E&OE.....................................
MITCHELL:
Is a GST now impossible?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what we've had from Mr Beazley is not only a backflip
on what he said a year ago, but we've also had a very arrogant
declaration. What he's really saying is I don't care what
the Australian people say, I will do everything I can to stop tax
reform occurring.
MITCHELL:
Well how do you overcome it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we overcome it by continuing to persue tax reform, and by
reminding the Australian people what he's threatening to do.
I mean what he's saying is, we can go to the next election,
we can unveil our tax plan, we can put our position on the line,
our policy on the line, win the support of the Australian public,
and because as inevitably will be the case, the Government won't
have the numbers in the Senate, then he along with the Democrats
and perhaps the independents can block the will of the Australian
people - not the will of the Coalition - but the will of the Australian
people. And then if a re-elected Coalition Government wanted to
pursue tax reform in the interests of the Australian public, knowing
that the Australian public wanted tax reform, the only way it could
then get it through would be to have yet another election. So what
he's really saying is that he doesn't really care if what
he has threatened to do results in there being a couple of elections
in the space of a year. Now, I think collectively speaking the Australian
people want that like a hole in the head.
MITCHELL:
Well, there is really no realistic chance of the Government getting
the numbers in the upper house? Even in a double dissolution.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no. No exactly. And I'm quite open about that. I mean
we had a huge victory last time, but we still didn't control
the Senate. The nature of the Senate voting system, the fact that
you now have 12 Senators from each State means that if an Opposition
wants to be a permanent dog in the manger, if an Opposition want
to just permanently obstruct and be negative and to stop things
that the Australian people have voted for coming into operation,
well, they can certainly achieve their objective at least in the
short term. Now, I think the great bulk of the Australian people
will say, whatever we think about tax reform, if we vote for it,
the defeated political party ought to let it go through the Parliament.
But that was Paul Keating's position. I mean at least he had
the guts and the decency to say well if the Australian people vote
for something I'm against, I will accept the will of the Australian
people and I will let it go through. Now, Mr Beazley's not
willing to do that.
MITCHELL:
Well if he sticks by it isn't that the end of a GST?
PRIME MINISTER:
No well it's not, it's not. Look I want tax reform because
it is good for the future of Australia. I know Mr Beazley in his
honest moments would know, as indeed anybody who understands the
structure of our current taxation system knows that the present
system is very unfair, it's badly in need of reform and overhaul
and what Mr Beazley is really saying is, well I don't care
about that, because it might suit my short term political advantage,
because it might win me an extra vote, I'm going to do everything
I can including defying the will of the Australian people to stop
taxation reform. Now we are going to persevere with tax reform.
MITCHELL:
Well, is he fair dinkum? Do you think he'll back off?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I suppose some cynics would say having changed his mind once,
he'll change it yet again. I can only deal with his current
position and his current position is one of saying two things: "I,
Kim Beazley oppose a fairer taxation system. I, Kim Beazley oppose
making the Australian taxation system suitable for the 21st Century.
But more importantly, I don't care what the Australian people
say, my view, Kim Beazley's view, is more important than the
view of the Australian people, I will in fact thumb my nose at the
verdict of the Australian people". I mean it would be an entirely
different thing if we were operating in a situation where we were
going to deceitfully go to the election saying one thing, proposing
to do another. Now, in those circumstances he's perfectly entitled
to use his Senate numbers to block us but we are quite openly saying
to the Australian people that we had intended taking a taxation
plan to the public before the election and a lot of people say that's
risky isn't it. I suppose it is.
MITCHELL:
Well, it was with John Hewson.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, okay but what do you want us to do. Do you want us to be
deceitful?
MITCHELL:
No, no, I'm not asking.....but I want to know how you're
going to get it through.
PRIME MINISTER:
We are doing the open, honest, decent thing. We're saying
to the public. Here's our plan, if you like it vote for us
, if you don't like it don't vote for us.
MITCHELL:
But, here's a plan we can't implement.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that it assumes a whole lot of things. It assumes of course
that they don't change their mind again after the election,
it also assumes that there wouldn't subsequently be yet another
election and on the basis that the legislation would be passed at
a joint sitting. Now I'm not going to sought of hypothesise
about what may or may not happen in the light of what Mr Beazley
has said. But the consequence of what he said, if he sticks to it,
is firstly that of course he's against tax reform and he wants
to keep the present rotten unfair system. The second thing is that
he's prepared to put his view ahead of the view of the Australian
people. In other words he's arrogantly saying to the Australian
people, I know better than you, even if you vote for this, I'm
going to stop it. Now what arrogance that is, it's very undemocratic
illiberal arrogance, and thirdly he's effectively saying to
the Australian people I don't care if there are two elections
in the space of 12 months. I'm so determined to frustrate the
will of the people. Now I think that is outrageous.
MITCHELL:
Well, how soon would you have to call another election? Doesn't
it guarantee you...
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I'm not saying we're going to do that, I'm
simply laying out one of the hypothetical alternatives.
