JOURNALIST:
Welcome to Mr John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia. Mr
Howard, welcome to the studio.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's very nice to be here Philip.
JOURNALIST:
The dollar, it's the story on everyone's lips. I sometimes
think it's a national sporting event isn't it, as we sort
of barrack it up or barrack it down. I mean there are two sides
to every currency story for the dollar going down it helps exporters
in the country, of course. It's become a national obsession,
almost a sign of our national well-being whether it's up or
down. This morning I note Professor Ross Garnaut was commenting
that the dollar's relationship with the United States dollar
was overly measured and we should be concerned about what's
happening to the rest of the world. Are you worried about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am obviously following what has happened very carefully.
The Prime Minister or the Treasurer or, indeed, other senior Ministers
never comment on the level of the dollar. The comments that Ross
Garnaut has made is accurate to this extent that it is not just
the relationship of the Australian dollar to the US dollar but also
to a whole basket of currencies with which Australia, the countries
with which Australia trades, and the point I'd make is that
the fundamentals of the Australian economy are very strong. We have
very low inflation. We've turned a $10.5 billion budget deficit
into a surplus of $2.7 billion. We have quite strong business investment.
We've made a lot of other reforms to improve the competitiveness
of the Australian economy and when you look around our region the
things that really count in the medium to longer term are very strong
in Australia, and they are the sorts of things that in the medium
to longer term really count.
JOURNALIST:
Are you concerned that in Asia at least the message about the strength
of the Australian economy, and elsewhere too for that matter, amongst
currency traders may get mixed up unnecessarily with.......
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't really want to get, Philip, into a, and I'm
not trying to be uncooperative to you, or indeed, to anybody else,
but it's just not sensible for Prime Ministers to get into
detailed technical discussions about currency trading. They are
part of the market system. I am not going to talk about the level
and I don't think anybody else senior in the Government is
going to either.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, I was keen to talk to you and I have been for a while
about issues of Sydney. I want to talk about that, the issues of
Sydney life. We will return, if you don't mind, a bit later
to some of the other issues, the Queensland election and so on.
PRIME MINISTER:
Please do. I'd be surprised if you didn't.
JOURNALIST:
Let's have a talk about Sydney. You are the first Prime Minister,
for as long as anyone can remember, to make their home in Sydney,
to live here rather than live in Canberra.
PRIME MINISTER:
I really divide my time.
JOURNALIST:
Of course. But those in Canberra, of course, say well that's
a slight to them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Sydney is part of Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Exactly.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's not the only part, it's a lovely part of Australia.
I've lived in Sydney all my life and I am very fond of it as
a city. I chose to spend more time as part of my family groups with
my wife and three children in Sydney than in Canberra because that
seemed to me the overwhelmingly sensible thing to do both from a
family point of view and also as a means of keeping in touch with
attitudes and views in the largest city in Australia. Now that's
not disrespectful to Canberra. I spend, I guess, almost as much
time, if you measure it by nights spent in particular cities, almost
as much time in Canberra as I do in Sydney. But my family home is
in Sydney, it doesn't cost the taxpayer any more and therefore
it's a sensible arrangement all round.
JOURNALIST:
Is it something you would recommend to future Prime Ministers?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's a matter for them. It just depends entirely on where
they come from. I don't seek to establish it as a norm. It
just suits me and it hasn't in any way interfered with the
processes of Government and it hasn't added to expense. I think
it is an eminently sensible arrangement. Which I might say most
people around Australia understand.
JOURNALIST:
Can we look at some of the things around Sydney. It's your
home city, you grew up here, spent your life here, you live here
as Prime Minister. Can we look at some of the issues around Sydney
and starting with the Opera House, the most famous building in Sydney,
the most famous building in Australia, one of the great buildings
of the world. There are a number of people have been critical, or
failed to understand why the Federal Government hasn't been
keen to list the Opera House on the World Heritage list. Why is
that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think there is any particular reason for or
against it. I mean, how shall I put it, it's not going to sort
of alter the status of the Opera House. It is not going to alter
it as a focal point of tourist attraction. You asked me: why
haven't we done it?' It's not because we have any
less regard for the Opera House. Some people might argue that there's
a bit of a difference between listing a building like that and listing
a national park on the World Heritage list. I am not ruling it out
forever but I guess my answer to that is that you don't automatically
list every single thing on the World Heritage list.
