BARTLETT:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good to be here, Liam. Nice new studio.
BARTLETT:
Your first time in the new building?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is and I'm looking to the official opening this afternoon. But you needed new premises, I think it's a justifiable expenditure. The old premises were a bit worn out.
BARTLETT:
I'm glad to hear we've got the official tick.
PRIME MINISTER:
Very much so.
BARTLETT:
We'd be in a bit of trouble if you didn't like it. Talking about money approvals, the High Court, as we've just heard in the headlines from Gillian, the High Court's provided to go-ahead for your Government to continue the advertising campaign over workplace reforms. Will you ramp it up in light of that decision?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we won't ramp it up, we'll go ahead with what we intended to do. I'm pleased at the decision, we always thought it was legal and proper and I'm glad the High Court has ruled in our favour. But we'll just continue what we planned to do. I'll be making a speech later today here in Perth giving detailed reasons why we are changing the laws relating to unfair dismissal. I'll also be announcing a proposal to provide some financial help to people who have legitimate claims for unlawful dismissal, that is, and those provisions will still remain in the act, that is if you were dismissed on the grounds of your race or your gender or because you belong to an association or because of your family responsibilities. We're not taking any of those things away, what we are taking away are the very counter-productive job destroying unfair dismissal provisions that we really see as a barrier to employment. But we're not going to ramp it up as a result of this decision, we had a plan and we'll stick to that plan.
BARTLETT:
You've spent $5 million so far, how much is the total budget?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I'd have to check on that but it would be, I think, several times that. I can't give a precise figure without checking.
BARTLETT:
Talking about the actual announcements you're making later today, as you know the newspapers around the country today are full of the reports about this $4,000, your plans to provide up to $4,000 worth of government assistance for workers who think they have been unlawfully sacked. That's right is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's the proposal. I mean the view is that if you have a genuine case and you don't have any money and you're really a battler then it's only fair that you be given some help.
BARTLETT:
Will that be means tested?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
BARTLETT:
And you have to prove a case before you can...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you've got to establish a prima-facie case, I mean you can't... and that to a sense applies now, you've got to get a certificate from the AIRC, the Industrial Relations Commission, to that effect and then you get this help and you'll be able to choose a lawyer from a panel of private lawyers which the Government will assemble. I think it's a sensible, fair thing to do because quite rightly if somebody's got no money and they have a genuine case it's a bit rich to say to them well you've got a right to go to court, you can take this big company to court. I think it is fair that people say in those circumstances well I can't afford it and I have been unfairly dismissed because of my religious beliefs or because I belong to a union or I didn't belong to a union - the sort of things that will still remain unlawful grounds for dismissing somebody. And I think this is getting the right balance back into the system, the unfair dismissal provisions have been exploited by people who are really inadequate, in many cases, inadequate employees, not doing their job, making it harder for their workmates and...
BARTLETT:
And if they've got a genuine case but they earn too much they're on their own?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they are, yes. It's a limited thing because we...
BARTLETT:
What's the means test limit Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
It'll be a fairly, you know, you'll be in the sort of $30-40,000 bracket.
BARTLETT:
Is it a concession designed to soften the workplace reforms? Make them a bit more palatable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's just a sensible measure to demonstrate our bona fides.
BARTLETT:
Any other concessions up your sleeve?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Well I just see this... I don't see this as a concession because we're not altering in any way what we announced. I mean a concession would be if we altered something that we announced and we don't have any alterations in mind. We've always indicated willingness to fine tune here and there but we're not changing our announcement in any way in relation to unfair dismissals. Unfair dismissal laws, which were only introduced in 1994, will go in relation to firms employing fewer than 100 people.
BARTLETT:
So this is an added extra?
PRIME MINISTER:
This is something in relation to helping people who have unlawful dismissal claims. And there's a big difference between an unfair dismissal and an unlawful one - unlawful dismissal provisions, which are where you're sacked on the grounds of your race or your gender, your political beliefs, your membership of an organisation or things of that kind, we're not altering that. But we are certainly getting rid of the unfair dismissals which have acted as a break on employment for small business in relation to firms employing fewer than 100 people.
BARTLETT:
What do you estimate this added extra may cost the taxpayer? Has anyone crunched the numbers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you would make assumptions, and that's all on the basis of how many people might bring... there aren't a large number of unlawful termination claims because there are very few examples.
BARTLETT:
What sort of numbers may qualify, can you give us some idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I haven't because it's hard to make a calculation. But I think you'd only be talking about some hundreds.
