PM Transcripts

Transcripts from the Prime Ministers of Australia

Howard, John

Period of Service: 11/03/1996 - 03/12/2007
Release Date:
25/02/1998
Release Type:
Interview
Transcript ID:
10741
Released by:
  • Howard, John Winston
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP RADIO INTERVIEW WITH MIKE GIBSON RADIO 2GB, SYDNEY

GIBSON:

Prime Minister good morning. Good to talk to you, so many things

to talk about on a morning when you are all over the front pages,

Mr Howard. First, the Government's hopes for an early double

dissolution are in jeopardy, says The Australian, how much

more pressure can you put on the Senate to deal with Wik?

PRIME MINISTER:

I want the Wik thing out of the way. Most Australians want it out

of the way. We don't want a double dissolution on Wik. We just

want the Senate to do its job and pass the legislation. We have

already made enormous concessions, we have been compromising all

through the piece, we have finally reached a point where we won't

and can't compromise any further because what we have got is

a fair balance. And I just ask the Senate again, I ask the Labor

Party, Senator Harradine, The Greens and The Democrats, let us pass

this legislation, let us put this native title debate behind us

and get on with our future. And for every week or month that this

is further delayed then the Australian people are further being

denied an opportunity for their elected leaders to focus on mainstream

issues that are really of direct concern to them.

GIBSON:

If there was one thing you could do with Senator Harradine what

would it be?

PRIME MINISTER:

I would just hope that I could persuade him that in the national

interest this debate should be ended and the matter should be put

behind us.

GIBSON:

Should it not be, the 4th of July an important day in the United

States, perhaps an important day this year for Australians?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well the only person who is talking about an election on the 4th

of July is the National Secretary of the Labor Party. I have not

talked about an election on the 4th of July. My preference is for

the Parliament to go its full term and the only circumstance in

which the Parliament wouldn't go essentially its full term

would be if the Senate obstructs necessary legislation. And the

only way I can get that legislation through is to have a double

dissolution and then present it at a joint sitting following that

double dissolution election.

You see, we have to amend the Native Title Act that Mr Keating

left us in 1996 because it is not working. And investment is being

held up and jobs are being destroyed all over Australia as a result.

And unless we get these amendments through, mining investment is

going to be withheld, there is going to be confusion and animosity

in rural Australia. And what we want to do is fix all of that up.

And we have been trying for a year to get it fixed. We have got

a Bill which is a fair balance, which respects the rights of Aboriginal

people as well as farmers and miners. Now we want to get that through

and the people who are holding that up are the Labor Party principally,

but aided and abetted by Senator Harradine and The Democrats and

The Greens. And I just say again to the Senate: the Australian people

are fed up with this debate, they are sick of it, they are tired

of it, they want it behind them, they want to get back to things

that are of direct, immediate, mainstream concern to them.

GIBSON:

The May budget, talking about direct, mainstream concern. We are

maybe looking down the gun-barrel of an election, that being the

case, one would suggest, perhaps this will be a fairly soft budget.

Will anybody get hurt?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well we have taken a number of tough decisions, we inherited a

deficit of $10.5 billion from Mr Beazley as Finance Minister and

Deputy Prime Minister to Mr Keating. And I hope that in the May

budget we will be able to announce a surplus. Now what that surplus

means, of course, is that in two years we have turned the nation's

finances around. We have also kept our promises to reduce family

taxation, to introduce health insurance incentives and, remarkably,

we have seen a reduction in housing interest rates over the last

two years. They are now at their lowest level for 30 years.

And the value of those reductions is the same as if the people

receiving them had got a wage rise of between $90 and $100 a week.

I mean, that is a very, very big injection of cash into the pockets

of average Australians because the fall in mortgage interest rates

under my Government has been $256 a month on an average mortgage

and that is the equivalent of a $90 to $100 a week wage increase

for every person paying off an average mortgage. Now that is a direct

result of our financial management.

GIBSON:

When you talk about the drop in interest rates, that is one of

the reasons the ANZ organisation gives today for the shedding of

1700 jobs, despite the fact that last year the ANZ made a billion

dollar profit, as we know. Are we putting profits before people

in this country Prime Minister, and as Prime Minister how does that

make you feel?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I don't like to ever hear of job losses of that magnitude.

