MITCHELL:
First though in our Sydney studio, barely back in the country, the Prime Minister. Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning. Great Show the Lion King.
MITCHELL:
It is a great show, particularly in Melbourne.
PRIME MINISTER:
I won't argue.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, Steve Vizard, did he get off lightly?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a matter for the courts. I do not believe that somebody in my position should give a commentary on a decision made by the court unless there are particular political circumstances surrounding it. I made a comment about a penalty, a prison term imposed on a former member of Federal Parliament because there was a political context. In relation to Mr Vizard, he's like many other people who are charged with breaches of the law. He is dealt with by the courts and I leave it to the courts. I defend the integrity of the system as far as ASIC is concerned.
MITCHELL:
So you think ASIC went hard? I mean they didn't do a deal.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Director of Public Prosecutions was the person who made the decision, and the decision not to seek a jail term and not to prosecute for a jail term was based on evidentiary considerations. It wasn't as I understand it, due to some weakness in the law. But whether it was enough or too much or whatever, I'm not going to comment on that. I certainly agree with Peter Costello when he says that people who are company directors occupy positions of trust and when information comes into their possession which is confidential, it is plainly wrong and illegal to use that information for personal benefit. It's a very fundamental principle that and that's entrenched in our law. The extent to which individual transgressions of that law are punished will depend on the circumstances of each case and that is where I don't choose to comment.
MITCHELL:
But he was on the Telstra board, appointed by Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes he was. He was appointed by the current Government.
MITCHELL:
Did he dud you? Did he fail the Australian people?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't think I should substitute my judgement on the circumstances of this case.
MITCHELL:
You appointed him.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, of course we appointed him and obviously we're disappointed at what has transpired because it's indisputable that he did use inside information and he's admitted that himself. But I just don't want to get in a position of giving an adjudication on the court's decision or indeed on the decision of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions because we do have in this country, and it's part of our legal system, an independent prosecution process. We don't want prosecutions decided by Governments, we want them decided independently by the Crown law authorities and that is what happened in this case. And for evidentiary reasons, not a weakness in the law, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions said that not enough material was there with which to prosecute him.
MITCHELL:
Let's put aside the decision. I mean the fact that he was appointed onto the Telstra Board effectively representing the people. Did he fail the Australian people in his duty to them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're certainly very disappointed at his misuse of information, yes.
MITCHELL:
Do you think he can ever come back to public life?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for him. And that is a matter...
MITCHELL:
Well would you ever appoint him to anything?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. Certainly not.
MITCHELL:
The judge has suggested that the laws need reviewing and may need toughening. Will you review them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they're kept under regular review. But the reason that the DPP did not bring a prosecution was not the inadequacy of the law.
MITCHELL:
But the judge is talking about penalties now. He's called for a review of financial penalties.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah well, we keep those things under review. I think the criticism that people have made, is that criminal prosecutions are not brought. That's the nub of the criticism as I understand it.
MITCHELL:
Well it was, yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
And that is not because the law does not enable criminal prosecution to be brought, it's because the Director of Public Prosecutions in exercise of his independent discretions which he undoubtedly has, said there wasn't enough evidence to sustain a prosecution.
MITCHELL:
But it's ridiculous to say he's got a deal because he's got powerful mates.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is....
MITCHELL:
And I'll just repeat the point. The judge has said the financial penalties need to be reviewed. Now this is quite apart from the prosecution (inaudible)...
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand that. Well they are kept under regular review. But we don't, every time a judge says something has to be reviewed, that is not automatically (inaudible). I mean judges are entitled to their opinions and we take account of them, but we make independent assessments, just as judges make independent assessments.
MITCHELL:
Can you understand the public fury here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I can understand the public anger. People always resent a breach of trust of this kind in a position which gives you privileged access to information. I can understand that. And I understand it completely. But I'm also careful, given my own position, not to usurp the role and the function of the courts. I believe very strongly in the separation of powers. I don't believe in judges interfering in politics, and the reciprocal of that, is that where something is clearly within the role and the provenance of the courts I don't think it helps unless there's a particular political context to it, which justifies some kind of comment from somebody in my position, I don't think I should be double guessing decisions taken by courts. Now plainly, admittedly, on all of the facts, there was an abuse of the privilege of inside information for personal profit. Now that is wrong. I do feel disappointed that that happened. He was appointed by my Government. Plainly he let everybody down who appointed him. The other thing is, this conduct is not excusable irrespective of the circumstances, but he was not a person of impoverished means.