BARTLETT:
Somebody must have done the math.
PRIME MINISTER:
Some hundreds, some hundreds.
BARTLETT:
Some hundreds?
PRIME MINISTER:
Some hundreds.
BARTLETT:
Per year?
PRIME MINISTER:
You don't get many of these claims because there aren't many people left, thankfully, who think it's appropriate to terminate somebody's employment of the grounds of their race or their gender or their political beliefs. It happens occasionally and people might argue it happens occasionally but I don't think we're dealing here with a lot of cases.
BARTLETT:
22 minutes to nine, talking with Prime Minister John Howard. And speaking Prime Minister of terminating employment on the basis of race - the defence contractor, ADI, has won the right to discriminate by race, being allowed to hire only Australians or Americans on projects that it's working on here in WA. Now the union says it's nothing more than industrial apartheid.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'd like to get some more information about that. If it's related in some way to security that may be a perfectly reasonable thing.
BARTLETT:
You think it would be reasonable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would like to get some more advice on it Liam. I saw that report this morning and until I have more advice, I don't even know how accurate the report is and I'd like to have some more advice on it and I haven't got it yet.
BARTLETT:
How would it be practical though?
PRIME MINISTER:
How would it be practical?
BARTLETT:
On the basis of security?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well as I've said I would like to get some more advice on it before I offer a comment.
BARTLETT:
So as far as you're concerned a company that's allowed to hire and fire on the basis of race is not something we would think is...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well generally speaking no, I'm not arguing for that at all. But I don't know the full circumstances of this and there may be some particular reasons that justify it. I don't know.
BARTLETT:
Prime Minister, the Telstra share price dipped below the $4 mark during trading yesterday, just below $4. Is that a worry for you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to give a running commentary on the share price of a major company. Share prices go up and down. I am simply not going to give daily responses on the Telstra share price. We had a policy on Telstra, the Parliament has now agreed to the sale of the Government's remaining interest in Telstra. What happens to the share price will be determined by the performance of the company. I believe as the company frees itself of government ownership it will perform better. What impact that has on the share price I'm not going to try and predict. I can't give investment advice...
BARTLETT:
Suffice to say it's going to be very hard to go ahead with the sale if the shares keep performing like that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Liam, the experience of companies is that share prices do go up and down a great deal and what is the level of a share price today is not necessarily an indicator of what it might be in three or six or 12 month's time.
BARTLETT:
Sure, but it has to be somewhere in order to make the sale viable, doesn't it? You can't keep going south and that's where it's been going.
PRIME MINISTER:
We are not a distress seller as the Treasurer has said, but we do recognise the share price will vary over time. But I am not going to comment daily on the share price of Telstra, I want to make that very clear now to you and to any other interviewer. It's not my role to do that and it's my role to set government policy in relation to telecommunications.
BARTLETT:
But as a seller, as a seller. You won't be selling at $4 will you?
PRIME MINISTER:
We're not going to be a distress seller.
BARTLETT:
Right. And it's distressful at four bucks?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to comment on the current price.
BARTLETT:
Prime Minister, Customs officers have been forced to use machine guns as you might have heard in AM this morning to catch illegal fishing boats off our northern coast. Ministers from WA, Queensland, Northern Territory are screaming for more resources to fight the problem. Are you going to provide some?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we already have in Western Australia for example the second largest number of Customs officers in the country. There are nine offices in addition to the Fremantle regional office...
BARTLETT:
Not very many people for such a large area, is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
We are providing... I mean look what you're seeing at the moment is the system working.
BARTLETT:
You think it's working?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are stoping them. We're stopping the illegal fishing vessels. We're actually operating to enforce Australia's rights.
BARTLETT:
Well we've stopped four in this incident; there are 8,000 in the past financial year, according to Coastwatch's own figures.
PRIME MINISTER:
I know, but how long is a piece of string? It's very easy for state governments to say they want more and more and more people, we've increased Customs staff at Dampier and Port Hedland, we announced in the last election campaign that patrol boats would be specifically assigned and based in the northern part of Western Australia. There's been a 30 per cent increase in staff; the additional offices in Dampier and Port Hedland have increased to up to 80 per cent the number of ships boarded by Customs when these vessels first arrived in Australian waters at these two ports alone. Now look, we will constantly reassess and review these figures but in no way are we are insensitive to the needs. Equally though, it's an easy option for a state minister in any state any side of politics to say well the Federal Government should do more.
