MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning. How are you, Neil?
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, you're being accused of bashing blackfellas. You're
accusing the Opposition of raising the temperature on race. It seems
to me that politics of race has come to Australia. Now, are you
willing to fight an election on race?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't want to fight an election on race. I am prepared,
however, to have the Wik legislation, if it's rejected by the
Senate, and I hope it's not - and I'll come back to that
in a moment - I am prepared to have that as an element in the next
election campaign.
But let's just get one thing clear. I have been very careful
in all of the remarks that I have made, since this native title
debate started, not to use inflammatory remarks. But yesterday Gareth
Evans really hit the bottom of the barrel when he said that I'm
never so happy as when I'm bashing blackfellas. Now, in anybody's
language, that is very offensive. It should never have been said.
Mr Beazley should have demanded that he apologise. It's ironic,
isn't it, that when Don Randall said something he shouldn't
have said about Mrs Kernot and about Mr Evans, I got him to apologise.
When Senator Lightfoot said something he shouldn't have said
in the Senate about Aborigines, I got him to apologise.
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there won't be from me and there won't be from
my Party. And there won't be from the Labor Party if Mr Beazley
has the strength to get Mr Evans to apologise. I mean, this is an
issue for Mr Beazley. Mr Beazley is the Leader of the Labor Party.
I, as the Leader of the Liberal Party, acted when people on my side
said things they shouldn't have said. I got them to apologise
and I got them to retract what they said. Now, Mr Beazley cannot
escape the responsibility. He is the Leader of the Labor Party.
He accepts responsibility for the overall decorum of the Labor Party.
MITCHELL:
What on earth are we going into if, and it looks like it's
inevitable, an element of the next election is the Wik legislation?
PRIME MINISTER:
But, Neil, don't say to me: what are we going into. We can
have a debate about the Native Title Amendment Bill, the Wik legislation,
in the context of an election campaign. And that debate can be conducted
sensibly and soberly and with restraint if both sides of the argument
are prepared to exercise that restraint. Now, I'm prepared
to do it. I'm prepared to discipline people on my side. I am
prepared to get them to apologise when they say things they shouldn't
have said. Why won't Mr Beazley do the same thing?
Now, I don't want an argument about race and there shouldn't
be an argument about race on the Native Title Bill. It's not
about race. It's about a fair settlement of the interests of
indigenous people, farmers and miners and it's about giving
title security to all Australians. Now, it oughtn't be a racial
issue. And the debate is inflamed and debased and despoiled when
you have remarks of the cheap, offensive kind that were made by
Mr Evans yesterday.
MITCHELL:
Is there any chance of the legislation getting through and if it
does, what happens?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hope it does. And let me say, in relation to the legislation
- let me, on your programme, put a proposition to the Labor Party,
to the Democrats, to the Greens and to Brian Harradine. We've
just had a decision from the High Court on the Hindmarsh Bridge
case which, I believe, supports the Government's view that
the Native Title Amendment Bill is, in fact, constitutionally valid.
I say to the opposition parties in the Senate: pass the Bill in
its present form, as presented by the Government and if, as everybody
says, it will face immediate constitutional challenge, my Government
will do two things in relation to that constitutional challenge.
We will fully pay for the constitutional challenge against the validity
of the Bill - we'll fund it. And, secondly, the Commonwealth
Attorney-General will submit to the High Court of Australia that
the hearing of that constitutional challenge should be expedited
and that if that application is accepted by the Court - and let
me stress, that is a matter for the Court, the Court is completely
independent in these things - then the constitutionality of the
Bill can be determined, not immediately but almost immediately,
quickly, so that we will know where we stand. You see...
MITCHELL:
So what you're saying is, pass the legislation and let the
Court decide?
