Subjects: Queensland election result, preferences, petrol prices, dairy deregulation, One Nation
E&OE................................
LAWS:
Prime Minister John Howard, good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, John.
LAWS:
Probably not a great morning for you after the weekend.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the weekend was a terrible result for the Coalition parties in Queensland and give credit where it's due, it was a great political triumph for Peter Beattie.
LAWS:
Do you think he was politically savvy or was he the recipient of a backlash against some of the things the Coalition has done federally?
PRIME MINISTER:
John, I think he was overwhelmingly politically savvy in relation to a problem he faced. He was seen by the Queensland public to address a problem openly and honestly. I don't know all the ins and outs and we still haven't had the Shepherdson Report but on the evidence available to the Queensland public and on the perception that had been created he had a big problem and he tackled it. It looked, on occasions, as though he were campaigning against the Labor Party as much as he was campaigning against the Liberal Party and the National Party. I mean, in the end the public voted for the stability and the security that he offered in contrast to a good deal of disunity and aimlessness on the other side. And there's no point not calling a spade a spade. That was the truth. That was apparent to me some weeks before the election. Naturally you can't, out of loyalty and a sense of solidarity, say those things and you keep campaigning for your own side but if people are honest in Queensland they would recognise that the pre-conditions for the return of a Coalition in Queensland simply hadn't been there for three years. And when the rorts issue came along some people rather wistfully thought that they could take advantage of it but Beattie handled it very well and he's been returned.
LAWS:
Which issue do you think played the biggest role in the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
The stability, security issue. I mean, people will always be attracted by a side of politics that offers stability and security and they'll always be turned off if the other side looks disunited. And that was certainly the case in Queensland. The National Party repudiated its own leader on the preference issue. The repudiation was more important than the preference issue. I mean, in a sense, Peter Beattie was quite hypocritical about preferences. He didn't put One Nation last. We are constantly being asked to choose between Labor and One Nation, he never chose between National and Liberal and One Nation. He just said vote for us and nobody else, well, that's not expressing a preference. But anyway, that's happened and he's won the election.
LAWS:
But that was politically smart, wasn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It was politically smart but it does expose as hypocrisy the claim by the Labor Party from Mr Beazley down that it's a matter of high principle how we allocate our preferences. If it's a matter of high principle then as a matter of high principle Queensland Labor should have done the same thing. But I think there's too much preoccupation on where the major parties allocate their preferences because our preferences, in all probability, won't be distributed. It's the preferences of the minor parties that get distributed and people who are contemplating voting in any election for a minor party, they have to think about their preferences especially at a Federal level because we have compulsory preferential voting, unlike Queensland which has optional preferential voting. You can't just put one in the square in the Federal poll. You need to allocate your preferences. And therefore, people have to decide whether they want the economic stability and security that this Government has delivered or a return to the 17% interest rates, 11% unemployment and $80 billion of national debt which was a hallmark of the last Beazley years in government. That will be the choice at the next Federal election.
LAWS:
You talk about security and stability. Can you really present security and stability with the Nationals more or less facing open revolt over One Nation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, because what I'm talking about is the security and stability that our policies have delivered over the last five years. I mean, you have at the moment a situation where, at a national level, this country has rarely been stronger economically. I mean, it's undeniable that our Government has delivered much lower inflation. We've got the budget healthily in surplus. We've got much lower interest rates - that's $250 a month for the average homebuyer. And on every economic - we've got higher unemployment, we've got still quite strong economic growth. I mean, that is stability and security for the nation. Now, I acknowledge immediately that there are people in parts of regional Australia and elsewhere who are not part of that stability and security. I understand that and that is an issue which we must, as a government, constantly try and address better.
LAWS:
Do you concede that there must have been Federal issues involved in the Queensland psyche over the weekend?
