E&OE................................................................................................
MILLER:
We've got a lot of matters to cover today Prime Minister. But
first of all I think we've got to talk about John Elliott's
outspoken comments at a luncheon in Melbourne yesterday where, well
he hasn't missed anybody has he? He's given a sort of a
back hander describing you as boring but saying you're doing
a good job. But saying that Australians have for too long have been
distracted with what he calls side issues. Now, I can't agree
with him that drugs is any sort of a side issue. But things like the
republic, and remarks that I think a lot of people will find marginally
if not extremely offensive, and that is an apology to a forgotten
people.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think you'll be aware that over the years, over the last
five or ten years I haven't really responded to any remarks Mr
Elliott has made on public affairs and having listened to what he
said yesterday I think my judgement has been absolutely correct. Everybody
knows our position. I do regard drugs as an important issue. I think
governments are capable of, and ought to be capable of and they have
a responsibility of not only looking after economic issues but also
responding on important social issues. And the drug problem is an
important social issue in this country and I make no apology for the
emphasis that I've placed on it. No part of the Australian community
is or should be forgotten. Everybody in this community is entitled
to an equal dignity and an equal respect. People will know our position
in relation to matters concerning reconciliation. They'll also
know my views in relation to the debate regarding the Human Rights
Commission report on the stolen children, and the views I have about
formal apologies. But our views are all well known on those issues.
We are running the economy extremely well but it's possible while
you're running an economy well to also give a lead on important
social issues. And tackling the drug menace is a very important social
issue.
MILLER:
Mr Elliott says he thinks a lot of Australian voters are stupid, that
we vote with our hip pocket. By that I mean, I interpret that that
as what he's trying to say in a fairly blunt, and as I said probably
offensive fashion, is that we don't look at the big picture when
we vote. Sometimes we do not look at what is good for the country.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have a very high opinion of the common sense of the Australian
voter, a very high opinion.
MILLER:
All right. Well let's leave that there. Moving on, are you at
the end of your rope with Brian Harradine?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no. Brian Harradine always makes up his mind on the merits of
individual issues. I don't agree with Brian Harradine on a lot
of issues. I agree with him on a lot of others. And his voting against
our bill to entrench junior wage rates didn't surprise me. He'd
made it fairly clear in earlier speeches that that is where he stood.
I'm disappointed that the Labor Party and the Democrats and Senator
Harradine have voted against our bill because the defeat of that bill
will put at risk tens of thousands of jobs for young people. And the
reason that we've pursued that issue is that we're trying
to do something about youth unemployment. Everybody agrees that unemployment
is still the major social and economic challenge in this country.
It's a lot better now than it was. It's 7.5% and that's
a huge improvement but we'd like it to be even better. And one
of the ways of making it better is to prevent a situation where the
cost of employing young people increases. And we've tried to
do a number of things on this front and we've been blocked at
every turn by the Senate. We've been blocked on the unfair dismissal
law that would, if passed, would have improved the job opportunities
of young people in small business. We've now been blocked on
junior wages. And really what the Senate has done is to attack our
basic attempts to do something about youth unemployment. Now you couldn't
have a more central issue in the political debate in Australia at
the present time. And we're not alone in arguing the consequences
of this. Look at what McDonalds have said, look at what the ACCI has
said, look at what the retailers have said. They've all argued
that if you don't go down the path we're advocating then
you're putting at risk the jobs of tens of thousands of young
people. And frankly we'll continue to push our case. We're
disappointed in the attitude taken by the Labor Party and the Democrats
and others. But we'll persevere because we believe the Australian
public understands that we're fighting for the employment security
and the employment opportunities of young Australians.
MILLER:
But where do we go to from here Prime Minister? I mean you have had
Senator Harradine block two key Government policies in 24 hours. As
you mentioned the unfair dismissal and the youth wages and of course
the privatisation, or sale of Telstra. How are you going to get these
things through? I mean they're all central to your Government's
whole package of reform.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well bear in mind that he did vote for something else that was central
to the last election campaign and that's the 30% private health
insurance rebate. We have to deal with the fact that the Australian
people did not deliver a majority, although they returned the Government,
that we don't have a majority in the Senate. We have to deal
with that fact. Now we believe that the Senate should honour the mandate
we received. Governments are made and broken in the Lower House, not
in the Upper House. But the Labor Party and the Democrats and others
refuse to honour that mandate on certain issues. All we can do is
persevere. We were reelected only five months ago and we're getting
on with the job. We're addressing the issues. We're arguing
the cause of reducing unemployment. We're trying to do something
about youth unemployment. We're trying to get our taxation package
through and I'm certainly not in any way depressed about our
prospects in that area. I remain hopeful that both Senator Harradine
and Senator Colston will support our taxation plan because we laid
it out in clear detail to the Australian people and we were returned
to Government and we therefore have a mandate, a clear unambiguous
mandate to implement that policy. And I hope when it comes to the
crunch, before the 30th of June, that both of those gentleman
will support the Government's policy and give effect to the mandate
and the support we received from the Australian people.
