CARLTON:
Good afternoon.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good afternoon, Mike.
CARLTON:
I'm not sure I should question you today. There's an
opinion poll that says we no longer trust you, you're no longer
Honest John'.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we'll find out about that at the next election, won't
we?
CARLTON:
Mmm, we might.
PRIME MINISTER:
Mmm.
CARLTON:
Does it worry you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
CARLTON:
People don't trust you any more.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I checked when I got home the other night and they still
let me in.
CARLTON:
Your family likes you...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. (laughs)
CARLTON:
Could it be that this business of the Resources Minister, Senator
Parer, has undermined people's trust in you? You've changed
the rules of your Code of Conduct, haven't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I look to the substance of what he's done and he hasn't
done anything wrong. He's not been involved in any conflict
of interest. What the Labor Party is really saying is, that in order
to remain Resources Minister he's got to throw away something
that provides an income stream to his seven children. And it's
unreasonable to ask any person to do that.
CARLTON:
But that's what your Code of Conduct demands...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if you look at the Code of Conduct in its totality, one element
of the code allows you to retain interest in a family company -
this is a family trust - another says you can't have any direct
shareholding or the like interests.
CARLTON:
It doesn't say direct shareholdings, it says all shares...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well, of course, he doesn't own a share. He doesn't
own shares in a resource company, he doesn't. What the situation
is, that his family trust owns a collection of investments and he
has an interest in the family trust.
CARLTON:
Yeah, but I suggest to many Australians, that's a pretty dodgy,
round-about way.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think it's dodgy at all. Something is only
dodgy when you're dishonest or you cheat. And he's neither
dishonest nor has he cheated and there has been no conflict of interest.
Nobody, nobody, despite all the noise over the last few weeks -
few days, rather - has been able to point to any example where Warwick
Parer has used his ministerial position to enrich himself, where
Warwick Parer has made a decision specifically designed to advantage
the company in which his trust, his family trust hold shares - nobody.
And until they can do that then I'm going to stand by him because
I don't believe that he's doing anything wrong.
CARLTON:
No. And he hasn't made a buck out of it, sure enough, but
the Labor Party...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think it's very important because Gareth Evans and
others are running around saying he's been dishonest. He hasn't
been. I mean, what effectively they are saying is that a farmer
can never be the Minister for Primary Industry and a person who
has any involvement in a resource company can never be the Minister
for Resources. The reason I made him the Minister for Resources
is that he knows more about the resource sector than any other person
in Parliament. What am I to do - run away from people who've
got business experience? Do we really want a Parliament made up
of former trade union officials and political staffers? Because
that is the way we are heading because we are denigrating people
of assets and we are denigrating people who've had business
experience. I'm not going to allow that to happen.
CARLTON:
Yeah, but the trouble is you set the bar too high in the first
place, didn't you? Ministers are required to divest themselves
of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved
in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. It's black
and white, you know.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the company in which he holds the interest is an investment
company, is a trust and that, in turn, holds shares in a whole variety
of organisations including one that has coal mining interests. Now...
CARLTON:
But is this a similar offence to one that cost other Ministers
their job, Jim Short...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not. Well, the difference is that there's no
evidence at all and Senator Parer's assured me that at no stage
has he involved himself in the affairs of this coal interest while
he's been a Minister. And he hasn't been ringing people
up on behalf of the interest. He hasn't been specifically promoting
the interest.
CARLTON:
But he was chatting to these Japanese partners of the coal mine
just the other day.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, if you've had an association with somebody for 10
or 20 years, you don't ignore them if you come across them.
I mean, I'm chatting to people always when I'm in the
middle of taking decisions that might affect their interests. But
the fact that I speak to them - I mean, I take a decision - we took
a decision a few weeks ago on an issue involving communications,
does that mean to say I can never talk to the Chairman of the ABC,
that I can never talk to Kerry Packer or to Rupert Murdoch or to
the management of Fairfax...
CARLTON:
But you haven't got shares...
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, I don't have any shares but I do have a capacity to
influence the outcomes.