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly. Now, people are saying that they have reservations about
the legislation because they think it is unconstitutional. Well,
let us test that. And you can only test that if you actually pass
the legislation. And we are prepared to abide by the decision of
the Court. We've always been confident that the legislation
is constitutional. We are strengthened in that belief by the decision
of the High Court in the Hindmarsh Bridge case. Now, we would save
a lot of difficulty. I think the Australian would breath an immense
sigh of relief. And even people who are easily careless with their
remarks, like Gareth Evans, could, perhaps, be taken out of the
whole debate. If we can get the legislation through we will fund
- I repeat that - we will fund, we will pay for a constitutional
challenge and let the Court decide because...
MITCHELL:
So you'll fund a challenge to your own legislation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
All right.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Neil, I want this issue resolved. I believe that the Bill
we've put forward is a fair Bill. I have no doubt that it's
constitutional. But let us find that out. Let it be tested by the
Court. Now, it's a matter - there would have to be a bona fide
challenge to it. And what I'm saying, if there is a bona fide
challenge then, in the public interest, the Commonwealth will fund
that challenge. And if it is representative of the groups that are
affected by it, of course we'll refund it. And we'll also,
through the Commonwealth Attorney-General, make a submission to
the High Court that in the public interest the hearing of the challenge
should be expedited. Now, it is a matter, I repeat, for the Court
to decide because it's fully independent whether it exceeds
to that submission.
But, plainly, it is in everbody's interests to get this thing
through, to get it resolved in a parliamentary sense and then to
get it resolved in a constitutional sense so that we can all get
on with our lives and get on with other issues. And I think, overwhelmingly,
that is the heart's desire of most of the Australian people.
They're fed-up with this issue. They worry when they see remarks,
of the base kind, made by Mr Evans yesterday and they say: well,
can't you resolve it, you were elected to do the job. Please
pass it, I'm saying. We'll fund a challenge and we'll
ask the High Court to expedite a hearing.
MITCHELL:
You're obviusly confident that you would win that, though,
that the High Court...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we believe we will win but we're in the hands of the
Court. I mean, we are subject to the laws of Australia like anybody
else. And I recognise the supreme authority of the High Court of
Australia in interpreting the Australian Constitution and we will
take our chances along with anybody else. Now, what could be fairer
than that? And people are saying they don't like the Bill because
they believe it's unconstitutional. I mean, that was the main
argument, Neil, that the Labor Party ran for months. They said:
look, you've got to delay the Native Title Bill until you've
got the judgement of the High Court in the Hindmarsh Bridge case
because we, the Labor Party, believe that your Native Title Bill
is unconstitutional. Now, we've got the judgement of the High
Court in the Hindmarsh Bridge case and they've said that that
particular Bill is quite within powers.
MITCHELL:
You will put this formally to the Opposition...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think they would have heard about it by now.
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
But I will certainly see that it's formally put to them by
Senator Minchin and I hope they respond. I mean, it's a bona
fide offer. Well, I've made it, I'm certainly not going
to go back on it and why would I? I think it's a very genuine
offer on the part of the Government to try and get this thing resolved.
And, please, in the name of commonsense, why won't the Senate
respond to such a proposition?
MITCHELL:
We're getting a few calls on this, Mr Howard, we might take
one or two if that's all right. Hello, Brian, go ahead.
CALLER:
Good morning, Neil, good morning, Mr Prime Minister. I've
just got a quick question. If we're all Australians and we're
all born in this country, why are people trying to divide us about
what's good for black and what's good for white, instead
of what's good for Australians?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as a principle I couldn't agree with you more - you're
100 per cent correct. And we're trying to produce a piece of
legislation that will do the right thing by everybody. It protects
the principles laid down in the Mabo case and the Wik case. It does
not take away the common law rights of Aboriginal people. It respects
the interests of the pastoralists and the mining industry and it
will deliver a great deal of certainty for all Australians. And
we believe very strongly in the principle that all Australians should
be treated equally and that is why we're not prepared to give
a right to negotiate to one section of the population that is not
given to others.
MITCHELL:
Is it correct, as reported in the Financial Review today,
the Government is considering a compromise that has been put forward
by Senator Harradine's legal adviser?