MITCHELL:
What are the other alternatives?..........
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are a whole lot of things and we'll obviously
give consideration in the light of what has been said by Mr Beazley.
There's one thing I can promise the Australian people and that
is we will pursue tax reform with all the vigour at our command.
Not because of any personal mission on my part but because I believe
it is in the interests of the Australian people to have tax reform.
The present system is unfair. The present system means that average
wage and salary earners are fast approaching the time when they're
paying 47 cents in the dollar on their income. We have a sales tax
system that allows you to buy a Lear jet free of sales tax, yet
you pay 22 per cent for the family car. You can buy caviar free
of sales tax, yet you pay it on orange juice concentrate. Now that
system is the system that Mr Beazley wants to maintain.
MITCHELL:
You could find yourself having to negotiate with One Nation members
in the Senate.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think that's likely. But if that happens,
whose fault will that be? It will be the fault of a Labor leader
who has not been willing to accept the verdict of the Australian
people. I mean we're not talking here about deceit, we're
talking here about a Government that is saying to the Australian
public, we'll put a plan before you, if you vote for it we
expect to have the capacity to implement it. Now isn't that
open, isn't that democratic?
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, has this development, and I agree with you it's
a fairly dramatic one, has this affected your consideration on the
timing of an election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I'm not going to canvas timing. I mean obviously a lot
of thoughts are in my mind, they always are about timing and......
MITCHELL:
Well there's a few new ones after this I'd assume......
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but I've been in politics long enough to sort of roll
with any unexpected developments and I'm not near making a
decision about the timing of the election. I want to give the Australian
public a better taxation system for the 21st Century and my concern
is giving the public a better tax system and a fairer one because
I think the present one's unfair.
MITCHELL:
Well when will you tell us what that plan is?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, when we've completed the details of it.
MITCHELL:
But do you expect that soon?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's still a bit of work to be done on it. The Treasurer
and I have done a lot of work. The broad architecture has been settled.
We'll obviously, now that the Budget is out of the way, very
successfully brought down and accepted by the Australian public,
we'll then set about doing more work on the tax package. I
can't pin-point the date when we'll announce it but we
are well advanced but there is still a lot of work to be done. But
I can assure low income earners that they are not going to be hurt
by our tax reform package and I want specifically to say to those
members of churches yesterday, I won't say spokesmen for churches
because you've got to be very careful when people who are in
the church are interviewed if they are not seen as speaking for
the entire church, they are merely speaking either for their own
church organisations or as individuals. Can I say to them that we
are mindful of the concerns you have for the low income earners
of Australia, for the underprivileged and I can promise those people
that the package when released will be fair and understanding and
sympathetic towards low income earners.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Mr Howard we'll take a couple of calls if that's
okay before we get onto Indonesia and other matters.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MITCHELL:
Hello Ian, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning Neil, good morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Ian.
CALLER:
I'm unemployed.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I'm sorry to hear that. How long have you been out of
work?
CALLER:
I've been out of work for six months now.
PRIME MINISTER:
What were you previously doing Ian?
CALLER:
I was employed as an administrative assistant.
PRIME MINISTER:
For whom?
CALLER:
The Commonwealth Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, which Department?
CALLER:
I'd rather not say.
PRIME MINISTER:
I see. Yes.
MITCHELL:
You've sacked him, Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm neither confirming or I'm not admitting anything.
I was merely trying to get a little bit of the background to Ian's
question.
MITCHELL:
Yes Ian go ahead.
CALLER:
You mentioned on Neil's show earlier this week that we should
all have a ring of confidence and Mr Costello's going around
as if we'd all won Tattslotto. But unfortunately that s
not the case. And I just wanted to know, the $580 million you're
spending on Telstra and tax breaks for companies for the millennium
bug, whether that money would have been better spent on programmes
for the unemployed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't, and the reasons are that fixing up the millennium
bug is very important to employment. Because if companies come to
the turn of the century and they've got computer equipment
that's got the millennium bug and that equipment falls over,
that will cost thousands, tens of thousands of jobs. So anybody
who thinks it is an unwise investment to make absolutely certain
that the computer equipment is proofed against the millennium bug,
is misunderstanding the seriousness of the threat posed by the particular
problem.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much. Lyndal, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Hello, I'd just like to speak to Mr Howard about giving the
Health Care Card to people who obviously have to retire on at least
a million dollars to able to get it...
PRIME MINISTER:
No that's not right.
MITCHELL:
Well, $700 000.
CALLER:
At least.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's at the very upper end. I mean, there's a
lot of people at the much lower end of that and there are an enormous
number of people who retire on lump sums of $300 000,$400 000,$500
000 - that is not uncommon now, and I think it's a bit rich
to suggest that that's saying that people are wealthy. Interest
rates are a lot lower now, and that means that you have to have
a larger capital sum in order to have an income.
MITCHELL:
But you'd need to be close to a millionaire to get to the
$67 000 ceiling....(inaudible)...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but the point I'm making in reply is that the great bulk
of the people who will get it won't be near that ceiling.
