E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
FLYNN:
Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Julie.
FLYNN:
There are a lot of things we could talk about on the domestic scene but I have to start by asking you what’s your reaction to the extraordinary developments in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton over the weekend?
PRIME MINISTER:
Julie, I’m not going to take sides in what is clearly a domestic political contest between a Democratic President and a Democratic White House and a Republican House of Representatives. It’s not appropriate for me to do that. My own dealings with President Clinton, so far as Australia’s relations with the United States are concerned, have been very positive. And as far as the relationship is concerned he’s been a good President. As far as his leadership in foreign affairs issues are concerned, I think he has been an effective President and there’s little doubt that the American economy during his Presidency has prospered very strongly. I guess the only observation I would make is that the constitutional processes of the United States are very different from ours and they do throw up this extraordinary situation where you can have a President’s authority under challenge in the most fundamental of ways over a period of months and I can only express the hope that the issue is resolved as speedily and as effectively as possible. It’s not really appropriate for me to say whether what the House has done is right or what Clinton’s response is is right. That’s really a matter for the American people and for the processes of the American Congress.
FLYNN:
Do you think there’s something to be said though in a general sense about the President’s own remarks yesterday, and in fact the impact that this has had on the House Speaker elect, that perhaps if prying into people’s lives in public life, their private lives, has reached a point where we have to pause and say: have we gone too far?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly hold a very strong view that people’s private lives are off limits except in so far as there may be clear demonstration that it is impinging upon or affecting in a material way the performance of their public duty. By and large Australia has been more mature and different from other countries on this issue and I hope it remains that way. I think there has to be a clear dividing line between the two. Now, I don’t want that remark to be said as passing a judgment either way about what Congress has done because people will argue that there are issues of public duty involved there. Now I don’t want to get into that but if you’re asking me the question: do I continue to adhere to the view that people’s private lives are separate and apart from the performance of their public duties and the one only becomes relevant if the latter is affected by it, then the answer clearly is yes. And I think we have seen some regrettable examples in recent years of when that line is crossed I think the system is damaged.
FLYNN:
While we’re still on international affairs, are you confident on the information given to you, that the latest attacks on Saddam Hussein have been successful?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m certainly confident that they have been very effective. Successful implies them being measured against a particular benchmark. I think they have been very successful. There’s no doubt that the Americans and the British were left with no alternative because of the clear violation of the undertaking that the Iraqis entered into in November when the Americans at the last minute pulled back because the Iraqis said they would allow the UNSCOM inspectors back. It seems on the evidence available to me that the attacks have been fairly surgical. They have not involved as much collateral damage as perhaps has occurred on other occasions, although obviously some has occurred and that is always absolutely regrettable and tragic but the responsibility for that has to rest with Saddam Hussein who really brought these attacks on himself and his own people. So the answer is yes, I think they have been quite effective.
FLYNN:
Well back onto domestic political matters, you must have been very pleased with the success of the Medicare….sorry the private health fund rebate going through the Parliament. Were you concerned at all at the reaction of the two key Senators, who will be important next year in the GST debate, to the decision on the unfair dismissal laws by the Workplace Relations Minister to push ahead with those laws by regulation, and their response that they’re very upset with the way that the Senate has been treated and that they’re not very happy and they want the Parliament recalled?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’ll come to them in the moment but can I say on the unfair dismissal law that there’s a regulation making power in the Act, and that regulation making power was used by the Keating Government in respect of short term contracts back I think in 1994 or 1995. Our advice is that there is absolutely no reason legally why you can’t use the regulation power. Now that’s the law and the precedent. As far as the essence of the issue is concerned what’s involved here is the possible creation of up to 50,000 new jobs in small business. If when we resume in March, or February, the Labor Party and others in the Senate combine to vote down this regulation well they’re voting against the creation of up to 50,000 new jobs for small business. That’s what’s really involved here Julie, and that’s not just me speaking. That’s the small business community speaking that this unfair dismissal law, although it’s better now than it was before we came to power in ’96, it is still too restrictive and it still discourages small business from taking on more staff. Now as for the attitude of Senators Colston and Harradine, well I said at the time of the health rebate passage that I looked at each issue individually. I never take either of them for granted. I was grateful for the support they gave the Government on the health insurance rebate. When it comes to any other votes in the Senate well we’ll put our case to them and hope we can win their support, accepting we will win their support on some things and we won’t win their support on others. I’ve never operated on the principle, or in the belief that either of those men will give blanket support to the Government. Come what may irrespective of the issue. I’ve always assumed that we get them on some issues and lose them on others.