PRIME MINISTER:
There are no compromises, that I'm aware of, that we're
considering at the moment. I mean, let me put it this way, Neil.
There are discussions going along all the time. And I've said
and Senator Minchin's said, that if there is an alternative
way of getting to the end point that the Government wants that delivers
the same certainty that the Government's legislation has, and
we're obviously prepared to look at that, but we're not
considering any compromise in the sense of the Government saying:
well look, we no longer insist on this or that provision in the
legislation.
MITCHELL:
Just a final point on it, Mr Howard, are we in a dangerous situation
here, though? I see what's happening in the Parliament. It
looks to me as if Mr Sinclair's out of control in terms of
not being able to control the Parliament yesterday. There is an
element of race debate in the community. Are we headed that way?
Is there a danger that Australia is going to an era of racial division?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't believe so. I really don't. I don't
find, in the community, racial tensions. The Australians that I
mix with, and they have all sorts of ethnic backgrounds, are sensible,
mature people who are above racial division. It doesn't help
when you have inflammatory remarks and the cheap remarks of the
like of Mr Evans yesterday. I mean, words are bullets in this business
and people shouldn't make those remarks. And former foreign
ministers and aspiring deputy prime ministers shouldn't make
those remarks.
MITCHELL:
Can I ask you quickly, on another area - the Australian Workers'
Union yesterday threatening to close down the oil industry if the
waterfront dispute erupts. What would you do about that if they
closed down the oil industry. Is it a secondary boycott?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I believe it is a secondary boycott and there would obviously
be remedies available under the law in relation to that. I hope
they don't do it. I hope they're sensible and they recognise
that the Australian people would react in a very hostile fashion
to that. The Australian people will not have a bar of these secondary
boycotts. The Australian people enjoy the fact that last year we
had the lowest number of industrial disputes for 85 years.
MITCHELL:
Will this hit the fan, though, after Easter, the suggestion there
could be mass sackings?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's something that you would have to ask the companies
involved.
MITCHELL:
But they must be keeping the Government informed about it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, the situation, Neil, is that we have ongoing discussions
with a whole lot of companies and a whole lot of people, a whole
lot of the time. The question of what individual companies may or
may not do is something that is for them to decide. Our job is to
change the law, which we've done.
MITCHELL:
But wouldn't, in your view, any such action by the Australian
Workers' Union or, indeed, other unions [inaudible] would that
be a secondary boycott and, therefore, you would have the legislation
implemented against it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it would depend on the circumstances. But it sounds to me,
on what I know, that any threatened action of the type mentioned
by the AWU could amount to a secondary boycott, yes.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a quick call and then a break. Bill, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning, Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I've got a couple of quick questions. The first relates to
native title. There's a fair amount of public goodwill in Australia
towards the Aboriginals and I think it's being undermined by
people who are seven-eights or fifteen-sixteenths or more white.
My question is, can the Government define a real Aboriginal and
stop these Clayton's Aboriginals from muddying the water?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's not something that appeals to me because I don't
believe an attempt to do that in the present climate would help
the mood of the community. It would be seen as being divisive by
some, just as you think the present situation is seen as divisive
by others. I want to try and get people to think, in terms of themselves,
primarily as Australians and separately for - as well as that, retain
a pride and a love of their distinct ethnic background. I mean,
I went to that marvellous Antipodes Festival in Melbourne a couple
of weeks ago that is a great celebration of the Greek community
in Australia. I mean, they think of themselves overwhelmingly and
primarily as Australians but they have a fierce sentiment and understandable
pride in their Greek background and culture. Now, that's the
right balance in my view. Let us all think about ourselves primarily
as Australians but respect our separate heritage, whether it be
Aboriginal or Greek or whatever.
MITCHELL:
We need to take a quick break. We'll come with more in a moment
from the Prime Minister.
[TAPE BREAK]
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, yesterday Mr Kennett, talking about the health situation
again, said that the people were suffering. You accepted that and
your own Government's looking at the reports from doctors.