The other side of the story, of course is, that over the last 4

months 145,000 jobs have been created in Australia. So you have

always got to look at the overall picture and remember that as jobs

are lost in one part of the economy they can be generated in another.

But it has to be said that Australian banks by world standards are

very profitable and all institutions, large ones in particular,

have social obligations, equally of course they have obligations

to their shareholders. If you look at the overall employment scene

in Australia and you don't just focus on one or two companies

that have been in the news, you do see a picture of the last three

or four months that the job market has strengthened - 145,000 new

jobs created in the space of the last three to four months. Now

that is the good news on the job front.

GIBSON:

Now, our troops in the Gulf, are we totally in America's hands?

If Saddam Hussein opens these doors that he promises to, will you

call our boys home or do we have to wait until the President of

the United States says so?

PRIME MINISTER:

We are totally in our hands. I mean, we decide, and we alone decide

whether we have an involvement and when that involvement ends. I

said two night ago, in fact in a advance of the comments made by

the President or anybody else, that I didn't believe until

Saddam Hussein's word had been tested by an inspection, it

would be a good idea for any of the troops, Australian or otherwise,

to be withdrawn. Now, I don't think it would be.

It is one thing for somebody like Saddam Hussein to sign a bit

of paper saying: I will allow people in. Until those people have

been allowed in and they report back that there are no weapons of

mass destruction, or alternatively those weapons have been effectively

destroyed, I won't be satisfied that what he has said in this

agreement can in fact be delivered. Now he has broken his word in

the past, he is a brutal dictator and nobody should pretend, for

a moment, that he signed this document because he has had a sudden

change of heart. He has signed this document because of the presence

of American, British, Australian and other forces in the Gulf.

It has been the presence of those forces and the potential use

of those forces which has led to Saddam Hussein doing what he has

done, not a change of heart, not some burst of compassion on his

part and we should all understand that.

GIBSON:

At 9:22 am, my guest is John Howard. The Health Fund for private

health systems, fewer than one third of Australians now belong to

a fund, the public system is starting to buckle under the pressure,

what are you going to do to get Australians back in the fund?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, we have done a lot already and if we hadn't injected

tax incentives into the system, that figure you quote, would have

been much lower, much, much lower. It is a great pity that five

or six years ago, when Graham Richardson was the Labor Health Minister,

that his advice to provide tax incentives for private health insurance

hadn't been taken by, his then government colleagues, Mr Keating

and Mr Beazley, because if we had stabilised the level at 38 or

39 per cent, then we would now be in a stronger position.

And what I have said is that we need private health insurance and

of course the product needs to be affordable and there needs to

be a range of choices available to participants in the funds. We

have got to remember that, for all the faults in the Australian

health system, it is better and more economical and more accessible

than just about any health system in the world.

We are pretty good at knocking it, no matter who is in office,

but when you compare it with the American system, which is vastly

too expensive for average people, you compare it with the British

system, which doesn't deliver the same standard of health care

for the average person, you compare it with the health systems around

the world, it is still by world standards, a very good system.

Now that is not to say that there aren't shortages, there

aren't weaknesses and there aren't deficiencies but we

have to keep a sense of proportion and a sense of balance. And we

run the risk in this country of, just by relentless political rhetoric

on both sides, running down what is still by world standards a very

good health system.

GIBSON:

You're in the gun this morning over what is described as your

grand plan to buy back the foreshores of Sydney Harbour, to convert

those old Defence sites into parklands for the people of Sydney.

Your colleagues, the Nationals, say you are wasting money that could

be better used on urgently needed rural projects. Will you stick

by your plans to give us back our foreshores?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, we haven't made any final decision on this but it is

obviously under consideration and I would be amazed, absolutely

amazed, if we do end up giving harbour foreshore land to all of

the people of Australia, and particularly the people of Sydney,

I would be amazed if anybody would be critical of it. Now if the

Defence Department does move out of certain installations it now

occupies, and it has to buy alternative installations, well there

is obviously a cost involved in that. And the idea that that can

just be met by the budget and there doesn't have to be any

kind of offset inside the Government in that, is ridiculous.