PRIME MINISTER:
John, I'm never so unrealistic as to say that there are never any Federal issues involved in a State election. But overwhelmingly the people of Queensland, who've always shown incidentally, a capacity to vote quite differently, federally and state. And they've always shown a capacity to be very volatile. You may remember in 1974 when Bjelke-Petersen was Premier, Labor was reduced to 11 seats in the Queensland Parliament. Queensland politics are different from the rest of Australia because they're based, essentially on the big provincial cities of the state, it's the only state in Australia where the majority of people don't live in the capital city. So you get a, the politics in Queensland ebb and flow, but overwhelmingly it was state issues, but if you're asking me do I think everybody in Australia is in complete agreement with everything the Federal Government's doing? Of course they're not, and of course there are areas of criticism.
LAWS:
You agreed that fuel prices might have had something to do with it, but I'm not too sure about that because the impact of fuel could well have been overstated because petrol prices in Queensland are about 8 cents a litre cheaper on average than anywhere else in the country.
PRIME MINISTER:
What I've said is that the biggest single complaint I get about anything around the country now is fuel. I didn't particularly, if my memory serves me correctly, in the numerous interviews I've done since, I didn't particularly relate that to Queensland. And you are right, fuel in Queensland is cheaper, of course people travel longer distances in Queensland because it's a bigger state, and because the population is more evenly spread the need for road transport is that much greater than it would be in a state like Western Australia, despite it's huge distances you have a much greater cluster of people around Perth. So fuel prices, you know, are clearly too high, because of world factors, but I think your point about Queensland is very valid. Now obviously it suits Mr Beattie's political purposes to, after the event, to try to blame it on petrol, but it was overwhelmingly determined on state issues, and that was said by Rob Borbidge, it was said by David Watson, the Liberal Leader. And it was clear to me, before the election, that unless the Coalition were able to spectacularly make capital on the rorts issue, which they couldn't do because of the way Peter Beattie handled it, there was no way our colleagues in Queensland were going to win. After all they had only been in opposition for 3 years, and in turn they had been tipped out of Government after only 3 years. Well it didn't seem to me to be the preconditions for them coming back. And you have to be realistic about these things. People do make an assessment, they have a look at the Government, they have a look at an opposition, and where a Government is lead by somebody who looks as they he has fronted up to a difficult problem and called it for what it is and not minced words, particularly in Queensland, they like plain speaking in Queensland, and most Australians do.
LAWS:
I agree with you that most Australians do.
PRIME MINISTER:
They do and they just want you to face, and he looked in the campaign like a bloke who was facing up to reality, now that might be, the political consequences of that for us may have been painful in Queensland, but we have to face reality.
LAWS:
The last time you and I spoke you were playing down any federal implications from the Western Australia and Queensland elections, has that view changed at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well once again, and I don't recall whether I said absolutely none, but I think I have always said overwhelming, you know overwhelmingly I think both of them were determined on state issues, but I don't want that to sound as though I just think that everybody thinks that everything I'm doing is marvellous. I don't think that, and I know that there are areas of criticism and anybody in my position would be a fool not to take some messages out of what's happened in both elections. It's a question of calling it as it is. Overwhelmingly people voted to change Government in Western Australia and to keep Government in Queensland for domestic reasons peculiar to those two states. But simultaneously with that, there are obviously things that, on the federal level, despite all of what we have achieved, and despite the economic security and stability we've bought to Australia, and the strength we've bought, despite all of that there are things that people are unhappy about. And those that I can address, I will, and this week I hope we can announce details of the changes in relation to the Business Activity Statement, which will meet the legitimate concerns of small businesses. There are things I can, I mean we have put more money into road funding, we've put $1.6 billion more into road funding. We looked at the end of last year at doing something on the excise and we decided it would be of more long term benefit to put an extra $1.6 billion into road funding.
LAWS:
The $3 billion that didn't go in would have helped.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, see, I thought you might say that.
