Subjects: corporate philanthropy, charities.
E&OE................................
HOOPER:
Well lets talk about philanthropy, it's one of your favourite topics, why is that?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a favourite pursuit of mine because I've come to the conclusion after many years in public life that you get the best social outcomes when you combine the resources of the Government, the resources of the welfare sector, the resources of business and resources of energetic committed individuals. We've spent a lot of time in the last 20 years really debating whether the highly interventionist Government approach is the way to solve social problems or alternatively whether you have an ultra individualistic approach. Neither of them is really the right way to go. And I've developed the notion of a social coalition where you seek to enlist the resources and the talents and the commitment of those four elements of our society, if I can put it that way. And if you get them working together then you get better outcomes.
HOOPER:
So how do you rate philanthropy in Australia say out of a 10?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's moved from probably being around about 5, it's on the way up to 7 or 8. I think it is getting stronger. Companies are becoming more philanthropic. There was a recent report by the centre for Corporate Public Affairs which shows that 52% of the sample of Australia's large companies are engaged with the community in some way and increasingly community organisations are recognising the value of forming partnerships with business. I find when I go to dinners with chambers of commerce and business these days there is a reference in presidential reports to the role of philanthropy, there is a greater number of large companies now which are adopting business partnerships with community groups. It's become a sought after part of the activities of a corporation and that really is very encouraging.
HOOPER:
This is quite a late development as you pointed out. What stopped Australia from really developing a culture of deep corporate giving do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think one of the reasons is that unlike the United States we had for a long time a much deeper status tradition. There was a much greater tendency in this country to say well these things are to be handled by the Government and the corporates don't have any role. Then I think there was perhaps an over reaction to that and people thought well you solve all the problems by the Government retreating. I don't believe in the Government retreating from its basic responsibilities of providing a social security safety net. I think over the last few years we have got a happy medium. The Government has a permanent role and none of this emphasis I've placed on philanthropy is designed to wind back the role of the Government in providing a social security safety net. But there's a great role for business and there's also a great role of course for the welfare organisations which provide not only a lot of coal face experience but they can also give very hard edged policy advice. But the attitude of corporations is changing. We've always had a lot of philanthropic business men and women, we've had some great traditions of corporate giving in this country, not as wide and deep as in the United States but that is changing. My mantra is not that companies should give more or businesses should give more, rather that more businesses should give. If we could have that achieved then I think we would be a great deal better off as a society.
HOOPER:
Now Dick Smith for one, a very big giver, talks about the cringe factor. When people become wealthy, he says, they are almost ridiculed in this country if they make a big donation instead of buying a new boat or a flash house. What's your view on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't agree with him. I like Dick and I know him well, he's a good friend of mine but I really don't agree with him on that.
HOOPER:
Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's not been my experience. My experience is that if you make large donations the public respect you for it. Dick Smith is widely known and respected for the fact that he gives big donations. There are a lot of major corporate figures in this country who are wealthy in their own right who I know are very generous about their giving but they don't want the world to know. They choose to keep it to themselves. Others are quite happy for the world to know. I don't mind which attitude people take but I don't find in the community that people sneer at you if you make a contribution to a worthy cause, quite the reverse.
HOOPER:
His comment was that it was almost an incredulous response, that you know, how could you give that to charity, why don't you get the flash car or the boat or whatever.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm sorry I don't find that. I'm a person who believes in the capitalist system and I believe in civilised capitalism or compassionate capitalism, whatever description you want to give it. I believe in wealth generation and I believe people are entitled to aspire in our society to be well off. But I think they do have social obligations if they make it. And if people do become wealthy they do have social and moral obligations to give a bit back because it's the society that's made it possible for them to accumulate their wealth, as well as their own skill and their own entrepreneurial risk taking abilities. So there's nothing incompatible with being well off and also being generous.
HOOPER:
So is that your main argument as to why rich, wealthy individuals should give their money away?
PRIME MINISTER:
The obligation they have to society, yes of course it is. It's a moral and social obligation. I don't think it should be taken from them by confiscatory tax rates, quite the reverse. When you say wealthy people give their money away, I'm not saying they should give all their money away, I'm simply saying they should give generously. If you've done very well out of society you do have a moral and social obligation to put something back above and beyond the taxes you pay.