CARLTON:
True. All right.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I just think this idea - I mean, all this who ha about him
having talked to somebody, well, as far as I'm concerned, he
should not apologise ever for retaining contact with people with
whom he's had a past social association.
CARLTON:
So Senator Parer will stay.
PRIME MINISTER:
Senator Parer has not been involved in any conflict of interest
and therefore I will stick by him and I will support him and he
will stay.
CARLTON:
Okay. Moving along. Your decision to sell off the rest of Telstra,
if that's blocked in the Senate - and it's quite an intricate
manoeuvre for various reasons, isn't it - but if that's
blocked in the Senate, will you go to an election on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It will be our policy at the next election whether in the form
of one of the bills on which we obtain a double dissolution or simply
as a commitment to do it after the election. But whatever the circumstances
we will be going to the next election with a policy that will allow
the men and women of Australia to buy the remaining two-thirds of
Telstra, yes.
CARLTON:
But if the Senate blocks - in the next couple of months, and for
whatever reason you can't get it up in the Senate or perhaps
it fails in the Senate, will you then go to the Governor-General
and say: this is our policy, we want an election on these grounds...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not going to tell you precisely when I'm going
to the Governor-General but I can assure you, Mike, at the next
election one of the policies will be, if the Bill has been passed
by the Senate then we'll be promising to implement the legislation,
if it hasn't been, the promise will be to present it to the
new Parliament. So either way...
CARLTON:
But it could be a double dissolution trigger.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it could be, it could be, yes. If there's a double dissolution
it could be. It will depend on how speedily the Senate deals with
it. If the Senate wants to mess around and delay and obstruct and
obfuscate, well I suppose they can do that for a few weeks or even
a few months. But I don't think the Australian public appreciates
that. If the Australian public doesn't like our policy, well,
they can vote against it. And that applies with a whole lot of things.
And I think what I'm saying to the Australian people now is
that there are clear differences emerging between us and Labor.
We're prepared to be innovative and active in the policy area.
We're prepared to take decisions to project into the next century.
I want Australia to be the greatest share-owning democracy in the
world in the next century. And I also want to bequeath to the children
and grandchildren of the next century a debt free Australia. And
you can achieve both of those goals with the policy that I'm
offering.
CARLTON:
What's the social bonus? You've talked about that a lot.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we haven't decided yet. I have a few innovative, positive
ideas and I'm taking some advice and we'll be announcing
that down the track.
CARLTON:
Tax cuts?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, tax cuts are things that go on from year to year. They're
not one-off.
CARLTON:
Tax rises occasionally go on...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
CARLTON:
Tax rises occasionally go on from year to year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there haven't been any under us.
CARLTON:
No.
PRIME MINISTER:
There were under Mr Keating, remember? L-A-W and remember the campaign
against indirect tax.
CARLTON:
Yes, yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
And he put them all up in heroic proportions in the 93 budget.
But coming back to the present, the social bonus will be a capital
contribution to something that is important to the social infrastructure
of Australia - social and physical infrastructure of Australia.
CARLTON:
You must have ideas to be tossed around?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do.
CARLTON:
Well give us a hint.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think I will save that for another one of your programs.
CARLTON:
That is very kind of you. I'd like to talk about the Premiers'
Conference...
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
CARLTON:
...and health, coming up in just a minute but can I just get to
this, I don't know if you are aware of this but the 24 hour
strike on the Sydney waterfront, next Tuesday, has now expanded
to an eight day strike, what's your comment on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, two things, despite your rather humorous introduction, I
should tell you that in 1997 the number of industrial disputes,
and this is under my Government's new legislation, fell to
an 85 year low. Can I say that again, in 1997 under the Howard Government's
new industrial laws the number of industrial disputes were lower
than they have been for 85 years.
CARLTON:
They might be on the way up again?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean sometimes a dispute or a stoppage gets a lot of publicity
but it doesn't have a huge impact. Now that is the first comment
I make. The second comment I make is that the law prevents a company
paying people who are improperly placing a ban on overtime and that
is what the MUA has done. And what Patricks are doing is to act
in accordance with the law. The law says that if you pay those people
with that ban then we, the legal authorities, the Government, will
fine the company a large amount. I think it is $10,000 a day, but
anyway it is a very significant penalty. So it is illegal now, under
of the law of this country, if people are engaged in an improper
strike and they put a prohibition on a particular activity - and
that's improper and not agreed to - then it is unlawful for
them to be paid by their employer during the currency of that prohibition.
