MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning. I can tell that when I'm next in Melbourne, I will need to have a beer with you to repair my damaged reputation.
MITCHELL:
Oh you heard us talking about your drinking habits?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, yes I did.
MITCHELL:
Tony Shaw was worried you'd think he was the rugby union captain. I know you're a very restrained drinker Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Moderate, but I enjoy a drink. I enjoy it, I'll put it that way.
MITCHELL:
Tell me, the kids singing happy birthday Johnny. Is that enough respect? Does it worry you?
PRIME MINISTER:
It doesn't trouble me. I guess I see it as an expression of goodwill. It doesn't bother me. I believe in a certain amount of formality. I, as you know, address people courteously, or try to, on talkback. I think people are entitled to respect and I tend to use formal expressions with people more frequently than other people do. But on the other hand, I don't stand on ceremony and I wasn't, in any way, offended. Quite the reverse, I was quite touched by their expressions. And can I just say, in case you don't ask me that I wasn't the least bit concerned about that bloke who came along with the screwdriver. I thought he was just a friendly young man who wanted to wish me happy birthday and this idea that it was some kind of security breach is nonsense. My close protection detail know a potential security breach when they see one. The only way you can stop something like that from happening is not to be spontaneously willing to talk to fellow citizens and I am certainly not going to ever get into that situation. This is Australia. If people want to, in a friendly manner, come up and say something to the Prime Minister when I'm out walking, if they want to do what that young man did, that's fine by me. And we'll continue to have security arrangements and have people on the detail who are smart enough and sensible enough to know the difference between a real security threat and somebody who is just engaging in a spontaneous gesture. Good luck to the young man.
MITCHELL:
Stephen Battaglia was his name and he's very embarrassed by it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he shouldn't be embarrassed and I saw what his mother said.
MITCHELL:
She thought he could have been shot dead.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well maybe she did think that and mothers always worry about those things. That's human nature. But he seemed a nice young man and I hope he does well at school and goes on to achieve whatever he wants to in life.
MITCHELL:
I see your security man, I've seen him around for years and I've watched the way he works and I've seen you in public and in private with him and obviously he would look at the boy, and would see him, make an assessment and know what was going on. PRIME MINISTER:
Of course he would. The head of my detail has been doing this for years and he knows a risk when he sees one, and he knows a goodwill gesture when he sees one. And that's why he's the head of my detail. He's very professional.
MITCHELL:
But you don't want to encourage people to run up and hug you all the time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, it was a special day, a special occasion and I walk along there most times when I'm in Melbourne and I go past those boat sheds.
MITCHELL:
Did you know he's a Carey Grammar Boy?
PRIME MINISTER:
I learnt that later yes.
MITCHELL:
You know who else went to Carey Grammar?
PRIME MINISTER:
I know a lot of people who went to Carey Grammar. I know Peter Costello went to Carey Grammar, I think John Elliott went to Carey Grammar.
MITCHELL:
John Elliott did.
PRIME MINISTER:
There's quite a lot of people, a very good school.
MITCHELL:
On to a fairly serious matter, the Middle East. Israel's calling 15,000 reservists up, there seems to be an increase in violence. Have you been in contact with anybody in the Middle East?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I had a conversation last night for about 20 minutes with the Israeli Prime Minister Mr Olmert. He rang me to talk about the situation, to express gratitude for the diplomatic support that we had displayed towards Israel. The Israelis I believe would be agreeable to a ceasefire provided it were on a proper basis and they're right about that. If you have a ceasefire on conditions which mean that the problem that's caused the latest conflict was going to occur again in the very near future, or the not too distant future, there's not much point in having it. A key element of any such arrangement would be an international stabilisation force, but a big one. And from Australia's point of view, I would certainly be very sceptical about the value of a small, token force, and Australia would not contribute to any kind of small, token force. As to whether we might contribute to a much larger one, that is something we would have to consider. We would have to assess our capacity to do so, in what form that contribution might take, because we do have commitments in a number of other theatres. We have them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Solomon Islands, in East Timor and we have small pockets of people elsewhere so we are quite heavily committed. So if there were a big force and we were asked, well we'd have to look at what our capacity was. But the key thing is, if there is to be any kind of settlement, or any kind of cessation of hostilities, it can only be on the basis that there is an international stabilisation force.
MITCHELL:
Any other conditions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they would have to have an adequate mandate.
MITCHELL:
What sort of mandate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it would have to include disarming Hezbollah.