BARTLETT:
So you're not going to drag the cheque book out?
PRIME MINISTER:
We already signed quite a few cheques on this and if more is needed then obviously we're willing to do so. But I think the response that we've provided to date is appropriate.
BARTLETT:
But look at the time of the Tampa you told us that border protection was crucial, you were adamant that it was the most important things in terms of security and yet these people in big numbers, as we're seeing by official figures, are coming down virtually at will.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but we're talking here about two different things. You were talking in relation to Tampa about illegal immigration.
BARTLETT:
You don't this is a border protection issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's a fishing assets protection issue - it's a different kind of issue. We were talking then about illegal immigration. I'm not saying it isn't important and serious, but it's different.
BARTLETT:
Well that's not the message we're getting from various authorities, including Customs, and we're talking about possibilities of smuggling, we're talking about the fishing problem on top of that, we're talking about possible terrorism measures and we're also talking about the spread of disease.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the point I'm making about the Tampa issue is that we were talking there about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants and anybody listening to this programme I'm sure, whilst they'd be concerned about the other issues as well, would recognise the difference. That's the point I'm making.
BARTLETT:
Was Kim Beazley right, do we need that Coastguard after all?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have a Coastwatch, we have arrangements. The name means very little, it's the question of what the assets deployed are, and there's no doubt that this country's policies in relation to border protection have been remarkably successful. And they were of course policies that Mr Beazley at various stages opposed and supported and then opposed again. And I think he now more or less supports them.
BARTLETT:
And that comes back to resources and you think we have enough at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we believe we have enough, we keep it constantly under review and if more are needed they will be provided.
BARTLETT:
Prime Minister, talking of Kim Beazley, have you read the Latham Diaries yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven't, and I don't intend to.
BARTLETT:
You're not going to?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't intend to. I've read bits and pieces in the newspapers and I guess some people on my staff have looked at the Diaries. But I have more important things to do with my time than to read the diatribes of somebody who should never have been made the Leader of the Labor Party in the first place and who I think has behaved appallingly towards a political party which although I am opposed to, as you would know, has been treated very badly by this person. How you can treat a party that has give you the honour of making you its leader and therefore giving you a shot at the prime ministership of this country, how you can treat that party so appallingly is beyond me. But it does reflect very badly on the judgement of his colleagues. They knew what he was like they chose him.
BARTLETT:
I must that surprises me because I would have thought as a student of politics, as a political animal if you like, that would have...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the whole tone of what I've read about it - it's so personal, it's so vituperative. I really am very interested in books that are a bit more reflective and make some kind of contribution to political thought. I think these are just the diaries of somebody who failed and has turned on everybody and I don't intend to spend my time reading them.
BARTLETT:
1300 222 720 if you'd like to talk to the Prime Minister, 1300 222 720. Let's take some talkback, Prime Minister. Gary is first caller off the rank. Hello Gary.
CALLER:
Yes, good morning Liam and good morning Mr Prime Minister. I'd like to make a comment about going into Iraq initially because one of the reasons for us supposedly going there was weapons of mass destruction. As far as I'm concerned nothing has ever been found. I'd like your opinion on that for us being over there still. Also, you said by going into Iraq we weren't going to be made a target in Australia, yet we've got all these terrorism talks, etcetera, etcetera. Also, Mr Prime Minister, we don't seem to be concerned about a country like Africa where thousands die every month, and to me I think we're just, you've committed yourself, but to me we're just going to cause a lot of trouble mate down the line. I'd like your opinion if I may please.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes certainly Gary. It is true that the intelligence we had at the time of the military operation two years ago, or more than two years now, suggested that there weapons of mass destruction. Indeed there was really no debate around the world about the existence of the weapons, the argument was how you responded. The French and the Germans and the Russians and others who opposed what the Americans and the British and the Australians did didn't say there were no weapons, they just said that we should handle it differently. That was the intelligence we had at the time and it was a bona fide decision made on the basis of that intelligence. I think it's fair to say that we have to deal with the current situation and I have the strongest possible view that we must stay until a secure, hopefully democratic, Iraq can be established. It's difficult there at the moment, I suspect that the violence could increase over the next few months as we come to approve the constitution, or the Iraqis come to approve the constitution when the next election is held at the end of the year. It's in the interests of the terrorists to stop democracy being established in Iraq, it's in our interest to stop the terrorists succeeding.