MITCHELL:
Didn't need the money?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
MITCHELL:
That's what I can't understand...
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, I think it's from a personal point of view, I think it's a terrible shame that somebody who has contributed quite a bit to the community, and has become a public figure, especially in Melbourne, I think it's a great shame that this has happened. But I don't want to add any more than that.
MITCHELL:
Another issue, Peter Ryan, former Head of the New South Wales Police, now adviser on security for the Olympics. He said in the Australian today Australia is using kid gloves with terrorism, that we're fighting with one and a half hands tied behind our back. What's your response to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's the view I would expect to come from a former Police Commissioner.
MITCHELL:
(inaudible) listen to it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I actually read the article and it will be one of the many points of view that will be put into the mix by me and my colleagues over the next couple of weeks as we look at whether there are any further changes that are needed to our anti-terrorism laws. But, we have to keep a perspective on this. And coming out of the London attacks there are two areas, when it comes to the terrorist threat. There's the question of knowing in advance that a terrorist attack is going to take place. And then there's the question of how effective the response is. The chilling thing about London, was that nobody knew in advance. The people were British born. There had been no real indication beforehand that they were likely to commit a terrorist offence. Now you've got to ask yourself whether changes to the law will further increase the capacity of the police and the intelligence agencies to find out in advance that terrorists attacks are going to take place. Now if I am satisfied that further changes to the law would increase our capacity to find out in advance that a terrorist attack was going to take place, then obviously I'd be interested in making those changes.
MITCHELL:
One thing he specifically suggests is that 48 hours of interrogation without a lawyer...
PRIME MINISTER:
We have increased that.
MITCHELL:
Without a lawyer.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah without a lawyer. Well that's quite a significant further strengthening and I'm not going to commit the Government to that.
MITCHELL:
Would you look at that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we look at everything. Of course we look at everything. But that's quite a significant strengthening isn't it?
MITCHELL:
It is. Would you look at everything? I mean there's been debate. John Stone has suggested Muslim migration be stopped. Would you look at that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I don't think stopping migration by a particular group of itself, is necessarily going to make us any safer.
MITCHELL:
Citizenship, harder to get?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think citizenship should always be difficult but not so difficult that we discourage people...
MITCHELL:
Should we..
PRIME MINISTER:
But you are on the horns of a dilemma. The people who, and that's all of us, who are alarmed about the possibility of a terrorist attack say we want people who come to this country to become Australians. I mean I saw, if you ask me, I still hold very much to the view that when somebody comes to this country they should overwhelmingly seek to become an Australian. Not abandoning in any way the heritage they have from another land, but they should imbibe Australian values and Australian beliefs, and we all want that to happen.
MITCHELL:
Maybe we should make it compulsory they become Australian citizens within five years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not sure about that either. There's a real danger, Neil, that when something startling happens, that we think there's a silver bullet. There's one simple thing we could do that could guarantee it won't happen to us, if this is a silver bullet. And that's the dilemma that we face, we have to go back to the thing I said a moment ago. There are two elements to this. Finding out in advance is still the best response to terrorism. Now how do you find out in advance? You have good intelligence services, you have strong laws which enable the police to question people, and to take people into custody if there is a genuine threat. You make sure that you don't allow people into this country who might pose a terrorist threat. And you try and have a society where there are no closed, no-go enclaves, where there are no groups in the community that are impenetrable. And you also put an obligation on people of influence in the community to oppose and to criticise and to disassociate themselves from potential terrorist behaviour or terrorist attitudes. Now that's why I said last week that there was an obligation on leaders of the Islamic community to strenuously oppose both broadly and within their own communities expressions of support for terrorist behaviour. Now this would apply whether the terrorists were within an Islamic community. And I mean there's a lot of talk in the newspapers today about the IRA ceasing its bombing campaign, or its violence after thirty years. I'll wait and see whether that materialises. But I would have the same attitude and did have in fact the same attitude in relation to people within the Australian community who gave aid and comfort to the IRA, because they were terrorists. They may not have carried out terrorist attacks in Australia, they did in Britain. They were no more defensible in my view.
