Subjects: Peter Reith; Liberal Party leadership; Labor Party leadership; East Timor; West Australian Liberal Party State Council; Private bindings and the bottom of the harbour scheme; superannuation reform; GST and rollback; ballistic missiles and defence arrangements with the USA; GM foods; Fiji.
E&OE..................................
MURRAY:
Good morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Morning Paul, very good to be with you.
MURRAY:
Very nice to have you here, Sir. I'd like to start with an e-mail which I've received from a listener in Northam, his name's Ed. This is what Ed says, he says, "When John Howard is in your office tomorrow can you inform him that the thought of him retiring while in office and the possibility of there being a Prime Minister Reith is too much for this household to contemplate. Could the PM please eloquently say that Peter Reith will not be chosen as his successor as if he is to be then I will start voting Labor? The PM by mentioning his impending retirement has done a lot to kill confidence in a vote for Liberal especially if that appalling Mr Reith is to prosper from it." Ed from Northam.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Ed I don't think Mr Reith is appalling at all. I think Mr Reith is a very good minister. He's shown great courage in his industrial relations portfolio particularly in relation to reforming the waterfront. No member of my Government has been under more pressure in the time we've been in office than he was during that time. So although you're a Liberal voter Ed, and I appreciate that and I want you to remain a Liberal voter, I don't share your negative view of Mr Reith. Having said that.
MURRAY:
You're not anointing are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I'm not anointing anybody. I don't anoint people. The Liberal Party chooses the leader of the Party. This idea that the prime ministership of Australia is the personal possession of the person who for the time being has it, that's quite wrong. I spoke a couple of days ago quite honestly and I think in these matters you've got to be open with people. What I've said is that I'll lead the Party to the next election if it wants me to and obviously some time after that I'd start thinking about the future. Now I've said nothing more nor less than that. It was a perfectly honest, deliberate, open statement. And I think the Australian public is entitled to have the candour of my views on something like this.
MURRAY:
I wonder if you've just opened yourself up to endless speculation now on a successor?
PRIME MINISTER:
That was there anyway. I mean Mr Beazley nominated Mr Crean as his successor even before.
MURRAY:
Very strange timing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Very strange timing. I mean he's basic. what's he saying? That he's so confident of winning the next election he can plan several elections after that to go? Or is he so lacking in confidence about the next election that he thinks Mr Crean will succeed him? Look Paul.
MURRAY:
Within a day John Della Bosca fell on him.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it was. But I mean look in the end the Australian people understand that nobody goes on forever and that was the point I made. But I want to tell Ed and I want to tell all of your listeners that I am very fit and I'm enjoying the job immensely and I look forward to a number of years more serving the Australian people. But I do see it as serving them and also serving the Liberal Party. What was wrong about the way our opponents handled these matters was to see the leadership of their party as a personal position. I am the Prime Minister of Australia because the majority of the Australian people wanted me to be and my colleagues have confidence in me. I answer to them. I have no right to ordain what should happen in the future. That is in the hands of the people of Australia and I will always see it as being a privilege which is given to me by the people of Australia and by my Party.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister you must be concerned this morning by reports coming out of East Timor that Jakarta, pro-Jakarta militias there have put a bounty on the heads of our soldiers who are serving there?
PRIME MINISTER:
All of these reports drive home the point that it's still a very dangerous operation. I don't want to over dramatise it but I also don't want to be less than frank with the Australian public. We have 1,500 young men and women in East Timor serving in our defence forces. And although things have been very quiet and thus far there have been no battle deaths of Australians, and I thank providence for that, but the death of that young New Zealand soldier has driven home to all of us that it's still a very dangerous thing. There are militia who are out of control. We urge the Indonesian Government to redouble their efforts to bring them under control. And we must remember that in any theatre of war there is always a danger that people will get wounded or worse still killed.
MURRAY:
How much longer do we need to have our troops there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Probably another eighteen months or two years, perhaps less.
MURRAY:
At the same strength?
PRIME MINISTER:
Perhaps not at the same strength but around that strength for the foreseeable future.
MURRAY:
Okay, so I mean they'll still be in danger for a considerable time?
PRIME MINISTER:
They will be.
MURRAY:
Particularly if these reports are right that there's a bounty?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know whether those reports are strictly right or not but I do know that it's a dangerous theatre of operation. I do know that the militia are, in some areas, still out of control. And I do know that everybody should be aware of that and should understand the continued danger that Australians face.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister you're in Perth for the Liberal Party Conference on the weekend. Those with long memories will remember that you fell out with sections of the Party locally when you were Treasurer over your efforts to stamp out the bottom of the harbour tax evasion scheme. On the Sunday programme last weekend tax lawyer Mark Liebler said that rorting of what's now known as private binding rulings from the Tax Office is worse than the bottom of the harbour scheme at its worst. Are you confident that the Tax Office is on top of this private binding rulings issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've got total confidence in the Tax Office. I'm not saying that it never makes mistakes. It's a very big organisation. But I have a lot of confidence in the Tax Office and I want to thank the Commissioner and his men and women for the job they did introducing the new tax system. I don't know all of the complexities of private binding rulings because they are done within the secrecy provisions of the Act and I don't know the details of individual tax payers. I however find it very hard to believe that what Mr Liebler said was right. From my personal knowledge of the tax avoidance practises of the early 1980's and the late 1970's I find that argument very hard to accept.
MURRAY:
Okay. Both you and the Treasurer have signalled that superannuation is your next big reform agenda.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't actually mentioned that and what the Treasurer has said is that he sees some virtue in simplification. I think there's always a capacity to further simplify something like superannuation.
MURRAY:
I mean what the Treasurer said put a shudder through the industry because they thought that the Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think they should have shuddered.
MURRAY:
The Reserve Bank said earlier this week that compulsory superannuation as it's now set up probably won't deliver enough money to cover most peoples' retirements. What changes are you planning to the super scheme?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we don't have any in front of us at present and I don't want to start hares running by suggesting we have. It's one of those things that is subject to, as it were, automatic review as we go along. But it would be wrong of anybody to think that we have some proposal immediately in front of us at the moment.
MURRAY:
Okay we'll take a short break and we'll be back with your calls to the Prime Minister.
-advertisement break-
MURRAY:
Good morning, Paul Murray here with the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I just have two issues. Firstly, who instigated or initiated Australia blindly entering the Yanks' dangerous mass destruction industry?
PRIME MINISTER:
What are you talking about?
CALLER:
Well, the Americans want to paint a target to our North.
PRIME MINISTER:
Are you talking about some of those reports suggesting we are going to provide a special base for anti-ballistic missile activity?
CALLER:
Yeah, that's right.
PRIME MINISTER:
We have not been approached by the Americans in relation to that and people who are writing on that are confusing that with two other things that don't involve anti-ballistic missiles.
CALLER:
So they don't want to test a national missile defence?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that's a separate issue. The question of whether you have any Australian involvement in national missile defence is something that we will consider when it becomes apparent that the Americans are going to proceed with that and I don't think it is something that Australia should automatically rule out as two of my predecessors have suggested that we should do. I agree very much with the remarks that have been made by the Foreign Minister on this. What the Americans are arguing is that they should have some capacity to protect themselves against nuclear attack from rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq. Now, on the face of it that is an entirely reasonable proposition and it staggers me that anybody should argue that a country developing a defensive capacity is in some way being provocative.
MURRAY:
But they do want to test their theatre missiles here in Australia.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they haven't got any theatre missiles at the present time. Now, look, we just have to take one thing at a time. But the suggestion is that we've been approached to provide a base for that is inaccurate.
MURRAY:
Well, the Americans have been, the American Navy has been up in the north west of the state several times looking at land.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but that is in relation to other devices which are part and parcel of our defensive arrangement. They are not anti-ballistic missiles.
MURRAY:
Well, William Cohen told the US Senate Committee just this week that Australia backs the United States in its national missile defence..
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but that's once again, I mean you can back something without being involved in it. And what he was saying in respect of that backing was in a sense what I've just said and that is that I fully understand why the Americans would want to consider developing this capacity.
MURRAY:
Now, you also wanted to ask the Prime Minister about genetically modified foods?