CARLTON:
So, is it just that though, or is it a spin-off of the NFF dispute,
the Webb Dock...
PRIME MINISTER:
...Obviously it is a projection of that but I totally defend and
support, indeed I applaud, what the National Farmers' Federation
is doing. I mean, for years we have wanted a new law which allows
the monopoly of the wharfies to be broken. We are not trying to
drive the unionists off the waterfront.
CARLTON:
You wouldn't mind if they did though, would you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is not our goal. Our goal is a more productive waterfront
which will produce more jobs and more investments and the way you
get that is to have competition and that's where the NFF comes
in. And you also get it by having non-union labour and if the MUA,
years ago, had agreed to a higher level of productivity on the waterfront,
this dispute would not now be occurring.
CARLTON:
Chris Corrigan is saying, this afternoon, this eight day strike
is thuggery that it is trying to send Patricks broke.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, of course it is. There is no doubt about that. There is no
doubt in the world that the MUA is determined to stop the productivity
increases on the waterfront and they're determined to stop
non-union labour that they've made no bones about that and
they are determined to stop Patricks and they are determined to
stop the National Farmers' Federation.
I mean, at the moment we have a crane rate to containers of 18
a day, the average of our Asian competitors is 30. It is not that
we are incapable of doing it, it is not that we don't have
the resources and the equipment to do it because on occasions, when
the mood has struck them the MUA has been able to achieve much higher
crane rates than that of our average [inaudible] in Asia.
So, it is just a result of their whole attitude and all we're
asking for is that we have a more productive waterfront because
that means more jobs and more investments and greater exports and
a stronger Australian economy. And the only way you can do it is
the way we have done it. We've changed the law. We've
now got the NFF behaving very courageously with the total support
of the Government.
CARLTON:
There is a Premiers' Conference tomorrow, or whatever they
are called these days.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this is a Premiers' Conference. There is another Conference
of Premiers..
CARLTON:
Which is called?
PRIME MINISTER:
A meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, but this is
a Premiers Conference.
CARLTON:
It's wonderful hair-splitting, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is indeed.
CARLTON:
Health looks like being the big issue, I think you would acknowledge
that, and the states are asking you for, I think, an extra $5.5
billion for their public hospital systems. You're standing
firm saying they can't have any more and it seems, at the moment,
that never the twain shall meet. Will it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Mike, they are already getting more under our offer. We are
offering them, over the next five year period, we are offering them
a three per cent real increase, that's three per cent over
and above the current rate of inflation. On top of that we are promising
that if during that period there is a one per cent fall in the number
of people in private health insurance we will pay them an additional
$83 million for every one per cent fall in the number of people
in private health insurance. And that is over and above the increased
offer.
CARLTON:
The Queensland Premier, Rob Borbidge, said the offer is a dud,
a son of dud was his quote.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know the exact context of that but that sort of
comment and observation is not helpful. I really think that the
Australian public expects an approach which deals in facts and maturely
addresses the issue.
JOURNALIST:
But you're going to get that sort of comment and that sort
of angst from all the Health Ministers, Liberal, Labor...
PRIME MINISTER:
I have been to Premiers' Conferences for years. I was there
as the Federal Treasurer, I know the sort of public posturing that
goes on from states beforehand. I just want to deal in the facts
and the facts are that we have made a very generous health offer
to the states. It's overall three per cent real increase. On
top of that we're giving them guarantees against further falls
in the number of people in private health insurance and we're
also giving them guarantees in relation to abnormal increases in
hospital costs.
So it's a very generous offer.
JOURNALIST:
Can it equally be said that you and your Federal Minister are posturing
as well. This is the other side of the state-federal coin, you know.