MILLER:
All right. Well you have hinted, maybe I'm mistaken, but I've
perceived that you've hinted that you might be prepared to play
around the edges with the GST. Would you be prepared to lose the GST
rather then, for example, negotiate on food?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're not prepared to take food out of it. What I've
said is that fine-tuning is one thing, any fundamental alterations
are another thing. Obviously some fine-tuning necessarily occurs with
a package as big as that and that has never been ruled out and oughtn't
to be ruled out and we've made a couple of minor changes ourselves
along the way. Given it's such a huge package that is to be expected.
But we're not going to fundamentally compromise it because it
is an integrated whole and it's what we took to the Australian
people. We have a very clear issue here. We're suppose to be
a Parliamentary democracy where parties campaign every three years,
put their policies on table, seek support for those policies. We did
all of those things. I was interviewed by you probably three times
during the election campaign and I was asked scores, hundreds, indeed
thousands of questions about the GST over a period of seven weeks.
It was the most intensive period of political campaigning that I have
ever been involved in in my 25 years in Parliament. And at the end
of that process the Australian people returned my Government and returned
me as Prime Minister and they returned us to do the things we said
we would do during the campaign. Now that is how our system is meant
to work. And I say to your listeners that that is how we will behave.
We will implement the mandate we were given and we ask the Senate
to honour that mandate and to pass our legislation. I can't answer
you in any other way.
MILLER:
Sure. Prime Minister what happens though if they stay intransigent,
if they won't put it through? I mean is your only option then
to go back to the people?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't....we just had an election. I don't think
anybody wants another election.
MILLER:
Not going to give you that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Heavens above we just had one. It's only, less than six months.
And I don't want to hypothesise about what might happen, what
we do if people remain obstinate. I'm thinking in a positive
frame of mind. I'm optimistic, I'm hopeful, I'm positive
about our prospects of getting it through. I don't know and Senator
Harradine will keep his counsel. Senator Colston will keep his counsel
on the tax plan til the end. I understand that, I respect that.
They both have a right to do that and there's no point in trying
to box them into corners. They're both too astute and skillful
for that, and I understand that. We will argue our case publicly.
I'll keep reminding everybody who cares to listen that we had
an intensive seven week debate, the length and breadth of Australia
on this issue. And then we had a vote on the 3rd of October
and the Australian people returned the Coalition Government with a
majority of 12. And the centrepiece of that election campaign and
the centrepiece of our return to power was the GST plan.
MILLER:
Okay. Let's move on a little bit. We have got a budget coming
up. The Treasurer says it's not a time to go soft. What are the
parameters of this budget?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the Treasurer's put it very fairly. We are in a
strong budget position, we turned a deficit of $10.5 billion into
a surplus in three years. And that's one of the reasons why our
economy is performing so strongly, one of the reasons why our interest
rates are low, our inflation is low and we are seen by the rest of
the world as almost a role model of economic strength in a region
that's been racked by economic collapse. Now, in those circumstances
the last thing you do is squander the very strength that you have
accumulated. So whilst we are not in the business of being mean or
unfair, and we certainly won't be delivering a budget that's
anything other than fair and balanced and sensible, now is not the
time to relax the purse strings.
MILLER:
Okay. Business confidence they say highest since the 1980s but the
current account deficit has blown out and that was what tipped us
over the edge in the 80s, how long before you have to act on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the current account deficit now is much lower than what it was
in the 80s. You don't compare current account deficits by making
dollar comparisons, you have to look at them in the percentage of
the annual wealth generated by the country each year. Obviously in
dollar terms the current account deficit now is going to be higher
than what it was 15 or 20 years ago. But now it is much lower in percentage
of wealth terms than it was in the 1980s. And in addition, in the
1980s we had high interest rates, high inflation, high budget deficits.
We have none of those now. And the current account deficit that we
have at the present time, whilst we would like to see it come back
again, is certainly very manageable. And most importantly we can pay
for it now. We are in a much better position to pay for it than we
were in the 1980s. And the critical thing with a current account deficit
is the percentage of your annual export income that is needed to service
the debt and that is now about 9.6 per cent. It used to be hovering
around 20, it's lower now than it's been since 1984. So
the current account deficit we have now is not only lower than what
is was under Labor, much lower in properly compared terms, but our
other economic conditions are stronger and our capacity as a nation
to pay for it through drawing off our export income is much better.
MILLER:
So I guess in simple terms the overdraft is a whopper but we can manage
it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the overdraft is more than covered by our earnings. Our capacity
to service that overdraft is well within the....our ability to
service is well within our earning capacity, well within it and more
in our earning capacity than what it was 15 years ago. Even though
the dollar terms...I mean, your nominal wage now, I assume, is
higher than what it was 20 years ago but the question of whether you
are better off or worse off depends on what it will buy. Now what
I am saying to you is that right now the capacity is much better to
service the debt.