JOURNALIST:
But this is not every single thing?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, but there is an argument for saying that a building
of that kind is not necessarily something that ought to be listed.
But I don't rule it out.
JOURNALIST:
So it might happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well as I say, I don't rule it out.
JOURNALIST:
Cabinet has made a decision not to proceed at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but things can change.
JOURNALIST:
Would you personally support it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I must say I don't have a strong view about the need
to do it I must say, but equally it is one of those things you don't
rule out forever.
JOURNALIST:
If it was listed on the World Heritage list, of course, it would
give the Federal Government some control over what happens to the
building and at the moment they don't.
PRIME MINISTER:
I realise that but once again if we are to have a Federal system
of Government in this country we can't sort of have the federation
of convenience. In other words, if it's convenient to leave
something to State or Federal responsibility then you do so but
if it's not you just override the differences between Federal
and State Government. Now I don't really think that you should
have a situation in this country where even buildings as great as
the Opera House, are being effectively run and controlled by the
Federal Government. I mean it's not owned by the Federal Government,
it's owned, as I understand it, by a trust. It was originally
built under the aegis of the then New South Wales Government. It
was, from recollection, partly funded through special lotteries.
It was never in its construction phases, and in its concept and
in its design, it was never a creature of the then Federal Government.
Now, we have a Federal structure in this country. We might as well,
while we have it, we might as well use it and - I'm not advocating
that we should get rid of it incidentally - I think a Federal structure
is a good structure for a geographically large country. Therefore
there are some things that are the responsibility of State governments
and there are some things that are the responsibility of Federal
governments. And, if State governments get things wrong in their
area of responsibility they should wear the odium for it but just
as if a Federal Government gets something wrong in its area of responsibility,
it should wear the odium for that as well.
JOURNALIST:
There are some suggestions by some who fail to understand the Government's
decision that perhaps the Federal Government's concerned that
it might end up carrying the can for the cost of the Opera House
whether it be future renovations or additions or whatever.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, some people might argue that, but others may simply take
the view that this is overwhelmingly something within the sphere
of responsibility of State governments.
JOURNALIST:
It kind of leads us inevitably walking back from the Opera House
down to the East Circular Quay development ...
PRIME MINISTER:
It's properly called the "Toaster".
JOURNALIST:
...doesn't it, which a lot of people in Sydney hate. What
do you think about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think it's very attractive. But if you are
saying to me should we find several hundred million dollars to tear
it down and not spend that several hundred million dollars on needed
community services say in the western suburbs of Sydney. I would
find it very hard to stare the people - of say Penrith, or the outer
western suburbs of Sydney - in the eye and say look it is more important
that we tear this down and pay for the mistake of a State government,
and it is the State government's responsibility. I mean, I
don't want to get necessarily into a sort of....
JOURNALIST:
... and now this...
PRIME MINISTER:
....you're to blame, I'm not to blame sort of situation.
I don't want to have that negative tit-for-tat interview, but
the decision to build it was made by Mr Carr when he was the Minister
for Planning or whatever in the former Labor government. It is overwhelmingly,
totally, completely, and comprehensively a State Government responsibility.
I will carry the responsibility for the Federal sphere of government.
I will cooperate with the NSW government but to ask us to take $200
or $300 million or whatever it might be, and there are a whole range
of estimates, to take that away from something else, say from, I
mean, we've been told at the same time they want us to put
money into this, that we've got to put even more money into
hospitals - take it away from those things, to say to the people
of the western suburbs of Sydney for example, the battlers out there
who pay their taxes, we're going to spend several hundred million
on this, I don't think, much an all as from an aesthetic point
of view it is an ugly building. There is no doubt about that, it
is. And it is a pity that the decision was ever made to give it
planning approval, but in a democracy, governments take decisions
and they have to, in the end, be accountable for those decisions
in the bar of public opinion and that is what is happening on this
issue, and I would find it hard in exercising my responsibilities
conscientiously to say that making it an undoubtedly pleasing decision
to many of your listeners and I'm quite certain as I speak
this morning, many of the people who listen to this programme will
say "oh gee Prime Minister, or gee John, we'd like you
to have a different view", because they would like it and in
a sense I empathise with that personally, but I've got to put
myself outside that personal view. I mean, I would rather that building
weren't there as somebody who looks at it on a very regular
basis.