MITCHELL:
So the IRA's on the same level as Al Qaeda?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look the IRA were terrorists. They murdered people and the reason that the British security forces, the British Police were so effective in responding to terrorist attacks is the bitter 30 years experience they've had in dealing with the IRA. I mean there was nothing heroic about the IRA's campaign although it is still shrouded in romanticism in the eyes of some.
MITCHELL:
But you're sceptical about this latest..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I am, because - I hope Tony Blair's optimism is justified.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a break and come back with more from the Prime Minister.
[break]
The Prime Minister is in our Sydney studio. I'm trying to be quick because there's a number of things I want to ask. Prime Minister, is Anzac Day sacrosanct as a public holiday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely.
MITCHELL:
Okay so it won't be up for negotiation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely not.
MITCHELL:
What about Christmas Day...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, no, no, the answer's no. Nothing is going to change in these areas.
MITCHELL:
But are they up for negotiation?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, they're not.
MITCHELL:
Well they're not covered by your sort of....
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on. Just wait till the legislation comes out and people will find that what is the situation now will continue.
MITCHELL:
What about lunch breaks?
PRIME MINISTER:
Same thing.
MITCHELL:
That's not what the Treasurer told me this week.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I've actually read that transcript; and he was simply making the point that some people work on public holidays now.
MITCHELL:
And some people negotiate their lunch times away. That's what he said.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what we will do is we will preserve all the protections that are there now.
MITCHELL:
Including lunch breaks and public holidays?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course we are not going to take those things away. Look...
MITCHELL:
But are they going to be up for negotiation?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are going to be in no different position than they are now.
MITCHELL:
What about unfair dismissal laws?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the unfair dismissal laws, we've made our position very clear.
MITCHELL:
Do you want to extend them?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. We're not going to extend them.
MITCHELL:
Eventually?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Well there's no question of extending them eventually. We're simply going to change the law and put a limit of 100...
MITCHELL:
Well again, that's not what the Treasurer said.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no. I think if you actually have a look at what he said...
MITCHELL:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I read the transcript but let's not have an argument about it...
MITCHELL:
No.
PRIME MINISTER:
...I'm just telling you what the Government's position is. And the Government's position is to change the law so that the unfair dismissal laws, which we have always said we were against. I mean, can I just remind you Neil and through you with respect your listeners that we have never disguised our opposition to these unfair dismissal laws. We went to the 1996 election which brought us to power...
MITCHELL:
I understand that so if you ever want to extend them...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I don't. I think 100 is the right balance. Because 100 is the upper limit of the definition of a small business. It's the definition of a small manufacturing business, and 100, as I think Andrew Robb said the other day, he made a very good point, that 100 is the size at which many firms acquire a human resources or personnel office capacity, and the larger firms have a better capacity to deal with vexatious, job destroying unfair dismissal claims than do smaller firms. And that's why we've put the limit at 100. We have no plans to increase it. We think 100 strikes the right balance. And just remember, that the reason we are making this change is that there is indisputable evidence around the world that if you have laws like the unfair dismissal laws, you actually stop jobs being created. And the countries that have got the toughest unfair dismissal laws are the countries with much higher levels of unemployment. I mean, we must go back to basics. The reason we are changing these laws is to create jobs, to remove the fear that these small firms have, that if they can't let go unsatisfactory staff they wont take the risk of employing staff in the first place. That is plainly counterproductive and job destroying.