MILLER:
Okay. Well, that brings me onto another subject that has been a subject
of a lot of debate on this programme and I know on Alan Jones'
programme as well. When can we expect to see, or can we expect to
see, more encouragement for single income families through either
the taxation system or other reforms that will allow families to return
to the more traditional situation where mum can stay at home and look
after the kids?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, can I just say something on the philosophy of that, and I am
and my Government is in favour of giving both men and women choice,
we don't believe that it's the role of the Government to
say to families, look, one of the parents should stay at home while
the children are young or both of the parents should be in the workforce.
That's for parents to decide and it will vary from family to
family. Many parents with young children would like the opportunity
for one of them to stay at home for a few years while the children
are very young, if they can afford to do so. But many people can't
do that anymore. Others say that it suits their lifestyle and their
aspirations both as individuals and as families for both to be in
the workforce from the beginning. Now, we respect all choices but
what we are trying to do is to make it more affordable for people
to be single income families if they want to be.
Now, you say what are we doing to help. Well, we helped with our family
tax initiative introduced two-and-a-half years ago promised in the
1996 campaign that gave for the first time some extra help for people
with only one income where at least one of their children was under
the age of five. Now, we are going much further, we are building more
on that in our taxation plan. And if we can get our GST through the
Parliament we'll be able to deliver a lot of additional assistance
to all parents with young children. But over and above that assistance
we'll be giving a little bit more to those again where one child
is under five and one of the parents is at home. What we seek here
is a situation where people can exercise a choice. We are not telling
people what they should do. I don't believe in stereotyping what
people should do but equally I don't want a situation where people
who would like to have mum or dad at home when the children are young
find they can no longer afford to do so. I think that's quite
unfair and inimical to the kind of free choice in our society that
I would like to see developed.
MILLER:
Okay. Prime Minister, I know your time is limited but one more question
before we go. Yesterday Independent Peter Andren released figures
showing that our Parliament now costs something like $346 million
a year to run, $200 million of which goes on MPs salaries, entitlements
and other costs. With the lap of honour' business that
was talked about in the weekend press, I mean, can you understand
how people are annoyed, are jaded, who seem to think that there is
one rule for you folk in Parliament and one rule for the rest of us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if that were true I can...look, I can understand why people
get critical of these things because they are constantly bombarded
with stories, some of which are fair and some of which are unfair.
I mean, there is nothing unusual about the major cost of running something
being salaries. The major cost of running many businesses is salaries.
Of course it costs a lot of money if you have 148 members of the House
of Representatives and you have 76 members of the Senate and you employ
staff and you have a big country like Australia. It costs a lot of
money to travel from Far North Queensland to Canberra, from Western
Australia to Canberra. Of course it does, there is no way of avoiding
it. I mean, the only way you could avoid that is not have a national
Government at all, forget it. Now, some people might say that's
a great idea. I don't, I think there is greater waste at other
levels of government in this country. So, I mean, it's a very
simplistic argument that really proves nothing for somebody to say,
look at how much it costs to run Parliament. You can equally say look
at how much it costs to employ teachers, look at how much it costs
to employ police. I mean, it's all part and parcel of employing
people in our community to run our society. It's a question of
what is fair and reasonable. Now,....
MILLER:
Well, that's what I was trying to get to.
PRIME MINISTER:
And, look, the average salary of a Member of Parliament when you look
at the responsibilities and the way that most of them work is not
unreasonable. Many people of great ability in Parliament could probably
earn more outside. Some couldn't, it varies according to the
individual. But I think the average income is reasonable. I don't
think...I think they are quite well paid by community standards
but they are not overpaid by comparison with people who hold senior
business positions, senior media positions or some of our more successful
sportsmen. Now, when people abuse privileges they bring disrepute
on the whole system. And we have had a few examples of that and I
condemn those people whether they are, no matter what party they are
in. I was asked yesterday about superannuation and I certainly don't
have a closed mind in relation to changes in that area but I think
it's important to look at superannuation not in isolation but
as part of the overall remuneration package. Most Members of Parliament
I know work hard. That's not a popular thing to say but I'll
defend them on both sides for the fact that most of them work very
hard. Some let the show down as happens in any other walk of life.
But the great majority of Members of Parliament, I know, try hard
believing what they are there for and work on average 60 to 80 hours
a week.
MILLER:
But is it fair that a Member who is retiring in six months takes a
taxpayer funded overseas trip?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is fair that he take what he is entitled to while he is a
Member of Parliament. I know the article you are referring to. The
implication in that article was that this was some additional privilege
that those people were being given. It wasn't, it was quite unfair
in that sense. These were entitlements that those people had. I mean,
if you are going to argue that then what you are really arguing is
that any person within a certain period of retirement should not receive
from his employer any kind of hospitality to which he is normally
entitled. I mean, the trips that those people undertook, as I understand
it, were trips that they were entitled to during their three year
period as a Member of Parliament and they weren't getting something
extra because they were about to retire, that was my understanding.
MILLER:
All right. Prime Minister, we are going to have to leave it there
but thank you very much for your time this morning and I look forward
to doing it again soon.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]