E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………….
MITCHELL:
In our Sydney studio, back in his regular spot for the first time since the election, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Neil.
MITCHELL:
Welcome back and congratulations.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you, thank you. Very nice to be back.
MITCHELL:
First, Don Argus says the National Australia Bank may become a foreign institution, go offshore, unless your Government lifts the ban on bank mergers, will you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don’t quite interpret what he said as being directly in the context of whether or not we change our policy and I don’t quite see it in those terms. However, we have a policy which we’re not proposing, at present, to change to say that we’re not going to allow any further bank mergers until there is more evidence of and a greater reality of competition within the banking sector. Now, we’ve never said that further mergers are, for all time, out of the question. And I know that some in the financial community want the policy relaxed and it’s one of those policies that remains under constant review and that remains the case now as it was before the election.
MITCHELL:
But he does say we’re unable to develop the scale we require…that’s how it’s been interpreted to mergers.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I understand what he’s saying. I think it’s also fair to say that there is a worry within the community that if there were further mergers there would be a further diminution of service. Now, the banks who want mergers would argue that that wouldn’t be the case. And I am willing and the Government is willing to listen to further argument on the subject and I understand the scale argument, particularly in a globalised world economy, that is being put by the NAB and being put by others. Against that there is the argument that we’ve already had a lot of consolidation and contraction in the banking sector. There is a worry in regional Australia about the closure of branches and I welcome statements made by a number of the banks concerning that, most recently the statement made by the ANZ Bank.
MITCHELL:
But what about his, what about his, well, it’s not quite a threat but his statement that they might move offshore? Obviously you wouldn’t want that to happen.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don’t see what Mr Argus said as being in any way a threat. I’m quite certain that Mr Argus is not the kind of person to wander around making threats. I don’t see it that way at all. I see him making a pragmatic, economic and business statement which is his responsibility. He’s got an obligation to his bank and to his shareholders. We have an obligation to try and get a balance between having world-class, strong, powerful financial institutions that can hold their own with the best and biggest in the world. Equally, to ensure that there is a broad enough range of banking services in this country consistent with our size both geographically and population wise and that’s not always easy to achieve.
MITCHELL:
Well, sure but look the point is, though, a lot of people are saying, ‘National Australia Bank offshore,’ that would concern them now, it would concern you as well, presumably.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I don’t think it’s going to happen.
MITCHELL:
Okay, the GST.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
Senator Harradine has said we’ll support a Standing Senate References Committee inquiry into the GST, will you agree to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we don’t think any inquiry, whether it’s by a standing committee or other, is necessary. We think that we’ve had a debate about the GST, we won the election, the public supported our programme and we want to get it through as soon as possible and we’ll use all legitimate means in the Parliament to do that. The Parliament will sit next week and we’ll just see what unfolds. I was interested to read of what Senator Harradine and the Democrats are proposing and I guess we’ll wait and see what unfolds.
MITCHELL:
There might be a way through it, though, mightn’t there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we’ll just wait and see what unfolds. We don’t think any inquiry is necessary, Neil. There is a history to all of this. We’ve been debating a GST in this country now for arguably 10 or 15 years or longer. And we had a very intensive election campaign on it and there’s been an enormous amount of debate. I mean, let’s understand one thing, that the Labor Party is trying to kill it, the Democrats are trying to significantly change it, so against all of that I simply say we had an election and eighteen and a half million Australians or eleven million Australians expressed their view on the issue. Would I rule…
MITCHELL:
Rule out a Senate inquiry.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I am a creature - I am accountable to the Parliament. I’m answerable to the Parliament and what Parliament proposes will prevail because that’s our system of government. But we’ll be arguing in the Parliament that an inquiry is unnecessary.
MITCHELL:
How much negotiation is going on around the implementation of a GST? I noticed that discussions are being held with the car industry, for example.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, we said all along that we would continue to talk to people about implementation and that will go on for months. We’ve always been willing to do that and we’ll continue to be willing to do that.
MITCHELL:
Do you see changes coming, significant changes?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no, there’ll be no changes of substance. We always allowed, in the original announcement, that there would be some further refinements, there would be some areas that needed to be discussed with people affected by them but there are not going to be, as far as the Government is concerned, any changes of substance. We laid it all out before the people and it would be something of a breach of faith with the Australian people if we now turned around and agreed to significant changes. This is the point, I think, that is misunderstood by a lot of people who are now calling for change. We went to the Australian people with a very detailed proposal and I regard the election outcome as a compact between the Government and the Australian people to implement what we put to the Australian people. We don’t really have a right to unilaterally put and take what we presented to the Australian people because it’s the total package that was presented to the Australian people that was the foundation of our re-election and we don’t really have the right to alter that.