HOOPER:
So why do you think people are motivated increasingly to give their money away?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think a lot of people have a great sense of social obligation. There are a lot of good hearts out there. We shouldn't be too cynical, we shouldn't seek a complicated explanation. There just are a lot of people - I find in Australia - who've done well, they're very grateful to the country that has enabled them to do well and they're only too happy to put something in the way of causes that they believe are worth supporting. And what we have to understand is that if people want to give their money, if they want to do it in ways that have previously not been accepted ways or ways that have not previously occurred, we ought to perhaps change the rules so that they can do it in a way they want. And it might involve some approaches that we've not been used to before, provided the money ends up in the right destination, why should we quibble about the way they choose to do it.
HOOPER:
So are you flagging some possible changes then to, you've already talked about the new measures you brought in, are you now saying.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm flagging, well I'm not flagging I'm confirming a changed attitude and that attitude is that we should be more flexible and obviously we have to pay regard to the impact on revenue which of course impacts on the rest of the community. But we have to be a bit more innovative and flexible and we've done that through many of the changes that we've made. We have to recognise that some times people can be encouraged to give more if there's an association of the family name with a particular activity. If that's their wish well so be it. Sometimes individuals will say we'll contribute a large amount of money to something providing the Government is willing to contribute something. Now we have on a number of occasions participated in those activities because in the end the cause that is supported is a very worthwhile one and one that deserves help.
HOOPER:
One of the criticisms and one of the concerns about this is that what we're seeing is a step up in corporate citizenship through corporate sponsorship while actual philanthropy itself is remaining fairly low. Is that acceptable in your view or would you like to see companies give more without expecting a return in terms of marketing?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't really mind. As long as more resources are put in the way of causes and activities we want supported. I don't really mind, either way. Depends a bit on the personality, some people like to be anonymous, some people don't want any marketing advantage, others do. I don't really mind I think we have to be sensible enough and pragmatic enough to, as it were, accept all comers.
HOOPER:
Yet there's quite a strong level of concern in the community that the social coalition in that concept is actually code for the Government stepping back and forcing it's responsibilities on a corporate sector that aren't happy to take those responsibilities when it's your role.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've just been saying that is not what the social coalition is about and you can't find any evidence that we have cut the social security safety net. There'll always be arguments at the margin as to whether Governments should do more, but nobody can reasonably argue that we are trying to use the social coalition as a way of reducing the Governments financial contribution to social security and replacing it with business contribution. What we're trying to do is to increase the aggregate contribution to and participation in our social challenges by all sections of the community.
HOOPER:
But is it the case that the more philanthropists give the less Governments have to give?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I think it's a case of the more needs are met. You never meet everybody's needs, that's an impossible dream, but you can get more people involved in tackling social problems. And you can also find new and better ways of solving problems. I mean not everybody is best helped by a bureaucratic solution, not everybody is best helped by a social welfare organisation solution, you need a mix. That's the notion of a coalition when you get the Government doing the thing it does best and that is providing the financial support and being the keeper of the ring and setting the rules. But nothing can take the place of the care and compassion of a Salvation Army or a Smith Family or a St Vincent De Paul for somebody who's really down on their luck and in terrible circumstances. And if you can have business working in partnership with organisations like that and providing scholarships and encouragement and incentives for people who are helped then you really have the best of all worlds.
HOOPER:
Well Mr Howard lets look at the charities of course that you like to support. Which causes do you most like to give your money to?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh on a personal level I'm a traditional giver. I give it to organisations like the Salvation Army and Wesley Mission and Anglicare because I think they are great organisations, but I don't, there's a whole lot of them that are marvellous but at a personal level they're the ones I support.
HOOPER:
Well part of the.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm talking as John Howard, as an individual, I'm not talking here as Prime Minister. I mean we certainly do support organisations like that as a Government but I'm speaking as an individual.
HOOPER:
So what sort of level of giving do you provide?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, well don't know that I want to go into specific amounts, I don't think that's appropriate. But I try and give, provide reasonable help at Christmas time and in an ad hoc way on other occasions, I'm not claiming any particular virtue but I'm not insensitive to the needs of these organisations. I think they do a fantastic job and I've tried in the time that I've been Prime Minister to, properly and legitimately, to direct as much government help as we can to them.
HOOPER:
Mr Howard you once said in your Prime Minister's after life that you might like to do some sort of voluntary work. Any thoughts on what that might be, Meals on Wheels?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't given it any particular thought apart from making the observation that I would like to put something back. You see I'm not planning to have an after-political life for quite a while yet.
HOOPER:
Prime Minister we'll have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us on the Business Report, Happy Easter.
PRIME MINISTER:
Happy Easter to you, thanks very much.