JOURNALIST:
It's right across the water from you. Well, actually not quite.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not entirely no, but as I drive along the Cahill expressway
and I do that on a very regular basis, of course I as a citizen
of Sydney would like to see it disappear but I've got to ask
myself, should I really divert money that I could otherwise spend
on facilities for people who need them, and heaven knows, no matter
who is in power, there is always need in society, there's always
need in a big city. Later on this morning I'm going to go an
launch a report on youth homelessness, so I am very seized of those
sorts of responsibilities. I just don't think I can justify
switching funds from those sorts of things into this.
JOURNALIST:
So it's ruled out then is it? No federal...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I can't. That is how I feel at the present time. I ....
JOURNALIST:
Have you had a recent discussion about it with the ....
PRIME MINISTER:
The Premier and the Lord Mayor want to talk to me about it and
of course I will talk to them. I will always deal courteously with
the head of the NSW Government, whoever he or she may be, and the
Lord Mayor of Sydney. I will talk to them, but you will, and your
listeners will have gathered from what I've said, how I'm
thinking at present.
JOURNALIST:
Thinking about your own city and speaking in a personal sense,
does it distress you that East Circular Quay is symptomatic of planning
decisions in Sydney, which as you look around there are other examples
too of things that just should never have been. Does it distress
you that..
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes it does....
JOURNALIST:
That in a city as beautiful as this, that that's the best
that as a city, as a community that we can come up with?
PRIME MINISTER:
As an individual, as a private citizen to the extent that I can
be one, of course some planning decisions disappoint me, dismay
me. However planning decisions are often in the eye of the beholder.
Sydney is a beautiful city. I haven't seen a more beautiful
city in the world, when you look at its heart and centre, which
is of course the harbour and all the nooks and crannies that run
off the harbour, I think it is undoubtedly a stunning city and a
wonderful place to live, not for everybody, it's tough for
some people. Like all big cities there are a lot of lonely people
in Sydney and one of the problems of large city life increasingly
is that there are more and more people on their own and as a community
we have to try and find in our mechanisms, in our institutions,
in our approaches, we've got to find some way of providing
people in big cities with company. I think it's the most distressing
thing about city life. There are so many people, not just older
people, although there are a lot of them in that category but also
younger people who are very lonely. I mean youth homelessness again,
if I can return to that subject, is an awful manifestation of individual
loneliness. But despite all of that, it is, for most of its citizens,
it's a great place in which to live. I don't like some
of the planning decisions. I guess there are some that I like that
others don't.
JOURNALIST:
There will always be some. My guest is the Prime Minister, Mr Howard.
It's fourteen to nine. Mr Howard, the Harbour foreshores, an
issue which I know you had a lot of discussions with your Cabinet
colleagues too and the Defence Minister, Mr McLachlan, in the past
as well about this. Has there been a decision made yet......
PRIME MINISTER:
We are working towards a final decision on that which will be a
good decision for, not just the people of Sydney, but the people
of Australia.
JOURNALIST:
There is some suggestion that there be a federal trust set up but
the money available come from the Federation Fund and that.....
PRIME MINISTER:
That's one of the suggestions that is around. And one of the
reasons for that is that if more land is made available for open
space and therefore for use by the public as a result of moving
defence installations from one part of the country to the other,
there is a cost involved in that relocation. And it is legitimate
to argue that a proper use of the Federation Fund, or part of it,
would be to underwrite the cost of moving it otherwise you would
never be able to consider additional open space as part of a Federation
project.