MITCHELL:
Is that achievable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well very hard, but this will be a test of the bona fides of the people involved in this issue. It would be a test of their bona fides. We can't stick our heads in the sand and say well, if you achieve a ceasefire, no matter what the conditions are, you have just solved the problem. You haven't solved the problem. You're reverting to the status quo ante and all that means is this could start again. And the root cause of the current violence this terrible outbreak, is that the action of Hezbollah in going across the Israeli border. I should say, while I'm on the subject that another matter I did raise with the Israeli Prime Minister was the safety of Australians in southern Lebanon. Some of them are in an area which is experiencing very intense fighting at the present time and I ask that the care, safety and wellbeing of Australians be kept in mind by the Israelis. Now these things are always difficult to achieve in a military conflict, but they are Australian citizens and I did raise my concerns about their safety with him.
MITCHELL:
What was his response to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
He said he would do everything he could to make sure they came to no harm.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, given the conditions we're talking about, a big stabilisation force, disarming Hezbollah, what countries would have to agree to that? Lebanon, Syria, Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you'd certainly have to have an agreement from Lebanon and it would be desirable to try and involve neighbouring Arab countries as well.
MITCHELL:
Do you think it's achievable?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's very hard.
MITCHELL:
The war goes on.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well exactly. I mean look, nobody wants fighting, but if you're asking me what will resolve this issue, what will resolve this issue is at a political level an unconditional acceptance of Israel's right to exist by the entire Arab world, a recommitment of all countries including Israel to the establishment of a Palestinian state, an independent, separate, sovereign Palestinian state, and an acceptance by all relevant parties and countries that if there is to be an effective ceasefire, then there has to be an understanding for a force to go in. And that force to have an adequate mandate. It's no good giving it a mandate similar to the limited mandate that some of the international forces had in Kosovo in the 1990s when they had no legal authority to prevent the slaughter of innocent people. That is the most debilitating thing of all for an international stabilisation force. So it's a big ask, but this is a deep-seated issue and unless we recognise the huge contribution to the current problem that's been made by Hezbollah and unless there's a willingness on the part of the international country to impose reasonable conditions, I am not optimistic that it will be any better and could be worse.
MITCHELL:
Sadly we heard yesterday an Australian-Israeli citizen killed in action there. A number of Jewish people have been calling today saying they are willing to go and fight for Israel. What would be the reaction of Australia if Lebanese people wanted to join Hezbollah?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would have a very negative attitude towards that.
MITCHELL:
Would they be in breach of Australian law?
PRIME MINISTER:
They could be. I'd have to get advice on that. They could well be in breach of Australian law, whereas Israel is clearly in a different position. It's the armed forces of a country of which a person is a dual national. And bear in mind that Australia has five million dual nationals. There are five million people in this country who are, as well as being Australian citizens, hold the passports of other countries. Now we're not likely to be at war with most of them.
MITCHELL:
Are you comfortable with dual citizenship?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have mixed feelings about dual citizenship, but it's an historical reality. The great bulk of those incidentally, or the two largest groups are British and Greek. And it's because a British person can become an Australian without ceasing to be a Brit and a Greek person can become an Australian without surrendering his or her Greek passport. So it's really a consequence of the laws of other countries and from a practical point of view, quite apart from the theory of it, I don't know that you can do anything about it, or should do anything about it. But coming back to your question, I would just have to check the legal position in relation to it, but that could be a breach of law whereas in the case of Israel, because it's the armed forces of another country, and not a potential terrorist organisation it would be different.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a break and come back with more questions and calls for the Prime Minister in Perth.
[commercial break]
MITCHELL:
15 to 11, the Prime Minister's in Perth, we'll take a call for Mr Howard. Anthony, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister, good morning Neil. Happy birthday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
CALLER:
Prime Minister my question is, is there some sort of method of subsidising the excise on fuel in order to increase productivity? In other words say, for example, you subsidise the excise of say 15 per cent, wouldn't that money put back into the economy bring in a better return?
MITCHELL:
So you mean you actually cut the excise do you?