FLYNN:
Were you interested at all in Dennis Shanahan’s report in the Australian on the weekend…
PRIME MINISTER:
I was fascinated by that.
FLYNN:
…..that in fact some intermediaries from the Carr Labor Government in New South Wales had sought to intercede with Senator Harradine to get that legislation through the Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I was fascinated to see that and if that is true then the Labor Party is not only out of step with public opinion and acting in defiance of the public’s will as expressed at the election, but was also being absolutely hypocritical. There can’t be anything more hypocritical and cynical than to publicly oppose something because you feel you have to, but behind the scenes and behind the back of your hand saying: please pass it because we might suffer political damage if we’re seen to be blocking a popular measure. Now if that is true, I have no way of knowing whether it’s true, and I don’t intend to try and find out. I had what I regarded as a very effective discussion with Senator Harradine. We reached agreement on a number things. I thought what he suggested were, as changes to whole deal, were quite good changes and I supported them and as far as I’m concerned that’s the end of the matter. It was a very satisfactory understanding. But if there is truth in the rumor as reported in that paper that the Labor Party was secretly trying to get the thing passed, well that just reveals how bankrupt they are in any consistency or credibility on an issue like this.
FLYNN:
Now, while we are talking about Medicare and health insurance, there are reports today that the Australian Private Hospitals Association would like people to be offered the opportunity to opt out of Medicare and to buy private health insurance or other private health products. Are you still committed to your ’96 election campaign promise that you will not dismantle Medicare?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, absolutely. I am not sure I fully understand what the private hospitals were getting at. I read the report this morning and I heard a radio interview with one of the people from the Association. I’ll obviously get more details about it during the day but irrespective of what they are saying we have a commitment to Medicare and we won’t be walking away from it.
FLYNN:
Well, you have obviously got…you have had a very big year this year and you have got an extremely busy year next year with the GST, the republic and reconciliation all on the agenda. How confident are you of being able to negotiate your package through the Senate largely intact before the 30th of June?
PRIME MINISTER:
Julie, I am positive about it, I am hopeful, I am optimistic. Am I certain that I can get it through intact? I can’t say that, no I can’t.
FLYNN:
But are you prepared to negotiate around the edges to get it through?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have always said that we would be willing to engage in what I call fine tuning but we are not going to alter any basics. We are obviously, we are not going to agree to the exemption of food for example.
FLYNN:
But there might be more compensation perhaps for some of the lower end….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am not saying that….look, we are obviously willing to look at fine tuning that’s always been our position. We will not make any basic changes, we think the present compensation levels are adequate. Now, I don’t think I can really say any more than that.
FLYNN:
You obviously became personally involved in the last minute negotiations which drove through the Medicare changes. Can we assume that you’ll take a similar profile with the GST negotiations with the Senate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I will get involved in anything when it’s appropriate for the Prime Minister to get involved. I think that’s all I can say but I have a complete confidence in Peter Costello’s negotiating skills as the Minister responsible for the GST. But as you know, the whole world knows, this is a major policy issue for the Government and it is always the case no matter what the issue and who is responsible for it that if it’s appropriate for the Prime Minister to get involved in the end he will. I certainly did that in relation to Wik although I had a more direct involvement right through in Wik because although Senator Minchin was assisting me on it, it was actually within my own portfolio responsibility. But I think the question of just seeing how things unfold and I am naturally willing to talk to Senator Harradine or to Senator Colston or indeed to any of the Democrats if they wish. But so far I think the negotiations have been handled extremely well by Peter and I certainly don’t have any lack of confidence in his ability to carry them through extremely well.
FLYNN:
On the subject of reconciliation which you personally, sort of, highlighted as a main agenda for you in the coming term, will we see you taking a more public stand in the coming 12 months and going out to the pubs and clubs if you like, the radio audiences to try and argue the case for reconciliation as well as doing the dealing and the negotiating with the aboriginal groups themselves?
PRIME MINISTER:
Julie, I don’t think the Australians in the pubs and clubs and on radio audiences are hostile to the concept of reconciliation. I don’t, I don’t think the job of persuading people of the desirability of reconciliation as such is all that difficult. I think where the mainstream of the Australian community has a difficulty in this area is when I feel they are being asked to acknowledge things or accept responsibility for things or to have an attitude towards things that they don't think is appropriate. I think if you say to the average Australian, do you think we should reach an understanding involving reconciliation, do you think we should acknowledge the fact that we need to try and provide further assistance in health and education and housing for indigenous people, do you want all Australians being treated equally, and therefore do you want the standards for indigenous people lifted? I think people agree with that. I think it’s when they feel that there’s an undue concentration on the negatives of the past that they get less sympathetic….
