LAWS:
The Prime Minister is on the line. Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John.
LAWS:
Is it correct that you've made these adjustments to the proposed legislation?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that's not right and the proposal we put to the States always contained safeguards. The control orders can only be granted by a judge. They can't be imposed unilaterally by the police. That was always our proposal. And in relation to the preventative detention, we don't have the constitutional power, the Commonwealth that is, to impose that for more than about 48 hours and we would ask the States to backfill that 48 hours to 14 days, which is the amount of time our advice suggests is desirable. And that action would need the approval of some kind of judicial officer, not exercising judicial power because of constitutional considerations, but nonetheless there would have to be a resort to that person. And it would be subject to judicial review. Now these things have always been there. They're not changes we have made as a result of comments by the States.
LAWS:
No, but they've not been quite as draconian as they will be, and I'm pleased that they will become more draconian.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's always been out intention to have some checks and balances. But you don't want so many checks that you water down the effectiveness of the proposal. I think the balance is right. I'm quite happy of course to listen to what the State Premiers have got to put. I don't want this to be a difficult meeting. It's important we work together. And the sense I have from their responses is they want to do the same thing. I don't see them as wanting to have a political row over it. There's nothing to be gained by that and the public wont thank any of us if it descends into that.
LAWS:
Are you surprised at the Muslim Community? They want the whole thing withdrawn.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm very surprised. They have no grounds for that concern. There is nothing in these laws that are directed against the Muslims. Nothing. And I challenge any spokesman for the Muslim Community to point to something in the announcement I made, and I will repeat that challenge after tomorrow, to support their claim that in some way it's directed against them. It's not directed against anybody. It's directed to the protection of all of us. That's the purpose of the change.
LAWS:
You need the cooperation of the States to get this package through.
PRIME MINISTER:
In it's entirety we do yes, because we do not under our constitution, have all of the power. The ordinary policing power in this country is exercised by the States. We have certain powers. But ordinary powers of arrest and apprehension and so forth are powers that the States have. They have referred certain powers to us but those powers have been referred on a limited basis. And therefore we do need their cooperation to make the thing work.
LAWS:
It would appear that the Muslim Summit that you had didn't achieve a great deal if the first thing you put to them; they want to reject holus bolus.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not sure about that. I thought what was useful for the Muslim Summit was an agreement about a lot of principles that they unconditionally supported. And perhaps the meeting yesterday was not so representative of what the entire community feels. Bear in mind that there are some people in the Muslim Community not invited to the Summit who have tried to, in a sense, set up a bit of a rival show of their own. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's some internal community politics involved in yesterday's gathering. But can I repeat, there's nothing in these laws that is in any way directed against Muslims.
LAWS:
Are you surprised that Kim Beazley, it would appear, wants to go even further? He wants police to hold suspects for up to a fortnight and track them with electronic tags.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that really is what was in our proposal, the 14 days. That's in our proposal. I've looked at what Mr Beazley said, and I can't find anything in it that's particularly new. But if he's supportive, once again, I'm pleased about that. Because this is something that we need to get implemented. That's my main goal. I'm not particularly concerned about the party politics of it.
LAWS:
Yeah, the blokes on his back bench are saying that he's trying to out-Howard John Howard. I don't know whether he is....
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know who's saying that. Look I will deal with him in good faith. If he's got a proposal.
LAWS:
I think yeah, that that's the way it will go.
PRIME MINISTER:
If that's in line with what we want, well that's fine by me. I'm not really wanting some kind of manipulative debate on this issue. We need stronger laws, they need appropriate safeguards. What we have put to the States achieves that. I will listen to what the Premier's have got to say very carefully and very respectfully and if there are any nuances that haven't occurred to me, well I'll have a look at them. But I think there's a lot of checking and balancing already built in to our proposal.
LAWS:
On Friday the Treasurer announced a massive surplus. I think it's the biggest ever. Bumper $13.6 billion. You told me you couldn't slash petrol excise, but can you provide some kind of tax cut or something that will help ease the impact of rising petrol prices now you've got so much money in the kitty?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John, most of the extra surplus was the result of underspending in the just completed financial year. There was only $800 million of the additional $4.4 billion, which was attributable to extra revenue, mainly company tax. There was about $3.5 billion underspent and most of that will get spent this financial year.
LAWS:
On what?
PRIME MINISTER:
A whole range of things. Health. There will be, let me give you a list...
LAWS:
Mental health in particular?