He says unless there's more money from the Commonwealth people
will suffer more, waiting lists will get longer. Now, you're
here for the Liberal conference at the weekend, is there any chance
of sitting down with Jeff Kennett and trying to broker some sort
of deal so people stop suffering?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'll come to the question of suffering in a moment.
I am always willing to talk to State Premiers and I have no doubt
that over the next few days, in one form or another, Mr Kennett
and I will discuss this issue and other issues. However, I have
to say again that the offer the Commonwealth has made is a very
fair offer. It's three per cent a year, each year, for five
years on the existing money and on top of that their general tax
revenue money is going up by just under five per cent in a climate
of zero inflation.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept these reports that people are dying and suffering
because of their health system?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is a shared responsibility and it is not only the Commonwealth
that has responsibilities in health. I mean, we have direct responsibilities
of our own. I mean, in an area like aged care, where yesterday I
announced a whole new series of programmes which are designed to
target some of the most needy areas in the community and that is
of elderly carers, many of whom have looked after intellectually
impaired children for periods of 20 and 30 and 40 years.
MITCHELL:
Yes, but I would suggest, I mean, with due respect that that looks
a little cynical given that...
PRIME MINISTER:
Why?
MITCHELL:
Well, because I'd say your Government is very much on the
nose with elderly voters...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not getting into the question of who's on the
nose with who but...
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think what you have to do is look at the merits of what
we've done. I think it is cynical of people to look at every
action that a Government takes in the context of its electoral popularity.
The real test of a policy is...
MITCHELL:
Are you saying it's not a political decision?
PRIME MINISTER:
I said good policy decision. And I've done it because I believe
that the measures are good measures and they will provide more support
for older Australians to remain in their homes and that is what
older Australians want. Older Australians would prefer to stay in
their own homes than go into nursing homes. That is not to say that
if they are forced to go into nursing homes they shouldn't
get top quality care. But at any given time only nine per cent of
the Australian population, over the age of 70 years, is in a nursing
home. The great bulk of people in that age bracket are within their
own homes and the overwhelming bulk of those people, again, want
help from the Government and from the community to stay as long
as possible in their own homes. That is the clear message.
MITCHELL:
And the overwhelming majority want a health system they can trust.
[Inaudible]...they feel they can't trust and they see the Federal
Government and the State Government blaming each other. I mean,
it's frustrating.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can understand that but that doesn't mean that at both levels
governments don't have responsibilities to consider the merits
of each others arguments. I mean, we have made a funding increase
offer of 15 per cent over five years. We have our own direct responsibilities
in the area of private health insurance. The State Government has
its responsibilities. Now, I don't want to prolong the public
debate with the State Government, but the facts are that we have
offered to increase our funding by three per cent a year, each year,
for five years. Now, in any language, in a climate of zero inflation,
that is a very fair offer.
MITCHELL:
While we are on State responsibilities, would you be prepared to
look at a State income tax, as is allegedly being agreed by the
State Premiers, that they want a State income tax?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we would be prepared to look at any consolidated proposal
which is put to us by the States in the process of our considering
our tax reform proposals, at the end, because it's the federal
income tax system we are reforming. We have to take the final decision.
But we have already had a lot of....
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I will look at anything that is put forward. But I gather,
from what I have read in the newspapers, and I have not discussed
this with the Premiers recently, I gather that there is some disagreement
amongst the States as to what they want. So I don't want what
I'm saying to be taken as John Howard endorsing a State income
tax. I am doing nothing of the kind. Well, what I'm saying
is that anything the States want to put to us, in the context of
tax reform, we will have a look at. But, at the end, of the day
we have to make the decision.
MITCHELL:
Go ahead please. You're speaking to the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I can't understand why your Government does not give an incentive
- when I was in the workforce years ago, private insurance...
MITCHELL:
Private medical insurance.
CALLER:
...yes, medical insurance - a total tax deductible was allowed.