MITCHELL:
Well, what happens next week on the GST?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what will happen is that as soon as possible we’ll get legislation into the House of Representatives to implement the plan and then we will pass it, I hope, through the House of Representatives – there’ll be proper time for debate of it – and then it will go through the House of Representatives into the Senate. And we’ll be seeking to pass it and we’ll just see what then eventuates.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, health rationing. Both the AMA and the College of Surgeons are saying that health rationing neither exists or is inevitable in Australia. In other words, if you’re too old you might not get health care, is that right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don’t like the sound of that for one moment and I find it very hard to believe that they really meant it in quite so stark terms as that. My view is that the ideal in Australia and the one to which all governments should try and aspire and the profession should help us achieve is that irrespective of your means and irrespective of your position in life proper adequate health care should be available to all Australians. And that means, obviously, access to operations. I mean, plainly, decisions are being made I guess by doctors everyday about the relative impact of operations on people and it’s not really for me, as a non-doctor, to try and make a judgement about that.
MITCHELL:
No, sure. I’ll just read to you directly from the College of Surgeons’ statement: "sadly, unless governments raise the cap on health spending above the present limit of about 8.5% of GDP, health care rationing is inevitable." And we have the report in the Sydney Morning Herald that Mr John Quinn, who is a 79 year old, refused heart surgery and then got it, now he’s okay – too old.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I suppose it’s a fairly easy thing to say that all that’s got to happen to solve every problem is for the Government to spend more money. Now, I’m not saying that in particular areas you can’t argue that the Government ought to spend more. You can also argue that in other areas the Government should spend less because it’s wasting it, I don’t mean in the health area. I think there’s also, when it comes to something like health, I think the profession has a role to play and has an obligation to bear. I don’t think anybody can read themselves out of a responsibility to contribute to cost containment when it comes to the provision of health services in this country and that includes the profession, it includes the hospitals and, of course, obviously includes the Federal Government. Through all the criticism that is made of health care in Australia we have a better standard of health care for the average citizen than any country in the world. I would hate to be ill in the United States on an ordinary income and I don’t think you get the same quality of care in Britain.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe we have health rationing? Have we got to that stage?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, I’m not expert enough to know that and I’d need to talk to people who are experts. I mean, it’s terribly easy for a Prime Minister to get himself into trouble by making glib comments about health rationing and so forth.
MITCHELL:
But it is fair to say that you think it’s unacceptable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I’m…what I would not want to see in this country is a situation where health care to which people are entitled is denied. Of course not.
MITCHELL:
[Commercial break]
I have a few more questions but we’ll take some calls as well. Sam, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister and Neil.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
What do you portray….you want to take a vote from Senator Colston. Now, to me if you do that, to me you have lost your honest John rating for a simple fact that to me you’d be condoning rorting of the system.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that’s not right. He has not been found guilty of any crime and we do have in this country a doctrine called the presumption of innocence. The Labor Party is continuing to take Carmen Lawrence’s vote although she has been charged with perjury. She has not been found guilty of anything and she is entitled to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. And the Beattie Labor Government in Queensland is going to count the vote of one of its backbench members who has been charged with a serious, a very serious number of offences.
MITCHELL:
But what’s changed, Mr Howard, from the days when your vote was unacceptable?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’ve looked and the Government has looked again and we have come to the conclusion that the stance we then took was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.
MITCHELL:
With respect, it sounds like a pragmatic decision based around the GST.
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, the people will say that.
MITCHELL:
And it’s not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have never said for a moment…I said to you, in fact, earlier that we would use whatever legitimate means were available to us to get through something that the Australian public supported.
MITCHELL:
Presumably, you’d rather not be in a position of having to take the Colston vote?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do think there is a strong argument to put and I say this very directly, I think there is a strong argument to be put that the stance we took in the last Parliament was unreasonable.
MITCHELL:
Was it your decision?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I certainly initiated it and the Cabinet supported it. It was a Government decision but I am not walking away from responsibility for it any more than I am walking away from responsibility for the stance that we are now taking. The stance that we are now taking is utterly consistent with the stance that governments have taken in the past. The stance we took in the first Parliament was a more severe reaction to what had happened than has normally been the reaction of governments in similar situations. So, they are the facts. I think that is a fair assessment of what has occurred and people will make their own assessment.