BARTLETT:
How do you rank the level of terrorist threat here in Australia at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would put it, well it's a medium level, that's the official thing. I don't think it has changed over the last several years. Gary said that what we've done in Iraq has made us a target. Gary - we were a target before Iraq. Remember the Bali attack which killed 88 Australians took place before Iraq and there's intelligence that Australia was a potential terrorist target even before the 11th of September 2001. So it's not right to say, or infer, as I think you did, that it all started with Iraq.
BARTLETT:
But given the new laws that you talked about the day before yesterday, do we assume from that the level of terrorist threat here in Australia at the moment is the greatest or the highest it's been since 2001?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the change has been particularly brought about by the experience in London because for the first time the possibility of homegrown terrorists emerged and the thing that was qualitatively different in relation to the London attack was that the people who carried it out, three out of four of them, had been born and grown up in the north of England. Until then, and people imagine that a terrorist attack would be carried out in a country like Australia or Britain or America by people who've flown in or come in from some other part of the world and then carried out the attack. And with each incident in other countries you learn new things, you see things in a different light, you bring different perspectives to bear on what you're going to do.
BARTLETT:
Greg's on the line, Prime Minister. Hello Greg.
CALLER:
Hi there guys, thanks very much for talking to me. Prime Minister, earlier on you discussed the grounds for unlawful dismissal. I was wonderful what the grounds for unfair dismissal are that you'll be eliminating?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the existing unfair dismissal laws just give a generic right to anybody who claims to have been unfairly dismissed to allege that.
CALLER:
Any examples of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it can be anything - they can claim that their boss harassed them, they can claim their boss wasn't nice, they can claim all sorts of things. They can simply claim that the termination of their employment has been, generally speaking, unfair. Now that can embrace any kind of allegation and that of course is what's wrong with it. This law didn't exist until 1994 and the experience of so many small employers has been that people who are really poor performers and very particularly making life unpleasant for their fellow workmates can be very hard to get rid of. Now I think any employer has a right to let somebody go if after a fair opportunity that person is not performing and that person has an attitude that makes it very unfair and unreasonable for the rest of the workforce. Now it's a question of balance, the experience of this has been that so many small employers I've spoken to have been burnt by unfair dismissal claims that they say well if that's what happens when you expand your staff I'm not going to expand my staff. I won't bother putting somebody on because it's not worth the trouble to get rid of them if it doesn't work out.
CALLER:
So it's costing them money to go through the processes.
PRIME MINISTER:
It does cost...it's this go away money concept where what happens is that somebody is let go and then they go to the relevant authorities, say that they've been unfairly dismissed, the lawyer says to the employer look, 'you're in the right but it's going to cost you a bit of money because they've been backed by the union, you might as well give them $20,000 to make them go away and get on with your business', I mean that happens a lot.
BARTLETT:
Greg thanks for your call.
CALLER:
Thank you.
BARTLETT:
Cheers. Hassan, good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning Liam, I just would like to ask the Prime Minister when single middle income Australians will get real tax relief, since the Prime Minister...
PRIME MINISTER:
What do you regard as a middle income?
CALLER:
About $50,000 to $60,000.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well $50,000 to $60,000, have you got children?
CALLER:
No.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well $50,000 to $60,000 you've had some tax relief in the last two Budgets, have you got superannuation?
CALLER:
I have got my superannuation but I didn't pay extra.
PRIME MINISTER:
When you say you didn't pay extra but you can get a 1 1/2, 150per cent tax co-contribution rather from the Federal Government.
CALLER:
Yes Prime Minister but like we follow Britain in lots of stuff. Britain now moving to flat tax rate, why ...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no Britain is not moving to a flat tax.
CALLER:
They are studying it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think it's likely. I mean taxation is one of those things that is always being studied. A flat tax system in its pure form would be very unfair to low income earners because what it implies is that you tax every dollar from the very beginning at the flat tax rate and if somebody on $40,000 a year were taxed at say a flat rate of 20per cent on their, every dollar of their income, you'll find they're worse off then where they are now.
CALLER:
But at the same time we would save $84 billion of welfare we pay every year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what are you including in that welfare, family tax benefits?
CALLER:
It's, I think its people sitting at homes and getting money for doing nothing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's not right, well certainly, certainly if you are talking about the family tax benefit that is paid to women or in some cases men, who are full time parents in a home looking after their young children, I don't regard that as doing nothing and anybody who's got young children would fiercely contest that staying home looking after children is doing nothing, I think it's doing about the most valuable thing that you can do in your life frankly.