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't sort of used flippant language. I'm just dealing
with facts. I mean, it is not posturing to explain the basis of
our position. It's not posturing to say that over the life
of the last five year agreement, the Commonwealth will have spent
$3.25 billion more on hospitals than it would have spent if it had
maintained the previous agreement while the states have spent only
$355 million more. Given that they are a state responsibility, and
every night I see on Sydney television the Health Minister, whenever
Mr Refshaughe, whenever anything goes wrong, no matter what it is
and no matter how remote it is from Canberra, he sort of does a
300 kilometre flick pass and says it's Canberra's responsibility.
JOURNALIST:
Yes but certainly the Victorian Health Minister, the NT Health Minister,
the WA Health Minister, none of them are...
PRIME MINISTER:
It is part of the ritual for states to say the Commonwealth is short
changing them but is it short changing them when you're offering
them a three per cent real increase and guarantees in relation to
people falling out of private health insurance or rising costs...
JOURNALIST:
And they are still falling out of private health insurance, aren't
they. Those commitments of yours didn't work.
PRIME MINISTER:
At a much slower rate. I don't accept that the final verdict
is in on that. The rate of decrease has certainly slowed a great
deal and it's unfortunate that something had not been done
about it five years ago when the former Government, led by Mr Keating
was warned by Graham Richardson that unless something was then done
and that was in 1991, the numbers would continue to fall quite precipitously.
We lost a bit of critical mass in membership then and if something
had been done then the situation now would be a lot better and even
Bob Carr, the soul Labor Premier in New South Wales, acknowledges
that.
JOURNALIST:
I don't know that he does.
PRIME MINISTER:
He did, I am sorry, he did in fact acknowledge that some months
ago. He probably doesn't acknowledge it now. His acknowledgments
are Premiers' Conference-adjusted.
JOURNALIST:
PCA as they call it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Something like that, yes.
JOURNALIST:
The other question concerns a great many Australians for tomorrow
is gun control.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
It seems that Victoria is trying to water down its laws and possibly
South Australia and Queensland. Are you standing firm?
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely. I will be asking all of the Premiers and Chief Ministers
to reaffirm the national agreement that was completed two years
ago. The Commonwealth is strongly opposed to any watering down in
substance of the laws. We don't want any changes that are going
to in turn increase the pressure for further changes.
JOURNALIST:
And Victoria's proposals would do all that, wouldn't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I was particularly worried about the suggestion that you should
extend the opportunity for the use of semi automatic weapons to
field and game shooters because on some estimates that I have been
given, that could open up the field for a large number of people,
and that in turn will lead to other groups saying, well if you're
giving it to them you've got to give it to us. There's
always...
JOURNALIST:
The thin edge of the wedge.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's the problem. The Australian public wanted this agreement.
They applauded all of the Governments of Australia for negotiating
it. I hope that we don't have an argument over this because
I think everybody wants to see violence reduced as much as possible.
Everybody wants to see this agreement maintained but our position
is we are against any watering down of the agreement.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any possible sanction you could take against the state
of Victoria if they did it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want at the moment to talk about sanctions because...
JOURNALIST:
But it may come?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't wish to talk about sanctions at the moment because
what I am interested in is trying to have a sensible, calm discussion
about it. I will be meeting the Premiers over dinner tonight at
the Lodge. I will be extending the hospitality of the Commonwealth
to my state colleagues and I will be very, very happy to have a
talk to them informally about some of the issues that you and I
have been discussing. On guns, I imagine it would be a cry from
the heart of all Australians that this is something that transcends
party politics, that transcends the divisions between Commonwealth
and State. They thought they had a wonderful, historic, once in
a lifetime agreement two years ago and they really don't want
it undermined.
JOURNALIST:
Very true. All right, when is the next election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Don't know yet. Sometime between now and March of next year.
At the right time.
JOURNALIST:
You can't blame me for asking.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't and you will ask me again.
JOURNALIST:
And everyone else will as well.
PRIME MINISTER:
Indeed.
JOURNALIST:
Have a nice dinner. Don't serve them any fake Grange, will
you.
PRIME MINISTER:
No chance.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, thanks very much.
[Ends]