Now, I think the criticism that's being made, and I notice

most of it is coming from the NSW Premier, is just a diversion from

some of his own difficulties. The people I talk to, right across

the political spectrum in Sydney, are saying that the idea of having

the foreshore given back to the people, the people of Sydney, the

people of Australia, is a terrific idea. And most sensible people

understand that, if involved in that you have to have the Defence

Department buy some land or spend money on remediation of the existing

foreshores to make them more attractive for the public to use, they

will understand that that money has to be spent. Apparently everybody,

except Mr Carr, who thinks that it grows on trees.

GIBSON:

Aren't they...you are under criticism this morning from Mr

Armstrong as well, who says that he figures you could be spending

your money more wisely and fairly, out in the bush?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I noticed Mr Collins is not saying that, in fact Mr Collins

is very keen on the land being given back to the people of Sydney.

I understand why a representative of rural Australia would put that

point of view but the people of Sydney are part of the Australian

population. We have put enormous resources into rural areas and

I would point out to any rural critics that the overwhelming bulk

of the money coming out of the Natural Heritage Trust, that's

the $1 billion fund that was made available out of the sale of one

third of Telstra, the overwhelming bulk of that money is going into

rural Australia.

GIBSON:

You talk about....

PRIME MINISTER:

...because that is where all the environmental difficulties are.

So I don't think rural Australia is being short changed, on

the contrary, in relation to capital spending by this Government,

it has been very generously treated.

GIBSON:

You talk about Mr Carr, I mean you are not only the Prime Minister,

you are pretty keen, old political observer, what hope do you give

Bob Carr and his Government at being re-elected?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think they are struggling badly. I think people elected them

by accident. I don't think the NSW.

GIBSON:

Would you describe John Fahey as an accident?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, I said they elected Carr by an accident. I think, no, I certainly

don't, John Fahey is an extremely effective member of my team.

He's doing an outstanding job as a Finance Minister - very,

very good job. And he's been responsible for the very successful

privatisations, amongst other things.

GIBSON:

What was the accident that led to...

PRIME MINISTER:

I think it was just one of those situations where there was no

overwhelming feeling for change and, as a result, people have been

very sceptical of the performance of the Carr Government. And I

think their continued backflips give the impression of a government

not only incompetent, but in crisis. But I will leave the running

on that to my State colleagues. I'm naturally more concerned

about good government for all of the people of Australia.

GIBSON:

The biggest event in Sydney this week, Prime Minister, the biggest

event of the year, in fact, in terms of numbers and those who take

part, the annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. You mentioned

Peter Collins, you mentioned Bob Carr, the Leader of the Opposition,

Kim Beazley - they all support it. Why do you steadfastly refuse

to put your name to Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, for a couple of reasons. I think it's always wrong to

assume that everything that somebody tolerates and understands,

that they automatically endorse. There's no obligation on a

political leader to positively endorse everything. I have a completely

tolerant view towards homosexuality. But there are practises and

people who are ridiculed in that parade for whom I have considerable

respect. I mean, over the years Catholic nuns have been ridiculed

in that parade. Over the years political colleagues of mine have

been ridiculed in that parade. Why should I positively endorse something

that includes ridicule of people in the community for whom I have

immense respect.

GIBSON:

So this is very much a personal decision.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, all these things are personal.

GIBSON:

I think with many of them it's perhaps political. Not in your

case. I think some of these other...

PRIME MINISTER:

I suppose the political thing for me to do would be to send a message.

But I just take the view that if an activity ridicules a group in

the community for whom you have regard and respect, it's a

bit odd then to turn around and send a message. Now, I'm not

criticising people who are homosexual. I have an utterly tolerant,

inclusive attitude. And I, for example, voted in the Parliament

a couple of years ago to support legislation completely decriminalising

homosexual conduct in Tasmania because I thought that kind of legislation

was absolutely anachronistic in our society. But that doesn't

mean to say that I'm under an obligation to positively embrace

a particular event which includes condemnation and ridicule of people

for whom I have a high regard and including, on occasions in the

past, party and political colleagues of mine. I don't mind

taking that attitude. I've been asked this before. And I know

I'm probably one out on this amongst most political leaders

in Australia and many community figures, but that's my decision

and I feel quite comfortable about it.

GIBSON:

You have been our Prime Minister for the best part of a couple

of years now and I must say in recent months you really look like

you're enjoying the job. What was the toughest thing, after

all those years of waiting, what was the toughest thing for you,

John Howard, when you first became Prime Minister?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think just adjusting to the fact that every day you had enormous

responsibility. I don't think I've felt a decision more

keenly than the decision to commit our forces to the Gulf recently.