LAWS:
You knew I would.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I knew you would and can I point out to you that Martin Ferguson, the Labor Party Spokesman on Regional Development has been honest enough to admit, and it's been reported for the first time over the weekend that there was no missing $2.9 billion, that it was just an accounting issue. He was asked this at a private meeting in Casino and he was pressed, will you, will a Labor Government put that $3 billion, that went missing, into road funding, and he said no $3 billion went missing. He said you've got to be honest with people, and it might be easy to score political points off the National Party but if we're to win people's trust and respect we've got to be honest. He said there was no missing $2.9 billion and that of course is the case. There was never, it was an accounting issue, it was a classification issue and if there had been proper warning of the tabling of the report we'd have been able to more effectively point that out the morning the thing broke in the papers. But I want your listeners to understand we didn't snaffle $2.9 billion away from road funding. It was just a question of which legal channel the payments for road funding were made. If you look at the aggregate John so far from there being an underspending there has been a very significant increase and the $1.6 billion is over and above the very significant additional spending.
LAWS:
Why didn't John Anderson know that the morning I talked to him about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because he had not been properly briefed. I acknowledge that and he acknowledges that but the important thing for your listeners and the important thing for taxpayers and for road users is to know that there is no missing $2.9 billion. Martin Ferguson has been honest enough to say so in contrast to his Leader who is pretending that there was a missing $2.9 billion knowing damn well there wasn't. I mean I suppose if you've deceived the public over the size of the deficit as Finance Minister what's deceiving the public over $2.9 billion. How does that matter? Martin Ferguson has been honest enough to say there was no missing $2.9 billion and good luck to him. Full marks to him for doing so and he said you don't win the respect of people unless you tell the truth.
LAWS:
But why.
PRIME MINISTER:
He should have told that to Mr Beazley, Mr Beazley should tell the truth to the Australian Public.
LAWS:
Why did it, I don't understand why it took Martin Ferguson to say it. Why didn't you say it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm sorry I did say it. I said it on the Sunday Programme two days after this report came down. John, I did say it. I've been saying it ad nauseum but it always makes a difference doesn't it in politics when the other side who are meant to be your constant critics acknowledge the truth. Now it's taken Martin Ferguson to tell the truth, Kim Beazley wouldn't just as he deceived the public over the deficit when he left office as Finance Minister, he has deceived the Australian public over this and he's been taught a truth lesson by Martin Ferguson.
LAWS:
Pauline Hanson virtually ran on Federal issues at both those elections, has she done damage to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what she has, what the One Nation Party is doing is appealing with simplistic solutions to the discontent that people understandably feel in regional Australia about the impact of economic change. Now, it's not a question so much as whether it's done damage to me or done damage to the Labor Party or the National Party, it's a question of me in talking to the Australian people expressing my understanding of the concern that people have, but also pointing out that the simplistic solutions that have been offered are no solutions at all. My task, my responsibility is to engage the Australian people on these issues. Where I can do something, do it. Where I can't do something, tell them that I can't do something and explain why. What she's doing and what many others are doing is holding out the allure of being able to do something when they know in their heart they really can't make any difference. She talks about dairy de-regulation, the decision to de-regulate the dairy industry was taken by the dairy industry.
LAWS:
And the majority.
PRIME MINISTER:
By a clear majority. And, look you'd have had de-regulation of the dairy industry in New South Wales and Queensland and Western Australia whether you liked it or not. Because the dairy farmers of Victoria decided to sell their milk into other states and their right to do that is guaranteed in the constitution which guarantees freedom of trade and commerce between the states.
LAWS:
Is Pauline Hanson dangerous?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to personalise this, I think we personalise these things too much.
LAWS:
Ok, well is One Nation dangerous?
PRIME MINISTER:
One Nation is a political party. Like every other political party it has to be made accountable. One of the mistakes that people have made in relation to One Nation is to sort of search around for some, one sort of killer blow or killer comment that is going to sort of knock it out of the ring, it's not like that. One Nation is a political party, it attracts votes. Like every other political party it's got to be scrutinised and when its spokesmen on women go on the radio or television they've got to be cross examined the way I am and the way Mr Beazley is. And everybody's got to be made accountable and if everybody is made accountable we'll have a more honest debate. When people say well stop the dairy deregulation they've got to be asked 'well how would you do it? Where would the money come from? How would you overcome Section 92 of the Constitution? How much additional subsidy would you give to the dairy farmers that would have exited the industry anyway?'. Now they're the sort of questions that I as Prime Minister - quite correctly - have got to answer. I can't get away with a mantra or a phrase when I'm asked about a policy, and the same thing has to apply obviously to the Opposition Leader, who's been pretty policy lazy for five years, but it's also got to apply to One Nation and the Greens and the Democrats. I mean we're all in the same situation.
LAWS:
I spent, I spent an hour last week talking to Pauline Hanson and saying well how are you going to do this and obviously she can't tell you how she's going to do it but the point is that she could never do it anyway could she?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no. I mean it's, it really is a question of searching out what are the particular proposals she has in mind. Now I haven't heard any seriously detailed policy alternative, I've heard criticism and mantras. But people are discontented in certain parts of the country. There are some who are missing out and when the whole country is very strong and secure and doing well economically those who aren't part of that feel it all the more keenly and I can understand that. And it's not easy. It's a very big political challenge for me and for my government and for those who are interested in serious debate. I mean I care about the impact of economic change on country communities and we're doing a lot of things. We put $500 million extra in the Budget for additional doctors in the country, we've put another $1.6 billion into road funding and that will largely go into local roads in rural communities, we're opening these transaction centres that are bringing banking and other basic services or financial facilities back to small communities. There are a lot of things we're doing. They're the things we can do. But I can't stop the long term historical decline in commodity prices and anybody who tells you or even hints that he or she can stop that is just not telling the truth and I owe it to the people to say what I can do, what I can't do and to try and help them in those areas where we can't have an influence.
LAWS:
Pauline Hanson has said you're a fool if the Liberals preference Labor ahead of One Nation. Are you being a bit stubborn about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well not really because in the end our preferences don't matter because they're not going to be distributed.
LAWS:
So it doesn't matter anyway.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in a practical, political sense but I mean let's look when One Nation had the opportunity to be a significant minor party I mean they actually had more members in the Queensland Parliament after the last state election.
LAWS:
Oh yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
. than the Liberal Party and yet within a matter of a couple of years they'd all left the party and the whole thing had collapsed. Now that doesn't indicate that they are really a cohesive political force. I mean for all, for all the criticism I have of the Australian Labor Party if they got eleven seats in a parliament they wouldn't collapse.
LAWS:
The Ryan by-election is going to be fought on federal issues. Are you worried about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, it's going to be very tough because in the present climate anything can happen, anything can happen. You can get people experimenting in by-elections. I mean my message would be if you're voting Labor you're rewarding the policy laziness of Mr Beazley and you're in effect saying that it's better to go back to a government that gave you 17% interest rates, 11% unemployment and $80 billion in national debt. That that's preferable to the economic stability of the last five years. Now we have a good candidate in Bob Tucker, we've got a well prepared campaign and I will be working flat out. But I say to all of my people and all Liberal Party supporters in the Ryan electorate this is not a time to give unmerited encouragement to an Opposition that has really just tried to coast in on the inevitable criticism that a government cops when it tries to change things, reform things and tries to make a difference.
LAWS:
Okay Prime Minister thank you very much for your time. It was good to talk to you and it will be interesting to see what does happen when the dust settles. One of your advisers, senior staff member, described people as turning feral at recent elections. Is that sort of talk beneficial to anybody?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think he was using the expression in the way that many young people use it and that is indicating that people are angry. It was very interesting I heard a programme, not yours, another programme where quite a number of younger people, younger people use that expression ...
LAWS:
Yes they do.
PRIME MINISTER:
They do use it a little differently than perhaps people of middle years like you and I.
LAWS:
Thank you very much for your time John.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay. Bye.
[Ends]