is fair and appropriate for us to give as a fund of it. The difficulty we have with the hospitals Neil is we have no say in their administration...
MITCHELL:
Surely...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean, but righto, we take them over, what next? Schools? You end up not having a federal system, I don't know that's what people want, I think people see some advantage in splitting power, I don't think people will want all power focused and concentrated in one government, no matter how you know much people may favour one particular side of politics. I think it's a good idea to have checks and balances, that's why a lot of people worry about the possibility of a Federal Labor Government closing the circle and giving us nine Labor governments, coast to coast throughout the country.
MITCHELL:
Can I ask you about the economy, there are some predicting economic tough times ahead, the trade figures were bad yesterday, many experts are saying an interest rate rise is inevitable. What can you promise us on interest rates?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can't give guarantees on interest rates, I can express a view about the relevant conditions, we have very low inflation, our interest rates are somewhat higher than those in the United States, we didn't push them down as far as the Americans did so therefore we can sustain increases in American interest rates without them having an immediate affect on Australian interest rates. I don't think there are in prospect the conditions that would cause any significant increase in interest rates. As to variations of a minor order either way, well that's always a manner for the Reserve Bank.
MITCHELL:
And how far do you see into the future on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm talking about a period of, well I won't put months on it, but just right at the moment I don't think you do have the conditions, I mean in the end that's the Reserve Bank's call because we gave the Reserve Bank independence in monetary policy matters but I'm certainly aware of the conditions that might influence the board because they are publicly known economic conditions and we have low inflation, wages are not growing unsustainably, employment albeit is still very strong, there's been some moderation in the housing market which was a cause of particular concern. So when you take all of those together and when you bear in mind that we did not push our rates down as far as the Americans there's not a compelling case for any significant upward movement.
MITCHELL:
Just a final question if I may, are you offended by the new book where the Opposition Leader says you are not a leader's arsehole?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to comment on that, others might, but I won't.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]