JOURNALIST:
Can you understand the logic of somebody to say: hey, what's
going on, this is Government land which I as a taxpayer am buying
from myself again, we are just shifting money around'.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am talking more about the cost of relocating people to one
part of the country to the other. If you shift defence personnel
from a harbour foreshore area to North Queensland or to the Northern
Territory or to Victoria or Western Australia, there is a cost involved
in that. That's the sort of thing I am talking about. And also
one of the other proposals that is around is the remediation and
cleaning up of some of the foreshore assets. Now if that occurs
there is a cost involved in that and I don't think anybody
can legitimately argue that that isn't a fair and proper and
orthodox use of the Federation Fund. We are moving closer to a decision
on this. There are further discussions that must be undertaken with
the New South Wales Government. The idea of linking open space on
the Sydney Harbour foreshores with the Centenary of Federation,
it does catch my imagination, it catches the imagination of many
Australians living, not only in and around Sydney, but all around
the country. It is interesting when we discuss this matter inside
the Government, without giving away too many Cabinet secrets, many
of my colleagues from other States almost instantaneously said:
doing something big about the Harbour foreshores in Sydney would
be about as appropriate a way to mark the Centenary of Federation
as a gift to the people of Sydney, or a substantial gift to the
people of Sydney and the people of Australia as any project they
could think of. It fired the imagination and interest of colleagues
from Queensland and South Australia as well as from Sydney.
JOURNALIST:
I am sure many people would be encouraged by that. The second airport.
It is one of those issues which, if you are in Canberra, you are
going to have to deal with over the years. I mean they are rebuilding
hugely out at Kingsford Smith, there's a heavy rail line going
in and no-one in their right mind would be looking at that airport
and thinking well that's going to go away. You go to Badgery's
Creek nothing is happening at all, is it ever going to be built?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well our policy is to build a second airport at Badgery's
Creek....
JOURNALIST:
Still?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, that's still our policy. Subject to, and this is very
important, the proper processes of an environmental impact statement.
I mean that is our policy. It's very hard to please - no it's
not very hard to please everybody on this - it's impossible
to please everybody on a second airport. If you live near Kingsford
Smith you naturally want to, it's our policy to keep the curfew.
You want the noise spread around a bit, and I think we have been
successful in that, we have achieved a more fair distribution of
the noise. If you live near Badgery's Creek, you are not too
thrilled about the idea of a second airport being built there. It
is very difficult for any government anywhere in the industrialised
world to build a second airport without there being strong community
opposition from some or other groups.
JOURNALIST:
Well you are in favour of it you say, well not in favour of it
but that's your policy, you say but almost nobody else is,
the councils aren't, the Opposition aren't in favour of
a new airport.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Opposition was in favour of it federally, that was there
policy.
JOURNALIST:
And now they are not in favour of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know, it depends who you speak to.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Beazley certainly said he is not very keen on having it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's not the official position of the Federal Opposition.
As I understand, the official position of the Federal Opposition,
I mean they do flip flop on a lot of these things according to whether
they are in Government or Opposition....
JOURNALIST:
They support a second airport for the Sydney basin...
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean that sort of the 30 year cop-out for the airport problem
of Sydney. I mean there comes a point where if somebody who claims
to be an alternative government has got to go a bit further than
that and say well we support one here.. Now it was a policy of the
former Government, the Keating Government, to build an airport at
Badgery's Creek subject to an EIS. That was their policy and
that is our policy. Now we haven't got the final EIS process
completed yet and when we do you'll hear more from us but that
is our position.
JOURNALIST:
Okay, the Olympics.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Are you happy with the way it is being run from a federal point
of view?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well generally speaking my policy has been to try and avoid any
kind of political, making any kind of political context out of the
Olympic Games. It is a great Australian event and it's a tribute
to the people of Australia and it's a tribute to the city of
Sydney that the games are coming here and I try and avoid anything
that suggests that I am sniping at the organisation of it because
it is something being run by the New South Wales local government.
As far as I am concerned, I want to cooperate with whoever the Government
of New South Wales is, and it may be a different government. And
obviously from a political point of view, I would not be unhappy
if there were a different Government in New South Wales but I won't
go into that.
JOURNALIST:
Would you like to open it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I said before I was Leader of the Opposition, about four years
ago, I was merely the Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations and
had no real prospect of ever being Opposition Leader, let alone
Prime Minister. I said that I thought the Prime Minister of the
day ought to open it whoever that may be. So it's not a question
of John Howard wanting to open the Olympic Games, it's never
been a personal pitch.