Now, I don't know why you don't introduce that system
today and then you'd find that that would be an incentive for
the majority of people.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we do have an incentive, not full tax deductibility, but
we have a tax rebate.
MITCHELL:
Is it possibly part of the tax review, that it could be deductibility?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, anything - I mean, it's not something that we are immediately
looking at. In answer to the question, we do have a tax rebate,
it's not full tax deductibility but in the case of middle income
earners it's the equivalent of full tax deductibility. It's
$450 a year for a family, provided their income is less than about
$70,000 a year. Now, that is $450 that would disappear if the Labor
Party were elected because they have expressed their opposition
to it.
MITCHELL:
Yesterday again this was described as $600 million wasted.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, by the Labor Party.
MITCHELL:
No, by Jeff Kennett.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't agree with them and I would say to all the Premiers
and, indeed, any people in positions of authority: it's a bit
inconsistent on the one hand to lament the fact that there are too
few people in private health insurance and then publicly run down
the product and run down the concept of private health insurance.
I don't think that is helpful at all. I don't denigrate
private health insurance I've been a member of a private health
fund since I was aged 16. I think all Australians who can afford
it ought to take out private health insurance. I believe that very
strongly. We have provided an additional incentive. It would disappear
if Labor were elected. Every family under $70,000, if they've
got private health insurance, would have to pay $450 more a year,
if Labor wins the next election, for private health insurance.
MITCHELL:
Okay, we've got another call. Joanne, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning. Mr Prime Minister, I would just like to ask a question
regarding Austudy. I recently received a notice in the mail - my
daughter is about to turn 16. Now, I've got a brochure here.
I was wondering why there is such a vast difference in the difference
between Austudy and Abstudy, which is for Aboriginals?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the difference is not quite as great as it was. Part of the
explanation for it is a recognition by governments over the years
that there are some particular difficulties and disadvantages suffered
by Aboriginal people as a group. And these measures have been introduced
by governments, I guess on both sides, many of them over the life
of the previous government but I accept...
MITCHELL:
Are they out of balance?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, this is a difficult area, Neil. To the lady who's asked
me the question, I can understand why she does think it out of balance,
I can.
MITCHELL:
But the argument is, if you are black you get more...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if you've got two people side by side who are in similar
situations and the only difference is that one of them is Aboriginal
and one of them is not, I can understand the one that is not Aboriginal,
feeling that is unfair. By the same token, if you recognise, which
is the truth, that as a group in the community Aborigines still
have...suffer greater health and education and employment disadvantages
than the rest of the community, there is an argument to give them
some extra help along. I think this is a very, very difficult area
and I understand the....
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have made some changes. In the 1997 Budget we removed
some of the excessive additions that were involved in Abstudy and
it's an issue that we will keep under constant review. And
I do understand the feeling that the lady has.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, has the Parliament lost it a bit. You were described
as a sneaky weasel, was it? Simon Crean said he was thrown out of
Parliament for shaking his head, which is a bit extreme if is his
thrown out for shaking his head. Yesterday was a fairly disgraceful
performance. I mean, we all enjoy the theatre, but it's gone
a bit too far.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think remarks like the ones you have just referred to...
MITCHELL:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, I've had plenty of rude things said about me
over the years but...
MITCHELL:
I didn't want to misquote...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, I'm sure you wouldn't. I'm sure you
would never do that. Well, I think those sort of remarks are demeaning
of the people who make them. I think it says more about them than
it does about the rest of us. Parliament is a vigorous place. There
is little doubt in my mind that the Labor Party has set out to generate
an enormous amount of noise and try and make life unbearable for
the new Speaker. I don't think there's any doubt about
that.
MITCHELL:
But is the new Speaker doing a good job?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he is doing a very good job. He is tough, he is durable
and I am quite certain he will do the right thing. But that is up
to him. I certainly haven't been talking to him about the conduct
of the House.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Great pleasure, thank you.
Great pleasure, thank you.
[Ends]