MITCHELL:
John, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Jeff Kennett was given a mandate to do what he liked because he got the control of both Houses. Now, I voted for you in the Lower House - I run a small business, 100 per cent against the GST – I voted for you in the Lower House because you were the only alternative, there was nothing else. Now, I voted different in the Upper House because I don’t want the GST. Now, how can you say you’ve got a mandate when I know a lot of other people in small business that voted for you in the Lower House but would not give you control in the Upper House because they don’t want the GST. So, how can you say you have got a mandate when you have not got control of both Houses like Jeff Kennett has?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can say…John is it?
CALLER:
Yes, that’s right.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can say it John because in our system of government, governments are formed and unformed in the Lower House of Parliament, in the House of Representatives. Now, we could go on for days, weeks, months, years arguing this mandate issue but let’s put it in even simpler terms. Elections in a democracy are about parties presenting programmes, you argue your case, you have a vote and somebody wins. And the normal expectation of the person who wins can then implement what he or she promised the public he or she would do if they won. Now, that’s what we did. Now, whether you call that a mandate or you call it representative democracy or you call it keeping the government you elected honest, it doesn’t really matter what you call it that is the sequence of events. Now, I simply say to you is that if you can’t operate on that basis then we are really are reducing to a farce the holding of elections in this country and, I mean, I just rest my case. But, we will put our legislation up, we’ll ask the Parliament to pass it, we will use all legitimate means to get it through both Houses of Parliament and we’ll see what happens.
MITCHELL:
Thanks John for calling. Mr Howard, the speech yesterday, you seem to be having a bit of a go, well, it’s reported at having a bit of a go at business about giving more to the welfare of the community. Do you think business has been a bit mean in charity work?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wasn’t having a go. There are a lot of people in the business community who are incredibly generous and I won’t, sort of, embarrass any leading business figures in Australia by mentioning them by name. But there really are a lot of people in this country who do make a lot of money but give a lot of it away, and they are to be applauded. I was just making the observation that if you look right across the generality of the business community in Australia the support given to many welfare organisations and charities is of a lower order than occurs in some other countries and there is a case for more.
MITCHELL:
Do you…I did hear you were, sort of, linking it to Work for the Dole. How did you do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I wasn’t linking it to Work for the Dole, I was saying that a business contribution to the welfare of the community is really another expression of the principle of mutual obligation. That profitable businesses depend upon successful stable societies that have opportunities to work and to spend and to buy products and buy services. And it’s part of the mutual linkages that exist in a civil society for business to give back to the community in the same way that we say to somebody who’s getting unemployment benefits, we will support you but we expect you to give something in return for that support. I think a civil society in our day and age now does depend very much on the linkages between different sections. The Government can’t do it all, the community organisations and the business community can’t do it all, individuals and families on their own can’t do it all. But if we have good partnerships and linkages in a civil society and in a civil way I think we can solve a lot of our problems. They were the themes that I was endeavouring to set.
MITCHELL:
What do you expect from business, particularly small business? I mean, do you think they should be helping their local charities, how do you…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it’s not for me to micro-manage the philanthropic effort of individual businesses. I was just simply making the point that they have a role to play, not the only role but it’s a very important role.
MITCHELL:
In Queensland, Mr Howard, the Premier is talking about lifting stamp duty on shares.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes.
MITCHELL:
Now, the Premier…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we are going to get rid of that altogether under our plan.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, he’s trying to bring it forward a bit isn’t he?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it would solve the whole problem for everybody when our plan goes through.
MITCHELL:
In what sense?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we are going to get….with the GST every State will be able to get rid of it.
MITCHELL:
The argument has been put by Victoria, and I think New South Wales, that therefore that means that Queensland doesn’t need any special deals any more if they can afford to do that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don’t discriminate between the States. The first thing I would say to all the State Premiers, and I’d say it particularly to the New South Wales Premier who at the moment is running advertisements in effect trying to create division between Australians living in different States, that people are Australians first before they are Victorians or Queenslanders or people who live in New South Wales. And it has always been part of our federal system of government that you have a thing called fiscal equalisation that ensures that those parts of the country that have a lesser revenue rating base than others still have an adequacy of services. And our federation has always operated on that basis, that’s always been the case. Now, every State Premier will stick up for his State and try and get a fair deal for his State. And I understand and I respect that and there’s a certain amount of shadow boxing always goes on and I see some of the things that have been said, particularly by Mr Beattie and Mr Carr as being in that context. But, I’ll be going to the Premiers’ conference next week offering our tax plan which is hugely beneficial of the States as to the division of the GST cake between the States which I think this little bit of argy bargy is all about. That will be determined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission which is an independent body having the respect of all the States. And they will make judgements on the division of the GST revenue. In aggregate, the States will be a lot better off under our plan. During the transitional phase we are guaranteeing that they’ll be no worse off and we are not going to, sort of, go in through the back door and muck around with their specific purpose payments. We are genuine, we want to improve the financial position of the States. That can happen under a GST, there will be greater revenue flows to all of the States under a GST and they’ll have more money for hospitals and police and schools. And that’s got to be good news. So let’s not spoil the good news with too much point scoring from different Premiers.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Could I ask you about a local issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MITCHELL:
It’s the Federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, is coming down to have a look at the Geelong road which is what’s described as a horror road here, the Melbourne Geelong road. The State government’s putting in money, the Federal Government so far has been reluctant to. Are you aware of this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am generally aware of it, I don’t pretend to be across the detail that John Anderson would be. He is coming down to Melbourne today is he?