JOURNALIST:
Yeah, but your view is that the Prime Minister should....
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he or she may be,
ought to open it. That is the appropriate person to do so.
JOURNALIST:
It's seven to nine. Mr Howard is my guest this morning on
the Breakfast Show, Wednesday morning the 10th of June. Can we return
to a few of the other national issues around?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
JOURNALIST:
The rise of One Nation. In retrospect do you think the way you
handled Pauline Hanson's maiden speech was the right way?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do.
JOURNALIST:
You get a lot of wisdom with hindsight I know.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think anything would have been different if I'd
of reacted differently. What needs to be done in relation to this
issue more than anything else is, the political leaders want to
listen to and talk to the people who are attracted to her, in my
view, falling to several groups. The great bulk of the people who
are attracted to her are people who have been affected by economic
and social change. They feel vulnerable. Many of them live in rural
areas of Australia. Many of them are over 50, they've lost
their jobs or they feel they might lose their jobs and they are
attracted by simplistic, apparently easy, overnight solutions, and
they are also sometimes attracted by a view of life that tries to
blame one or other group for their difficulties. Now what I believe
one should do is to try and talk to those people. The job of a political
leader is to enlist support, community support for a set of policies,
a set of values and a set of attitudes and the last thing that any
political leader should do is to in a blanket way dismiss a group
of one's fellow citizens. So what I want to do is to engage
these people. Now I won't agree with them on a lot of things.
I might agree with them on some things but I will say to them that
if you think there is an overnight solution to Australia's
economic challenges then you are wrong. You can't restore employment
in the bush, for example, by locking out imports because if we lock
imports out of Australia other countries will lock out our exports
and we will end up being a lot worse off.
JOURNALIST:
If they do take a lot of the Coalition vote away, and some are
suggesting that they might, if you believe the polls. And we will
have to see on Saturday whether, of course, that, in fact, in practice
works out. But if that's the case you are going to be forced
to end up doing preference deals with them aren't you to get
the vote back?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to talk about preferences in advance of
the election at the weekend. No doubt, we'll get asked questions
about that after the weekend whatever the outcome is. The more important
thing in the long-term is one of communicating with them. You must
always, as a political leader, listen to what people say and then
respond. My attitude is that those people who are attracted to One
Nation because they feel economically vulnerable and because they
feel as though they are getting a raw deal out of the major parties
and particularly out of the Coalition because I lead the Coalition.
I want to talk to them, I want to explain where we stand on some
of these issues to the extent that I agree with them on some issues
I will say so, to the extent that I don't, I will also say
so. Now there are some supporters of One Nation who do so because
of their attitudes on things like gun control. Now I have to say
to those people that I am not going to alter my view on gun control.
JOURNALIST:
It's mad stuff isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the idea of rolling back the national gun laws is absolutely
wrong and against the interests of people in the country as well
as in the city. There are a lot of quiet, strong female supporters,
in particular, of gun control legislation in the country areas.
And there are also some people attracted to the party because of
their attitudes of bigotry and a sense of discrimination against
sections of the population. Now, I'd have to say to them, and
I do say to them repeatedly, that I'll have no truck of that.
This is a tolerant, open community where people are entitled to
be treated on their merit and on the contribution they make to our
society without reference to their colour, their race or their religion.
Now that is an absolute in Australian society but it is very important
in having said that, not to brand every supporter of the One Nation
party or, indeed, of any other fringe party as being a bigot or
a racist. That's not accurate. And if you inaccurately describe
people or label people, you won't ever engage their attention.
And if you've got a concern about something and you are trying
to make it known. And somebody says you are something that you are
not, you turn off, you don't get engaged. You can't establish
communication with a person who brands you something that you are
not.
JOURNALIST:
Tax, Mr Howard. The Housing Industry Association this morning came
out against a GST so they don't like it, they don't like
its effect on housing. The longer it bubbles on the more everyone
thinks you are going to introduce the GST, of course, you never
said you actually will. I think although you have said you are attracted
to the idea, when will we see the details?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well quite soon.
JOURNALIST:
This year?
PRIME MINISTER: