E&OE...................................................................................................
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, I understand from the reports that later today you are
to release details of a new tax deal for businesses which support
charities, a philanthropy argument. Can you tell us what it is?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. What I'll be doing tonight is delivering a speech to a very
large business gathering in Melbourne and to further the concept of
greater business giving and philanthropy I'll be announcing a
series of changes to taxation legislation. It'll involve a revenue
cost of between $50 and $60 million a year and it will provide overall
in a number of areas, which for reasons of giving people all of the
information at the same time I won't go into at this stage, but
it will contain a whole series of changes which will make it more
attractive for companies and individuals either through direct giving
or through leaving things in their estates to help charities and to
help other worthy pursuits within the Australian community. I want
very much to build what I call a stronger social Coalition with the
Government, the business sector, welfare organisations and individuals
working together to tackle social problems. This is not an attempt
to wind back the Government's own direct responsibilities for
providing welfare benefits. I want to make it very clear that when
I talk of business philanthropy I talk of adding value to what is
now being done. I don't talk about the Government getting out
of welfare and handing over the burden to either welfare organisations
or to the business community. I would like to encourage a greater
spirit of giving by Australian companies. Some of them, incidentally,
are very generous now, very generous. But I'd like more of them
to become generous and I'd like in that...by us giving some
additional incentive we will make it more attractive. We are not just
saying, you give more, we are also saying we are going to make a number
of changes to make it easier and more attractive and provide you with
more incentives.
MITCHELL:
In the form of a tax break obviously?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, a tax incentive.
MITCHELL:
Okay. What, and individual as well. Does that mean if I am sending
a cheque off to a charity organisation that'll change my position?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it could depending on what the circumstances are. At the moment
gifts to certain organisations are tax deductible and by their nature
most of the changes will tend to affect the corporate sector but if
the circumstances fit an individual well the individual will get the
same benefit as well.
MITCHELL:
Okay. So there will be some benefits for individuals....
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yeah, there'll be some benefit for both individuals and corporations.
MITCHELL:
In a broad sense can you tell us how?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's very hard to do so without going into the details
of it but there are certain aspects of the capital gains tax that
work against some forms of corporate giving at the present time and
we are going to make that more easy.
MITCHELL:
Okay. And that'll be announced later today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I'll be announcing it tonight actually at a speech I am
giving to a dinner in Melbourne.
MITCHELL:
It does come at a time when some people are still arguing that the
GST is going to affect charities or charitable works. Do you insist
it won't?
PRIME MINISTER:
When you see all of the details of it I don't believe anybody
can argue that it will. One of the reasons why it won't adversely
affect charities is that a lot of the things that charities now buy
are...have embedded in them wholesale sales tax and all of that
will, of course, disappear under a GST and the normal activities of
charities will be GST free.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, another matter, we're sending...are we sending
the HMAS Melbourne to the Gulf?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is a situation that in the past we have provided assistance
and the Defence Minister would be the person who would be making a
statement about that. Obviously we have in the past participated in
that multi-national force and it wouldn't be out of line with
that for that to occur in the future.
MITCHELL:
Well, it is reported in the Age today....
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't seen that report.
MITCHELL:
But obviously if the HMAS Melbourne is going to the Gulf on a new
commitment you are aware of it, are you able to confirm it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, I don't want to say anything further about that issue
except to foreshadow that something will be said about it over the
weekend.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Kosovo. What will this achieve, is this really likely to solve
the situation, bombing the living daylights out of them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's always a fair question to ask, it's always
a difficult question to answer and like everybody else I very much
regret that this has become necessary. But in the end what do you
do? Do you stand by, do you watch people being murdered, do you watch
atrocities take place, you watch a country ignore the requests of
the whole world to reach an agreement that gives to a different ethnic
group a certain amount of liberty and independence? The longer it
went on the more people wrung their hands and said, why don't
the western countries do something about it, why doesn't NATO
do something about it, why don't the Americans do something about
it. And then along comes this attack and then quite naturally people,
sort of, go over to the other side and they recoil in horror, perfectly
understandably. It's one of the great dilemmas of international
leadership. If you do nothing you are condemned for meeting circumstances
that whereby people are being murdered, if you do something you are
then quite rightly accused by some of an overreaction. I don't
think the NATO countries had any alternative. They have laboured long
and hard over the negotiating table with Milosevic and he is completely
intransigent.
MITCHELL:
I guess my point is what happens next though? Is it inevitable that
ground troops will have to go in in your view?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't think it's inevitable, no I don't. I don't
believe that to be inevitable and my understanding of the military
goal is to do sufficient damage to the Serb military capacity that
it will make them more likely to negotiate and to give a certain amount
of independence and autonomy to the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. That's
what it's all about.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, the preamble, it's had so much attention this week
and I know you feel very passionately about it. Dr O'Donoghue,
the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner, Chairman,
describes you as a "nation wrecker". She says this is so
divisive, you are a nation wrecker. What's your response to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, my response is that Dr O'Donoghue has been a consistent
critic of mine ever since I became Prime Minister and I am not the
least bit surprised by her reaction. Can I just make this rather soft
response to her and, indeed, to all the other critics I've had,
if this preamble is wrecked by the sort of blind opposition of those
who, in one way or another, don't think it goes far enough, we're
not going to have a vote on a preamble for years into the future.
The only logical time in the next little while to have a vote on a
preamble is at the end of this year along with the republican referendum.
I mean, it would be ridiculous in the extreme.