PRIME MINISTER:
Health and ageing. Well, pharmacy restructuring, alternative funding for GPs, national public health programmes. There'll be extra spending in the area of the Federal Police. There will be extra spending in relation to income support payments. There's nothing particularly new about this. We have about a $200 billion spending in our budget and what happens is that not all of it ever gets spent precisely when it was originally planned to be spent and it just simply slips into the next year. So if you spend the $3.5 billion on a tax cut which is ongoing, what do you do for the $3.5 billion you need to spend in the following year?
LAWS:
So no money for petrol?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is not a case at present for cutting the petrol excise. Unfortunately we are going to be stuck with higher petrol prices than we used to have for quite some time into the future. There are two elements to the increase in petrol prices. There's the increase flowing from the fact that there's increased world demand and a shortage of refining capacity, and then on top of that you've had the Katrina/Rita effect. Now the Katrina/Rita effect will disappear in time and it's already beginning to disappear and the price of petrol has come back a bit. But I'm sorry to have to say it, I don't think we're going to go back to the time when the price of petrol was well below a dollar a litre for quite some time, if at all. And the reason for that is that there is a world-wide gap between the demand for oil and the availability of the refined product. Now that's due to the strength of the Chinese economy. It's due actually to very good things, it's due to the fact that the world is growing more strongly than originally anticipated and China, India, a recovery of the Japanese economy. And for a number of years there's been an underinvestment in refining capacity. Now that's created what I would call the ongoing higher price and you have these recent temporary factors. Now they will gradually recede but the ongoing higher price I'm afraid is not going to retreat in a hurry. I'd like to say otherwise but I'd be misleading your listeners if I did. And just bear in mind that the price of petrol in this country, and this is of no comfort to the Australian motorists, I acknowledge that, but it is compared with nations with which with we normally make comparisons - the US, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, France, New Zealand...
LAWS:
It's not bad in comparison to them.
PRIME MINISTER:
... only one country that has cheaper petrol. I mean it's $2.30 in Germany and it's $2.32 in France and it's $2.16, and this is Australian dollars, this is converted to Australian dollars per litre, this is apples with apples against a $1.24 in Australia according to the Shell website on Friday last.
LAWS:
Okay. I know you're busy and you have to rush. But just quickly is there going to be some concentrated spending on mental health?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we had a, we've just received a report on that from the Human Rights Commission and from some other bodies and I am looking at that and I'm having some discussions with the States about it. Now don't interpret what I'm about to say as any kind of duck-shoving. The responsibility for mental health services hitherto in this country has been carried by the States and clearly they have to be part of the solution. There is a lot of community concern about this, I acknowledge that, and it is an issue that all governments around Australia have got to address.
LAWS:
Okay, but you would look at some extra spending in that area?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not going to, on the run, commit myself to extra spending without a proper discussion with those governments that have the ongoing responsibility for it. We don't run them. I mean psychiatric hospitals in this country are not run by the Federal Government...
LAWS:
No, I understand that...
PRIME MINISTER:
...and the services are not provided by the Federal Government any more than public hospitals are run by the Federal Government. And therefore before I commit myself and my Government to more spending I need to have discussions with the States.
LAWS:
Yeah, and as it's their job to look after mental health and health generally, can you give them monies that are specifically to be spent in that area?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the answer to that is yes we can, but as a theoretical answer to the question but of course in practice they get extra monies each year from the rising GST revenues. And they do very well out of that thank you very much and they're a lot better off a result of that and we argue of course that if you have a responsibility as a State government and you get more money from the GST well you ought to spent more money on your responsibilities. Now we need to discuss this issue further, we all need to acknowledge that it's a very big issue and the current response is less than satisfactory.
LAWS:
Okay, and just before you go what about the Swans at the weekend?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I was there, I had a look at the game, it was very exciting at the end. It was a very tense game and a bit, the last 10 minutes of the final quarter was extraordinarily exciting because West Coast Eagles got in front and then you had that incredible mark and the Swans got in front. So tremendous support in Melbourne...
LAWS:
Unbelievable.
PRIME MINISTER:
... amongst the old South Melbourne fans. They saw it as the fulfilment of a 73 year old dream for the old South Melbourne club. And it's an extraordinary day in Melbourne, it never ceases to impress me the sheer unconditional enthusiasm of people for Australian Rules, it is an amazing thing. I'm happy to talk about Australian Rules because I'm still feeling a little sad about what happened on Saturday night.
LAWS:
I'm sorry to laugh but I tipped the Tigers.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you didn't tip the impossible double did you? The Tigers and North Queensland? You will be a rich man Mr Laws if you did that.
LAWS:
Well no I didn't do that. I tipped North Queensland I think, no I didn't I tipped the Tigers and I tipped your team who didn't do any favours at all. Otherwise I would have been a rich man. But you would have taken a lot away in tax.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no must be some special dispensation for that.
LAWS:
Good to talk to you Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]