MITCHELL:
Speaking of fear, there is a lot of fear out there now. When do we get the detail?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hope to have the legislation in the first part of October. Now it was inevitable that we go through this hiatus period. I read some suggestion in the press this morning that we should have prepared the legislation before we made the announcement. Governments have never done that. You can't make a change like this through a process of secretly preparing the legislation. It's impossible when you have a team of people working on the legislation, in any event, to be prepared in complete secrecy. Just imagine if we'd been working for months without telling the public what we were working on, on major changes to industrial laws and something leaked out. People would quite rightly say, they are secretly trying to destroy our rights. Now that plainly wasn't an option. We have this period where the announcement is made, there's a fear campaign and all sorts of lies are told about what we're proposing to do. When the legislation is put on the table, people will see there are changes. And I'm not denying that there are significant changes. We are changing the unfair dismissal laws, we are going to make it easier for people to go into workplace agreements because we believe that workplace agreements are good. We are making a number of other changes. But we are not going to cut wages, we're not trying to destroy people's conditions. We're not trying to chisel them out of Anzac Day and Christmas Day and Public Holidays. I mean that is absolute nonsense and when they see the legislation they'll know what nonsense it is.
MITCHELL:
Okay, a couple of other things quickly. Telstra, what are their obligations to the bush? They say they can't maintain, afford to maintain decent services in the bush, they can't afford to subsidise the bush (inaudible) still sell it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Well let's make it very clear. The Community Service Obligation stays. It's entrenched Government policy. It's legislated and the company must understand that. And I'm sure the company management does. Every so often, you get somebody quoted in the papers saying something to the opposite, but rural people should understand very plainly that the Community Service Obligation is going to stay and Telstra should understand that very plainly as well.
MITCHELL:
The Nationals want $2b from the sale. Will they get it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we'll continue to talk...
MITCHELL:
What happens to the money?
PRIME MINISTER:
The money? What money?
MITCHELL:
The money that you get from Telstra.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it will be put in the Government's bank account and some of it I'm sure, and quite a lot of it will probably find its way into the Future Fund.
MITCHELL:
Weren't we going to get a social dividend out of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's already been a significant social dividend through the reduced interest payments we've had to make each year on our outstanding debt and that's partly due to the proceeds of the sale of Telstra. And that saved interest has been spent on hospitals and defence and education and so forth. So every time you reduce your debt you reduce the interest you pay and that reduced interest payment is used for something good like education or health or soldiers.
MITCHELL:
Will it be used to pay off the liability, the superannuation liability?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're using the Future Fund to do that and to the extent that the proceeds of the sale of Telstra goes into the Future Fund, yes.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, your visit to Iraq. Hair raising experience?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, but when you consider the risk (inaudible) over there I think that's an overstatement. I mean it was a different day, let me put it that way. But given the risk that the men and women of the ADF take, it was the least I could do. I really found it a great experience to meet those several hundred young men and women in an incredibly isolated, desolate, very hot part of Iraq, it was over 50 degrees. When you throw in the body armour, it was pretty warm.
MITCHELL:
A lot of people have said that potentially your life was in danger. Do you believe that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I suppose it was. I didn't feel that way. I have extraordinary confidence in the men and women of the ADF and once you get on board one of those C140s, no matter how they're flying them; or one of those helicopters and no matter what the circumstances are, I think you're as safe as houses. But clearly Iraq is a very dangerous place. But how could I possibly send people there without being willing to visit them? I mean for heaven's sake.
MITCHELL:
And what's it like going at 100 feet in a helicopter.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's quite an exhilarating experience. Look, it's a tribute to their skills. I came away from the experience just full of admiration for their skill, full of admiration for the enthusiasm they have for the task and very particularly, full of admiration for the fact that we, better than any, have a capacity to reach out to the locals. We relate to the local people, and they relate to us and I think it's a very important element. The other thing I want to say is that I am more convinced than ever having been to Baghdad, having talked to the Prime Minister, having talked to a number of leaders of a neighbouring Middle East country that we have to stay and finish the job. If the terrorists win in Iraq, that will have enormous implications not only for the future of Iraq, which will just slide into chaos, but also for neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and therefore we have got to stay and finish the job.
MITCHELL:
What did you do for your birthday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Flew back to Australia.
MITCHELL:
Bob Carr's a lot younger, he's gone.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it takes all kinds.
[ends]