Because I felt, as I talked to those men before they went off, you

might have been involved in a decision that could put their lives...I

knew I'd been involved in a decision that could have put their

lives at risk and may yet do so. I hope it doesn't. And although

the case for sending them was overwhelming - and I've had good

support from the community including, may I say, from the Leader

of the Opposition, and I appreciate that because it's always

good to send Australian troops overseas, if they are to go overseas,

with bipartisan support - despite that, I nonetheless felt that

decision very keenly because it was very emotional and directly

went to the very essence and being of those people and their lives.

GIBSON:

Before you go, your former colleague, John Hewson, is widely believed

to have lost an election because he failed to communicate the GST.

And you talk about the mainstream issues and I agree with you, I

think there are many more issues more important than Wik and the

republic. I think the GST is number one at the moment in most taxpayers'

minds. Are you confident we all understand it this time around,

and for those who aren't too certain, what percentage of tax

will you be placing on goods and what sort of income tax breaks

will you be offering in return?

PRIME MINISTER:

The next interview, Michael, I'll tell you that. I can't

give you the rates. We haven't decided yet. But what I can

tell you is that this is not a policy to introduce a GST. It's

a policy to change the whole system including, in particular, to

reduce personal income tax on middle income earners...

GIBSON:

And put tax on goods which is a GST, but it's not a term,

I guess, that the Liberal Party likes to use.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, whatever you call it. A broad-based, indirect tax, if it

were introduced, would have the advantage of being much fairer.

I mean, what is fair about everybody having to pay 22 per cent for

the family car, but if you're one out of about 50 Australians

who can afford to do so and buy a Lear Jet, you don't pay any

sales tax on that. The existing system is riddled with those sorts

of inconsistencies. And we had a report in the paper this morning

from the Tax Office which said that it costs about $10.5 billion

for the Australian community to just comply with the existing taxation

system. That's about the most powerful endorsement I've

seen in weeks of the need for root-and-branch reform of our tax

system. Everybody who's studied it knows it needs reform. The

Labor Party knows it. They're trying to block it. But deep

down in their hearts they know we can't go on forever with

the present taxation system. And I hope that as the weeks and months

go by and the full details are revealed to the Australian public

that the average man and woman in the street will see the value

of a fairer and better tax system to take us into the 21st century.

And we are very committed to selling it and I believe we will, very

successfully.

GIBSON:

Will it be the average man and woman in the street who can look

at the major benefits from your scheme?

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes. I won't bring it in otherwise. I mean, there'll

be some people who will suffer from the new system. People who are

rorting the existing system will suffer. But we will bring in a

system that is fairer, a system that will help Australian exporters

for example, and a system that will provide people with more incentive

and, therefore, greater levels of investment and more jobs.

I mean, you have to remember that when the Labor Party was in power

it tried this in the middle 1980s. I mean, it squibbed it in the

end because the unions didn't want it. But Paul Keating and

Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans, in the mid 1980s, were the three strongest

advocates, the three strongest advocates within the Government,

along with Bob Hawke, the then Prime Minister, of reforming our

taxation system. Now it suits them because they think they can win

a few votes by running a fear campaign to oppose it. Now, let them

do that.

I don't think the Australian people, in the end, if we explain

it well, and we will, are going to fall for that. But that's

a matter for them. I am the Prime Minister not just to enjoy myself

in the job, I'm the Prime Minister to improve Australia. And

one way of improving Australia is to give the country a better and

fairer tax system and I'm determined to do it. And if the people,

at the end of the day, don't accept it, well, that's their

judgement and that is their right and I'll take that with the

very best of grace. But I think that deep down the Australian people

know the system needs improving. And if we give them a decent argument

and a fair system, they'll go for it.

GIBSON:

All right. Well it's a gorgeous day here in Sydney. I'm

sure those gardeners are enjoying themselves out on your lawns this

morning over there in Kirribilli. And I trust that you'll have

a busy and fruitful day down there in Canberra.

PRIME MINISTER:

Okay.

G

Okay.

GIBSON:

Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER:

Good on you, Mike.

[Ends]

10741