FLYNN:
So how do you see your role then in the coming…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think my role is really to having stated a position to continue to commit the Government to try to reach an understanding with the indigenous people but I don’t underestimate the difficulty. I think the Government should try and should be seen to try in this area because the Australian community would want us to do it and more importantly they would want reconciliation achieved. But there are some people in the indigenous community and there are some who support them in the broader community who will never be satisfied no matter what is acknowledged and what is agreed. They will always keep asking for a greater, I suppose, repudiation of the past and a greater, sort of, downgrading of the quality of the unity of the entire Australian community.
FLYNN:
Just turning to another matter, in the coming 12 months we will be really starting to get into the final rundown to the preparations for the Sydney Olympics. Are you at all concerned about the damage that’s being done by the continuing stories about bribery and scandal surrounding the bidding cities and the politicisation if you like of the actual Sydney organising committee, SOCOG?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well on the bribery thing, I don’t think those allegations that were made by that man in Switzerland did much damage to Sydney’s bid. I thought they were pretty convincingly repudiated by Phil Coles and others. Now, you are always going to have general allegations, I would have thought that in the time honoured entreaty that person should have put up or shut up and he didn’t really put up. And I thought they were rather gratuitous and rather generalised smears which did him more damage than other people. Now, I am not saying that there hasn’t been some improper practices in relation to sporting bids at various stages in relation to some cities. I just didn’t think they resonated very strongly in relation to Sydney at all. On the other score, look I think the — some of the backbiting and some of the disputes and some of the apparently heavy political concentration in certain areas — and you know what I mean — that has gone on has done damage. But I am an optimist on this and I want to play the role of the Federal Government being there to help and being an honest broker. And we’ve put a lot of resources in, we’ve made an extremely good offer to the New South Wales Government in relation to outstanding matters. I think they are being discussed this week at an official level and I am pretty hopeful that we’ll get a good outcome from that. And I am prepared after that’s taken place to have a meeting with the Premier to discuss the matters because these are not New South Wales games. They are really games that belong to the entire Australian community. My principal aim as Prime Minister is to give the whole of the Australian community a greater sense of ownership of the games. Now, inevitably because it’s a Sydney based show and because of the New South Wales Government’s role and so forth there’s perhaps a tendency for the rest of the country to say, oh this is just Sydney activity. Now, true it is in Sydney but the games are a prize for Australia. I see them as taking place in Sydney, Australia, not as taking place in New South Wales.
FLYNN:
Prime Minister, we do know your love is sport and you are going off for three weeks holiday, can we expect to see you bobbing up perhaps at the second Test in Sydney?
PRIME MINISTER:
You will certainly see me at the Test Match in Sydney. If the game lasts and other things being equal I would expect to be there on a number of days.
FLYNN:
There has been a suggestion, of course, that the Poms are so bad that we should only have three Tests.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am totally against that. The idea of reducing the Ashes series to three is quite unacceptable, it’s really…it’s the bedrock cricket contest in the world. It’s the longest running, it’s the most keenly contested and there’s nothing quite like an Ashes series between Australia and England. And we have got a very good team at the moment and Alan Border was right the other day when he said that not enough credit has been given to the quality of the present Australian team and we have a very good Captain. But we should also avoid any kind of careless triumphalism. There was a period some years ago when we were going through a bad trot. I had a discussion with Ian Botham a few days ago about the state of English cricket and there’s no doubt from talking to somebody like him and to others in the touring English party generally speaking that there’s a great commitment to do something about improving the quality of it and to changing their approach in a number of areas. And I think people who assume that there’s some kind of terminal decline in English cricket are being a little superficial. Now, sure at the moment we are on top and full credit to the Australians for producing such a very good team but I don’t think we should become too triumphal and I perish the thought that we should ever have fewer than five Ashes tests. I think the world would really have taken in a very strange turn if that were to happen.
FLYNN:
Prime Minister, thank you very much for giving us your time today. I hope you enjoy your Christmas holidays. I am sure all the people listening to us here on 4BC in Brisbane will wish you the same and we look forward to catching up in the new year and enjoy your cricket.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you very much. Good bye.
[ends]