MITCHELL:
No, next Friday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Next Friday. Well, I am sure he’ll listen sympathetically.
MITCHELL:
Have you got $100 million that you could spare?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we don’t have spare $100 millions Neil but, look, John will listen to what is being put. There is obviously a very heavy demand for roads. We made a certain number of commitments in the election campaign and they will be honoured. There are some roads that we regard as being roads of national importance where the Commonwealth will make a contribution. There are other roads that we regard as the responsibility of the States. But, we’ll listen to what is being put.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, I read….you have had a break, things have re-energised no doubt. I read that some of the permanent heads got a bit of a touch up. Is that right, is this a new approach? Not entirely happy with the job being done by some of them?
PRIME MINISTER:
You don’t want to read, you don’t want to believe, you know, precisely everything that….
MITCHELL:
Well, Laurie Oakes is pretty good.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well I am not going to comment on individual stories. Look, I think we get a high quality of advice from our senior bureaucrats but everybody in our system has got to perform, ministers are expected to perform, prime ministers are expected to perform. Their performance is monitored on a daily basis, indeed, an hourly basis and if they are seen by some people as not cutting the mustard then they are very heavily criticised. But, quite plainly we have re-appointed all of the permanent heads and we are not planning any…I don’t have any, sort of, mass purges or anything of that kind in mind.
MITCHELL:
Have they been given a message to lift their game?
PRIME MINISTER:
Everybody is encouraged at the beginning of a government term to make sure that the maximum contribution is made to the efficient operation of the government.
MITCHELL:
Did you have a good break?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I only had about four or five days off but it was very restful. I played a bit of golf and I feel very rested and very relaxed. We’ve got a busy few weeks. I am going to Malaysia at the end of next week for the APEC meeting and then a fairly heavy parliamentary session and then the Christmas break where I tend to have, you know, traditionally fairly long holiday and watch a lot of cricket.
MITCHELL:
Did you….we talked about this before the election, I mean, you might have thought about it during the break, will it be a different John Howard during this term?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look I think…there has been quite a lot of discussion about this. I am not going to remake myself because that implies that somehow or other you’re unhappy with what you are now. And without being smug I think at this stage in my life to try to, sort of, engage in artificial makeovers is laughable. But you are inevitably different the second time around, you feel different.
MITCHELL:
In what way? How do you feel different?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you feel different because, in a sense, you have been re-elected in your own right. When you win after defeating somebody who has been in power a long time, a large part of that victory is due to a negative vote against that other person rather than a vote for you. Now, on this occasion people have voted warts and all for the Howard Government. They have voted for the Howard Government introducing what is quite a fundamental change to our taxation system, it’s quite a bold plan. In the eyes of many people it was an unpopular plan but we got the support of the public nonetheless. Now, psychologically that gives you a huge, sort of, surge if you like, a feeling that you are there in your own right and I think it does make a big difference.
MITCHELL:
Sort of adds to the, what, self-confidence of governing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I don’t mind putting it that way. I think we are more experienced, we have been there now for almost three years. I think we have learnt from some of our mistakes which inevitably we made in the first term. I hope we will be a better Government, that doesn’t mean to say I thought we were a bad Government, I thought we were a good Government but we should be even better. You should always strive to do better. And the expectations of the Australian people are always that you should do better and that is perfectly justified and perfectly understandable.
MITCHELL:
What did you think about on your days off?
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought about the future. I thought about the huge opportunity we have over the next few years to celebrate the achievement of 100 years of Australian nationhood, of the unique opportunity we have as a European derived civilisation here in the Asian-Pacific region with strong links to North America to make a unique contribution, bringing all of those dispirit assets together. And I think of some of the challenges that lie ahead, unemployment particularly amongst the young remains, of course, at the top of that list.
MITCHELL:
Right Mr Howard. I was hoping you might have thought about the cricket. Thanks very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that’s coming.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for your time, we’ll talk to you again soon.
PRIME MINISTER:
Indeed.
[ends]