CALLER:
Cut the excise...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can do that but you have to bear in mind the arithmetic of it. To cut the excise by one cent a litre - and bear in mind that excise is a fixed charge on per litre of fuel, it doesn't go up as the price of the fuel goes up - if you cut the excise by one cent, that costs about $280 million a year, so to bring about a reduction that people would notice you'd have to cut it by I guess 5 to 10 cents a litre at a minimum and you therefore are talking about several billion dollars. Now if the price of petrol were to fall, and that's possible, although I don't think that's going to happen in the near future, if it were to fall then in order to I guess readjust the revenue, a government might then say, well can we put the excise up again? And I reckon most people understandably would say no thanks. And you can only cut excise by passing a law. So in order to increase it you'd have to pass a law. And I just think the government's got to get their money from somewhere...
MITCHELL:
But have you been rethinking this given the impact that fuel....
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm thinking about this all the time, but I don't really...when you bear in mind the changes that were made in 2001 and we no longer automatically index it, and we did cut it by one and a half, and it is by world standards...
MITCHELL:
What about talking to the States about the GST take on petrol and then seeing if a deal can't be done there to cake the GST off the excise?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they wouldn't agree to....when you say the GST on excise, when we introduced the GST we cut excise.
MITCHELL:
But the GST is assessed on the excise; it's a tax on a tax.
PRIME MINISTER:
No but when you reduce the excise to compensate for the effect of the GST I don't think the net effect of it is to produce that outcome. I mean when we first, I think it was 43 cents a litre when we brought the GST in, and we cut it so that people would be paying no more, I remember this debate we had back in 2001, and one of the reasons why we cut the excise in 2001 by an additional amount of one and a half cents a litre, as well as getting rid of the indexation, was to totally reassure people that we were not collecting more revenue, we meaning governments collectively, were not collecting more revenue as a result of the introduction of the GST. So I don't think that is an argument. Do I think the States would agree to that? No they wouldn't. They would say well if you want us to cut the GST, well you give us more money. And the States could argue with some justification that true it is that they're collecting more GST on petrol because of the higher price of petrol, but because people have to spend more money on petrol, they can't spend as much money on other items that also attract the GST and you have the substitution effect.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister the unions want at $30 pay rise for low-income workers, about 6.2 per cent, will the Government oppose that?
PRIME MINISTER:
We think there's justification for an increase for low-paid people and the Government's submission will advocate an increase in the minimum wage. The actually quantum we will leave to the Commission to determine, but in our submission which I've gone over and it's being settled and finalised as we speak, we will be arguing that there is a case for an increase in the minimum wage. The unions tend to engage the ambit claim game. I don't think Mr Combet really expects or believes that a $30 increase is appropriate and I don't think he expects the Commission will award it. But they do play this game, they always ask for more than they expect to get and say that what they end up getting is not enough. But there is undoubtedly a case for a minimum wage increase but it should not be so great as to hurt the employment prospects of the very low paid because if the minimum wage is too high it will have a negative effect on the employment prospects of the unemployed. And we have to take into account the unemployed as well as the employed, particularly as most people in Australia are paid a lot more than the minimum wage.
MITCHELL:
So do you have a figure in mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have a figure in mind at present and it's very unlikely that our own submission will contain a particular figure. But we don't the view that no increase should occur. We think there should be an increase and we think the prosperity and such of the community justifies some increase in the federal minimum wage. But we don't want it to be so great as to hurt the prospects of getting a job for the people who are out of work because there has to be a system which still provides some opportunity for people who are trying to get work, who'll be very happy to work for the minimum wage, to do so.
MITCHELL:
I was asked the other day by a person in the Liberal Party whether Ted Baillieu, the new leader in Victoria, had gone to sit at the feet of the conservative political master, John Howard and learn, has he?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh we've had one discussion. I think he's obviously got to row his own race. I mean I'm very happy to help, very happy to help indeed.
MITCHELL:
But you haven't been asked for help have you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've had one or two discussions with Ted. But we're not getting into the intensive stage of the campaign and clearly I'll be very happy to assist him during the intensive stage of the campaign.
MITCHELL:
Are you aware it's reported that he is snubbing the industrial relations changes in the sense that he's promised, well one of his shadow ministers has promised, that if in government, a Baillieu government, would not insist on AWAs and negotiate with the unions and the public service?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I've read that report. There is no inconsistency with our policy in such an approach. Our policy does not require everybody to be on an AWA. What our policy does, and it's called WorkChoices, is give people the choice of whether they're under a collective agreement or an AWA. It's Mr Beazley that's denying the choice. Mr Beazley says everybody has to be on a collective agreement and he won't have AWAs. We don't take that attitude. I also saw that report I think in the Melbourne Age suggesting that it was part of our policy to require employers to de-unionise firms that had a union workforce, that's not our policy. Union membership should be voluntary, somebody wants to be in a union and there's nothing in our policy that is inconsistent with a state government saying to nurses and police and public servants, we want to have you on collective agreements. And it's quite unsurprising that that should be the case and there's really nothing in the policy that's against that.