CALLER:
That's correct. Who instigated or initiated Australia blindly entering the dangerous Yanks' one per cent GM contaminated threshold?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think we are dangerously entering anything here. What I've said and what the Government has argued is that where the degree of modification is less than one per cent then you oughtn't to have the degree of compulsory labelling that applies where it is more, because that imposes an unreal, unfair burden on business.
MURRAY:
Health Ministers are meeting in New Zealand.
PRIME MINISTER:
They are discussing it right at the moment.
MURRAY:
And I understand you are going to get rolled. Your position of one per cent is going to get rolled and the threshold will be zero point one.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we'll see. We'll see about that.
MURRAY:
Why don't you like zero point one per cent? I mean you say that . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
It's just a question of what is reasonable, Paul. And if you're a business operator and you've got to comply with all of these regulations. I mean we are all the time saying we want to help small business, we want to employ more people, we want them to do well and everything. Gee, you have got to understand that they are the people at the coal face who have got to deal with these matters.
CALLER:
But you understand the reasonable fears of Australians?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do understand the reasonable fears, but I don't think it is, applying that very language, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that where the degree of modification is very slight, meticulous labelling ought not to be required. I think that is reasonable, applying that very language.
CALLER:
So, I see the wily politician in you thinking you have still got a chance of getting up today in New Zealand.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, well look, I've got other things on my mind as well as that. But we will see what happens in New Zealand. I'm not making any predictions. We've put a case. And if in their wisdom, they support it that's good. If in their ill wisdom they don't, well I think that's a pity. But we will just wait and see, I'm not making any rash predictions.
MURRAY:
Good morning, Barb, the Prime Minister is listening.
CALLER:
Good morning, Paul, good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Barb.
CALLER:
My question is regarding this one-off payment to pensioners, can you explain to me how a person who qualifies, and not speaking, like a lot of people are in this position, how you have the amount of money that is necessary to whatever, to get .
PRIME MINISTER:
You need savings up and the maximum grant you get is a thousand dollars.
CALLER:
Yeah. Okay, what I want to know is how come it can only be, if you're sixty and over? What about the pensioners who are under sixty who have exactly the same commitments of people who are over sixty. They do happen to have a few dollars in the bank, like the older ones. But why is it unfair that they can't get it? I mean a lot of people are like three months short.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I know. But that, I'm sorry, Barb. Look, I understand how you feel and there is always a cut off point, there are always people who miss out. I mean I remember when years ago we abolished federal death duties from a particular date. I had, as Treasurer, thousands on thousands, hundreds of them sorry, letters from around Australia saying well my relation sort of died a few days before the change, can't you take it back. You've got to have cut off points and if you took it back to an earlier age, then there would be some people who for a combination of reasons felt they qualified who were just short of that age and they would say, why don't you take it back to us. And we just decided what the cut off point ought to be.
MURRAY:
Speaking of the GST, Prime Minister, former Labor Minister, John Button, a very good industry minister in his time in the Hawke Government, is quoted in the Melbourne Age today as saying that he is confused of what rolling back the GST means. He says "I think it probably means introducing the sort of tax regime the Labor Party should have introduced years ago. That is one which is much more equitable in terms of the progressive income scales than it has ever been. And Labor Governments including those which I were part, have by and large run away from that issue."
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have seen that report. And the Labor Party should listen to John Button. Because not only was John Button a very good industry minister in the Labor government, but he also had a reputation for telling the truth. And you might almost say he is the elder statesman of the Della Bosca family when it comes to telling the political truth, especially about the GST. Della Bosca told the truth that rollback was confusing fraud and that the Labor Party should not be advocating it. And what John Button has said is the same thing. He doesn't understand it. And he's also said that Labor should have brought in tax reform years earlier. Now, he's right on both counts. Rollback will be a confusing mess to small business. Rollback will add confusion to a new system that is bedding down extremely well, and new system that people by and large are supporting. And the last thing the Australian public wants is a new government coming in and rolling back a system that they have got used to. And can I just say to the members of the Labor Party that John Button, as he did in government and now in political retirement, is telling the truth. John Button, like John Della Bosca is telling the truth about the implications of rollback and it's about time the Labor Party started listening.