MITCHELL:
But couldn't you put your preamble regardless, even if it doesn't
get through the Senate, couldn't you put it through?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, only if it is again presented to the Senate after a period of
three months.
MITCHELL:
Well, would you do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, wait and see what they do. The point I'm making is, the
timetable for getting it voted on at the same time as the republican
referendum is very tight. And if, because of that tight timetable,
if you can't have the two of them together, well, I don't
think the Australian public would take very kindly to a separate expenditure
of $40 million to have a referendum just on the preamble. And can
I also say this, to Lois O'Donoghue and a whole lot of other
people, is that the reason why we started talking about having a preamble
more than a year ago, a new preamble, was that there's no reference
in the present Constitution, in an appropriate way, to the indigenous
people of this country. And if, because of the blind opposition of
the Democrats and the Labor Party and others, we end up not getting
a vote on the preamble at the end of this year, we will have missed
a golden opportunity to at least acknowledge the place in the history
of Australia of indigenous people. Even if some people don't
think that acknowledgement goes far enough...
MITCHELL:
Do you think you would win popular support for it? This is the thought
I'm having, that whether you could put it to a referendum regardless
of the Senate.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I'll make a judgement, the Government will obviously
make a judgement on that depending on the reaction of the republic.
And I have said that I want comment on the draft. I haven't said
that every single word in it is immutable otherwise if that was my
view I wouldn't have called it a draft.
MITCHELL:
But you don't want to add things to it, do you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but I think it is long enough at present. But inevitably something
like this was going to be fiercely attacked.
MITCHELL:
What about this issue of guardianship which seems to be the main issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Custodianship.
MITCHELL:
Well, custodianship, is that negotiable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not hung up on any particular word but I do know that
if you go too far in this area you will start getting an opposite
reaction. And isn't it better for those who want the Aboriginals
and Torres Strait Islanders recognised to have something rather than
to have nothing at all, because that is what will happen. If the Senate
rejects our preamble and we can't have a vote on the preamble
at the same time as the vote on the republic, I can't see when
you'll have a vote on the preamble in the foreseeable future.
Because I don't think any government is just going to have a
vote on a preamble alone. And the logical, sensible time to have the
vote on a preamble is when you're having a vote on whether or
not the country becomes a republic because the two things are, in
a sense, whilst they're different issues, they are in a sense
related. And if you're seriously thinking I would have a, or
any Prime Minister of this country, would just have a stand-alone
vote on a preamble so...
MITCHELL:
Is there a possibility, though, it's this or no change or...?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I haven't said that. I mean, some of my critics are saying
that I've said that. They should look at what I say.
MITCHELL:
No, but you are saying, well, you know, if we muck around with this
then you can't put it to, well, you don't put it to a referendum,
we stay as we are.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, exactly. Well, you can't put it in the Constitution without
a referendum.
MITCHELL:
Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
And the logical time to have the referendum on the preamble is with
the republican referendum. And what I'm really saying is that
if the chance to have the two of them together is lost then the opportunity
of having a vote on a preamble in the foreseeable future is also lost.
And we will, therefore, end up with a Constitution that, amongst other
things, makes absolutely no reference at all to the indigenous people
of this country. Now, is that what Lois O'Donoghue wants? Is
that what Kim Beazley wants? Is that what Meg Lees wants? I mean,
is that what they really want? Okay, they may not think my words go
far enough but my words go a lot further than the deafening silence
of the present Constitution and that is really what has to be kept
in mind. And I think we have to keep a sense of proportion. But I
expected to be attacked and, I'm afraid, Lois has been a persistent
critic of mine ever since I became Prime Minister and I don't
really expect anything to change.
MITCHELL:
I know you need to get away. If I may, very quickly, Paul Keating,
how far should the inquiry go on Paul Keating and the piggery?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there's been no decision taken by the Government to have
an inquiry.
MITCHELL:
Will there be one?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is being looked at at the present time.
MITCHELL:
What's your view?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have no personal desire to pursue a vendetta against Mr Keating.
Mr Keating was a political opponent of mine. I derived great satisfaction
in beating him in March of 1996. I have no personal axe to grind.
The only circumstances in which an inquiry of some kind would be held
would be if the Government felt there was an overwhelming public interest
in having it. And I can make it very clear to you, Neil, and your
listeners that I don't have any sense of vendetta in me in relation
to Mr Keating. He's now a private citizen. But I think the programme
on 60 Minutes raised a number of issues...
MITCHELL:
Well, it's suggesting he misused his office.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it raised a large number of issues including that issue, it
certainly did, a great number of issues. We have sought advice and
we'll be getting advice from the Attorney-General. He's
the first law officer. We're approaching it in a very transparent,
above the board way. As I say, I've got no desire to pillory
the bloke in a personal sense. He was a political rival, not a sworn
enemy. And our political rivalry ended in March of 1996. But if there
are reasons of public interest, proper public interest grounds for
having an inquiry then, or some kind of investigation, then that would
have to take place. But I've not had any conclusive advice on
that and I think it's quite premature of me to start speculating
about that.
MITCHELL:
Okay, I know you need to get away. I'll save the other questions
for next time. New South Wales, your lot looks beaten.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I never make any predictions on the eve of elections. The last
election 24 hours out everybody said that the Coalition was going
to win. The Labor Party won. The last couple of New South Wales'
elections, the results have been very different from the polls. So
I certainly don't agree that my lot looks beaten. I'll be
very interested to see what the outcome is.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Pleasure.
[ends]