MITCHELL:
Are you getting the impression though that Ted Baillieu's a bit sort of soft-left, a bit light green?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I'm very reluctant to use those general labels. But people know my views on some of these social issues and I won't be changing them. People's views on them I suppose will vary from person to person, and the Liberal Party is bit of a broad church, but everybody knows which pew I sit in.
MITCHELL:
Hello Tony, go ahead please Tony.
CALLER:
Yes good morning Mr Prime Minister, good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Hi.
CALLER:
Just regarding the situation in the Middle East at the moment, what's your reaction to this incident that happened with the UN members getting killed and if it was, I have been told that Australians usually use that compound as well, if it were Australians that had actually got killed, would you still be defending Israel the same way you're defending them?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't defend irresponsible, indifferent action in a military operation, no matter who carries it out. I do defend Israel's right to exist. I do blame Hezbollah for the current conflict and I do defend Israel's right to defend herself.
MITCHELL:
But was that irresponsible action?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's too early to tell. There is an investigation being carried out. I've heard interviews with different people on the issue and let's wait and see the outcome of it. If there were deliberate targeting, then that should be absolutely condemned.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister the report...there's a special Coalition meeting on the 7th of August in Canberra and this could be a time where you're making an announcement, is that right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's a certainly a special meeting on the 7th of August and that meeting was fixed by me just as Parliament rose some weeks ago and in advance of recent events, let me put it that way, and I think you know what I'm referring to, so this meeting is no way related to issues of leadership and issues of leadership except to the extent that people may wish to raise them, and people can raise anything they like. Although this is a joint party meeting incidentally, it's not just a meeting of the Liberal Party. There'll be once again in the normal course of events; there will be a meeting of the Liberal Party, separately from the National Party the following morning and then that will be followed by a joint party meeting. This meeting on the 7th, on the afternoon of the 7th is a special joint party meeting that I said I would have to give people an opportunity to roam at large and to talk about the policy directions and to make suggestions about strategy. I have these meetings every 12 months or so to give people an opportunity, away from examining the detail of legislation, to say well I think the party and the Government's going in the wrong direction, I think what you ought to do is, is that or the other. And I find these sessions very valuable, particularly after a recess when most members have been back in their electorates listening to what people have got to say. This is going to be a very difficult 18 months for the Government, between now and the next election, and it's going to be a very hard election for the Government to win. And I have been saying that now for a long time and I hope people believe me when I say it because it will be very hard for us to win.
MITCHELL:
But obviously any strategy for the next 18 months, leadership's part of that. Do have any intention to make an announcement on your future at that meeting?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know that I want to say more than what I've previously said on that issue.
MITCHELL:
But I haven't asked you about that issue before, it's been a matter of whether....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you've asked me about something that is related to that issue and I find it safer to give that response.
MITCHELL:
You know how that'll be interpreted?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll leave that to the interpreters of which you are a respected one of that number.
MITCHELL:
We were talking earlier about the possibility of Australians being involved in any stabilisation force in the Middle East. You want more people in the Australian armed forces, how do you get them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not easy in a time of low unemployment, although I am told by the military that the big problem is the attrition rate. The actual recruitment levels are still quite good but people drop out in greater numbers and earlier than they used to. One of the things that Brendan Nelson and I have asked the military to do is to look at different ways in which people can be encouraged to stay longer.
MITCHELL:
What about a campaign from you? We need you, join up.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if those who understand these things better than I do told me that that would help, I'd be willing to do it. But I never like to inject things that might be regarded as political and joining the armed forces of a country...obviously if people thought that would help, I'd be willing to do it, but thus far that's not been the case.
MITCHELL:
Thanks for your time. You've been on the road all week, is there a big birthday...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've got...oh no, no, I've got to address the Liberal Party conference here in Perth on Saturday and then I will be coming back to the eastern states and I'll be going to north Queensland early next week.
MITCHELL:
See how the bananas are going?
PRIME MINISTER:
See how the bananas are going, yes well that's very important at the moment and the flattening of those bananas has, to mix one's metaphors, has cast a very long shadow.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]