BARTLETT:
We'll move on. Warren is next, hello Warren.
CALLER:
Morning Liam.
BARTLETT:
Morning.
CALLER:
Morning how are you?
BARTLETT:
Good thankyou.
CALLER:
Question for Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
Morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
Mr Howard you are prepared to re-write the conditions for the average Australian, yet you refuse to tackle one of the most powerful unions in Australia; the Pharmacy Guild. You won't let Woolworths for example, open chemist shops. Can you tell me why you are prepared to tackle some unions and not the others please?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are not re-writing all of the working conditions for Australians. The great bulk of Australians will be unaffected by these workplace changes. I believe over time they will produce more productive workplaces which will be good for the economy and that's why we are doing it. We think there is value for the community in maintaining community pharmacy and that is the basis of our approach in relation to the supermarkets.
CALLER:
But Mr Howard...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well...
CALLER:
But Mr Howard, in all over Europe, in Scotland, in United Kingdom you can go to the Woolworths or Asda or any shop over there and you can go to a chemist; why can't you do that in Australia? Why are the chemists allowed to have rules that promote exclusivity; no one else is allowed to compete against them. Now that is contrary to what you promote in the Liberal Party and I can't see why you protect them so much.
PRIME MINISTER:
The question you've got to ask yourself, Warren isn't it?
CALLER:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
...is what is the system of community pharmacies which provides the best service to the Australian consumer?
CALLER:
I can't imagine that a place like Scotland would not have thought about that and yet they promote it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there is a lot things about Australia that are better than Scotland and I love the Scots but I don't think that we should sort of suggest that just because it's done in Europe or Britain or America, as much as we admire all these places that we should say it automatically should be done in Australia. I mean, my mail on this issue is that people like the local chemist, they like community pharmacies, and they wouldn't like the idea of those community pharmacies disappearing. Now we are in negotiations with the Pharmacy Guild at the moment and I hope as a result of that, we can have a new community pharmacy agreement but it's got to be a pharmacy agreement that is good for the Australian consumer. And in the end our attitude on all of these things, including what you have talked about, will be governed by what we think is best for the Australian public, not according to some particular economic model.
BARTLETT:
Thanks for the question Warren, hello Max.
CALLER:
Hello Liam. I'd just like a question for the Prime Minister, being a pensioner at 75, we went on a wild flower trip here just a while ago and it costs us just over $200 just in fuel and us pensioners just can't afford this price of fuel now and when you're paying $1.60 and I heard that in Queensland you can get fuel cheaper there than what you can in other states and I just want to know what you want to say about that. Thankyou.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can get fuel cheaper in Queensland than other states because the Queensland government, out of its GST revenue and other arrangements, has seen fit over the years to provide a rebate that is not provided by the other states. It's up to the other states; well it's open to the other states to do that. I am not saying that they should or they shouldn't - that is a matter for them. But as far as the federal government is concerned, we understand how painful these high fuel prices are, they are very high, they are due to overseas circumstances. The price of crude oil has gone up and that's affected the price. I know it's of no comfort to you but I should point out to you that the cost per litre of fuel in Australia is what roughly $1.23 and a couple of days ago in the United States only it's a bit cheaper, in Britain it's $2.13, Japan $1.69, Germany $2.07, France $2.11. Now none of that helps you, I understand that but what I am pointing out, this is a worldwide problem, a worldwide phenomenon and it's not something that is just a problem in Australia.
BARTLETT:
Interesting though Prime Minister, this state's peak motoring body the RAC has come out and said that the ethanol solution or part solution is not going to solve the problem because it is more expensive to produce than petrol.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not arguing Liam that ethanol is going to solve the problem. I think it could make a small contribution over time. I have never argued that it is the solution. I am not sure that I agree with that body - the local body, that it is going to be dearer - that is not the view of other motoring organisations; they might be wrong, the Western Australian body may be right. But I think the issue should be trialled, it should be discussed, the changes I've announced, the agreement I struck with the oil companies yesterday to work towards the biofuels target of 350ML by 2010, I think all of that's good but I have never represented to the Australian public that ethanol is the solution to world's oil prices, it's not.
BARTLETT:
Prime Minister we will have to leave it there, thanks so much for coming in today, and having a chat to our listeners around Western Australia.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
BARTLETT:
Appreciate your time.
[ends]