MURRAY:
You were getting a rails' run on the GST after its introduction before Della Bosca's comments. I mean, I think he's basically put you past the finish post hasn't he?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what he's done is to tell the truth. And you shouldn't run away from it. I mean John Button is telling the truth too. I mean, why is it so wrong for somebody to come clean about it? I mean he tells the truth and he loses the federal presidency of the ALP. But last night I saw Mr Beazley on television saying that oh, the Labor Party wasn't really trying to make a big feature of the GST after all, it wasn't the most important issue. Well, you could have fooled me and just about every political columnist in Canberra and just about every Australian voter. Remember at the end of last year Mr Beazley told his Labor Party Caucus that he was going to surf to victory on the GST? He said it was going to be hell. He said it was going to be a mess. He said it was going to be a deluge, that there was dark cloud hanging over the Australian public. He said it was going to be a slow burn. He was only interested, he was in the GST. He was obsessed with the GST. The only thing virtually they've asked Peter Costello and I questions about in Parliament has been the New Tax System. And now, because it looks as though it is going better than he hoped, he says oh, sorry, it's not the issue. We were never really interested in it. Now come on Mr Beazley, the Australian public won't buy that. They are not unintelligent. And you should not behave as if they were.
MURRAY:
Philip has got a question for you Prime Minister. Good morning Philip, Paul Murray with the Prime Minister here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Paul. I'm calling, good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
How are you Philip?
CALLER:
Not too badly, look I'm calling you from Derby, the gateway to the Kimberly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Derby means tidal power.
CALLER:
Yes, it does. That's the very question that I would like to talk to you about. Firstly I want to commend yourself and your government on your stance. And would you be able to provide the people in the Kimberly with an update on where you are with this project?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are unilaterally seeking and paying for the feasibility study and I expect to have the preliminary results of that soon. I want this fairly and properly investigated. And if it's a goer then it's something that we ought to consider helping and supporting. We are interested in ways of exploiting and using tidal power. We see a lot of potential for it on the surface, but like all of these things you need to go into the detail of it. But the Federal Government decided some weeks ago that we would just go it alone and pay for the feasibility study and when we get the result of that we will have more to say.
MURRAY:
Okay, thanks a lot Philip. Prime Minister, the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission Chairman, Geoff Clark, is in the United Nations in Geneva today. He is putting a proposition to them that there should be reserved seats for Aborigines in our Parliament. Now, I believe he has discussed this matter with you. What's your view on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I guess I've got a couple comments to make on that. And the first comment I make is that this effects the Australian Parliament. I don't really know what it's got to do with the United Nations. That is the first and most obvious thing to say is that. And I think Australians, whatever their politics are and whatever their views are on Aboriginal and other issues, frankly I think these things should be settled in Australia. I mean we are adult, mature, independent country. It's got nothing to do with the United Nations, the composition of our Parliament. We are a democracy, we are one of the oldest democracies in the world. It really does strike me as very odd that somebody who is the leader of a body within Australia should be arguing before a United Nations' committee for changes to the constitutional set up in this country. And that's the first observation I make.
The second observation I make is that I don't support separate seats for different groups. No matter who the groups are. I do support very much the indigenous people coming into Parliament in the normal way. The Liberal Party was the first with the late Neville Bonner. The Democrats have got Senator Aden Ridgeway from New South Wales. And I hope in the years ahead there are more Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander members coming in in the normal way as members of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the Democrats, or as Independents or indeed any way they choose, but I don't think the more sensible amongst them want separate seats. That's been my view for a long time and I think most Australians would agree with that.
MURRAY:
Speaking of apartheid, Fijian terrorist, George Speight, says the sanctions we've placed on his country will blow over in a few months time, just like those we took against them after the 1987 coups. Is he right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the sanctions that were taken in 1987 did not blow over because those sanctions played a major part in the development of a less racially based constitution in that country. So he is wrong in history. I believe the sanctions that we have imposed, or the measures that we have taken, they are not tough economic sanctions, and the ought not to be at the moment because we hope there will still be a change of heart. I don't take a lot of notice of Mr Speight. He has clearly broken the law of his country and I applaud the fact that the Fijian Army and the Fijian authorities appear to be more strongly asserting the rule of law in that country than has been the case for the past few weeks.
MURRAY:
Okay, Prime Minister, thanks very much for coming in and talking to us today.
PRIME MINISTER:
You're very welcome, thank you.
[ends]