MITCHELL:
Sorry Lyndal, we interrupted your question.
PRIME MINISTER:
We both did I'm sorry.
CALLER:
Well, that's basically it. I'm an ex-teacher and you
need to put money into the schools and things like that, so if you
lowered the rate of people who are getting the health care cards
you could at least put money back in the schools.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, when you say money back into the schools, that implies it
was taken out, and that's just not correct. Money has not been
taken out of schools. I mean, one of the things that I told the
Expenditure Review Committee right at the beginning of the process
two years ago, was that I did not want the ordinary recurrent money
going from the Commonwealth to the States for schools. Both government
and independent to be in any way subjected to reductions or cuts.
And I've got a very strong commitment to both the state and
the independent school system and I just don't accept the expression
that money has been "taken out" of schools.
MITCHELL:
Okay Lyndal, thank you. Janet, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning. Mr Howard, I've got a rather serious thing to
say to you at the moment. There's a young man, he's 18
years of age. He's got casual work at the Epsom training track.
Now he went to Centrelink the other day and he was denied assistance
from Centrelink due to the fact that he is not a long-term unemployed
male. Now he was then, on his own back, forced to go to his State
Member of Parliament. He then went to the Federal Member of Parliament
who rang back yesterday to have a talk to him and this young man
has got certificates for everything that he could possibly do in
regards to computers. He's an absolute whiz with computers
yet Centrelink refused to help this young man because he's
not a long-term unemployed male.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I wonder if you would, off-air, if you could provide Mr Mitchell's
station with some of the details of that and rather than my try
and pretend that I understand all of the background to it and interpret
it, I would like you to do that and perhaps if you wouldn't
mind leaving your name, I will have the matter investigated and
I will come back to you.
MITCHELL:
Good. Janet, hold on please if you can..... But onto the broader
point, we are getting a few of these calls now, with Centrelink
not dealing with short-term unemployed, only long-term unemployed.
PRIME MINISTER:
There are a lot of facilities at Centrelink which enable people
in that situation to be put immediately in touch with employment
opportunities. So unless there's been a breakdown in that,
I find that very hard to believe, it is not correct to say that
they've refused to deal with him.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a quick break.
(Commercial break)
MITCHELL:
We're speaking to the Prime Minister, more calls in a moment.
Mr Howard, will Peter Reith be given an indemnity on damages in
the waterfront dispute?
PRIME MINISTER:
Peter Reith will be treated as all Commonwealth Ministers involved
in litigation should be treated in relation to actions he has taken
on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, and as the Attorney General
said in Parliament, the rules that are going to be applied are essentially
the rules that were laid down by the former Government. There is
a procedure and it's quite obvious that like any other litigant,
or any other person involved in litigation, Peter Reith is entitled
to have legal advice, legal representation. He's entitled to
get that advice and I don't intend to say any more than that
but...
MITCHELL:
... we're talking about a hell of a lot of money.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, we're also talking about a well established principle.
MITCHELL:
That's all I'm asking.... damages...
PRIME MINISTER:
The answer to the question is that he will be treated as other Commonwealth
Ministers in similar situations have been treated in the past and
I would be amazed if there were any questions about that by the
Labor Party given that the rules that we are talking about applying
are rules that were laid down by the former Government.
MITCHELL:
So that means yes he has an indemnity?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are obvious constraints given that he is involved in
litigation on what I should, and can say. I am not trying to be
difficult or tricky on merely stating, I hope the obvious, and that
is that he is entitled to be treated the same as any other Commonwealth
Minister. You've got to bear in mind that Commonwealth Ministers
are fairly regularly involved in litigation. It's not uncommon
for people to sue the Commonwealth. It does happen from time to
time right across the board. There are well established rules and
I can remember on a number of occasions during the time of the former
Government there was litigation against individual Ministers in
that Government. There were rules applied. I just can't talk
specifically about this case for reasons I hope you understand.
MITCHELL:
Okay, I've got to ask about something else. The Financial
Review today reports on contracts between the Commonwealth and
the companies run by the consultants including Stephen Webster on
the waterfront with you at the top of what amounts to a taskforce
on waterfront reform. Are they accurate?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't seen the contracts myself. I read the article. It
seems accurate, but I haven't seen the contracts, but I would
say, so what, of course..
MITCHELL:
Would you release the reports?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the question of whether you release the reports is another
issue, but the suggestion that there is something strange about
my being ultimately involved or ultimately part of the Government's
push for waterfront reform is hardly a revelation. Of course I am.
MITCHELL:
Would you release the reports?
PRIME MINISTER:
The question of whether we release it the report is something that
will be governed by a number of considerations including of course
the onset of the legal proceedings and we will once again be guided
very much by the practice of earlier governments in relation to
the release of documents of that kind. Could I just say in relation
to the article in the Financial Review. If it is accurate,
and I haven't seen the contracts myself but what it reveals
is that I am the Prime Minister and naturally I am, as the head
of the Government, I support waterfront reform. I do support waterfront