Subjects: Australian nurses; HECS fees; superannuation; corporate governance; Iraq; United Nations; Saddam Hussein; Zimbabwe; drought; heli-tankers; Australian Opera; Simone Young.
E&OE...........
JONES:
The Prime Minister is on the line. Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Alan.
JONES:
PM, before we just look at these foreign policy issues, can I just ask you a couple of domestic questions. There was this report handed down the other day about nurses and the suggestion that there will be a short fall of nurses Australia wide of 31,000 by the year 2006. What is the Government going to do to address that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, nurses are overwhelmingly of course employed under state awards. And I think the major difficulty is the wages and conditions that apply to nurses. I mean, I'm not trying to score a political point against the states on this, let me say. But there's not an enormous amount that the Commonwealth Government can do because the pace is really set by the states. A great bulk of nurses are employed in public hospitals. There are a lot employed in private as well. And we, in the end, have to look to the states.
JONES:
Well, let me tell you something you could do…
PRIME MINISTER:
To respond?
JONES:
Can I tell you something you could do, there are 163,500 university trained. Why if there's a massive shortage, which there is, don't we build a bias into the university education of nurses and wave HECS fees for those people who are going to university to encourage young people into the vocation?
PRIME MINISTER:
The evidence we have though Alan, is it's the remuneration they receive after they qualify that is a greater barrier than the cost of qualifying.
JONES:
We would agree on the anecdotal evidence here, on the other hand, this report by the Treasurer - he did say that pay wasn't the most important factor, which has surprised everybody who's rung this program.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that surprises me. I mean mind you there are, I mean it's not an easy job. I have long held the general view that nurses are not well paid given the responsibilities they have and the work they undertake. Now, as I say, I'm not trying to sort of make a political point against the states, it's just that they are the main drivers of what happens in this area.
JONES:
Would you think of scrapping university fees if there were to create a bias in favour of nursing? It's a lot of people. And say to them - look you become a nurse, we'll wave the fees, we want people joining nursing profession…
PRIME MINISTER:
I have to say Alan, that the idea that people should contribute something to their education is not something that I would ever like to abandon even in an area like this. I think it's fundamentally fair and reasonable that if you get a qualification and that qualification is valuable to you through life, then it's not unreasonable through HECS that you make a contribution to it. And I can't see the Government scrapping HECS altogether. We do have the gradients of HECS, according to the particular course and degree, but I don't think it's a good principle to walk away from the idea that people should make some contribution to an education that gives them a benefit in later life.
JONES:
Prime Minister, the other issue which is receiving a lot of attention today and it sickens people to whom you are speaking now, who see paraded everyday the scandelous waste of money in something like HIH in which they had shares, or the collapse of Ansett purely out of appalling governance by those people in charge of that company, or One.Tel or Harris Scarfe or whatever, these people had shares, then they say - well hell, we've also got superannuation tied up in Enron's and outfits like that. How in what has emerged from yesterday about corporate governance, can the Prime Minister of Australia say to people out there - listen, things are going to be better, when in fact everyone's got an opportunity to make submissions by November, they'll be no ledgislative framework until some time next year? So fundamentally, nothing has changed other than some random debate since HIH and Ansett over 12 months ago.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't know that nothing has changed. It will always be the case that some companies will collapse. I can't guarantee to your listeners that we won't have another corporate collapse in the future, I can't. I'd be dishonest if I tried to do that because no matter how many laws you pass, businessmen and women will make mistakes. What we can legislate against is fraud and criminal behaviour and things of that nature. And we are having a Royal Commission into HIH and out of that will come, I believe, a number of recommendations. But you are asking me to deliver an impossible guarantee…
JONES:
What I'm saying to you is this…
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't ever…
JONES:
I know you can't, I know you can't.
PRIME MINISTER:
…any political leader who purports to that that is misleading…
JONES:
…and everyone understands that. But I suppose what I'm saying to you this - we do make superannuation compulsory…
PRIME MINISTER:
We do.
JONES:
We make compulsory deductions for superannuation and these people are saying - well, now hang on, we're making it compulsory to contribute to super but at the end of the day that super is just cast high, high wide and handsome according to the indulgences of those people who invest that money and we don't know whether it might be in Enron or something more productive.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we do have tougher laws. I don't believe an Enron could happen in the same way in Australia. We do have some corporate governance practises and laws that are different.
JONES:
But Australian super funds were invested in Enron.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, yes I know. Well, that is true. But the ultimate answer to that of course is to allow the Government to decide where superannuation should be invested. Now, I think a lot of your listeners wouldn't think the Government was fit and able to make that decision. They'd rather leave that decision to a super fund in which their money is invested. That's not an easy…ultimately if you take away the discretion from superannuation funds as to where they put the money, you're left with only one alternative and that is you give it to the Government.
JONES:
Yeah, well I suppose people having been burnt say - well, why wouldn't the Government issue infrastructure bonds, then at least superannuation money would be used in a most beneficial way to benefit the national interest with a certain minimum guarantee of increase and revenue return on those funds? Not a bad idea is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not in favour of the Government getting into the business of doing what the corporate sector now overwhelmingly does quite well, with some failures because there's a record in this country and I sight particularly the state bank of South Australia, what happened in Victoria under the Kirner Government, what happened in Western Australia under the Burke Government. But when Government's get into commercial enterprises, they do very badly and they don't give the investor a better return than many of the private sector managers.
JONES:
Well, they're managing billions of dollars, I hope they're better than that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm just pointing…
JONES:
I know.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, to the experience of…I mean, we're managing…I mean, I'm talking here about commercial as distinct from managing the revenue and the expenditure of a Government because when you're dealing with superannuation funds, you've got to make commercial judgements as to where you put those funds.
JONES:
Prime Minister - on Iraq, you've welcomed Iraq's notice to allow UN weapons inspectors to return immediately, but you've treated the move by Iraq with caution and even a touch of scepticism. Is there any hope of the Security Council supporting anything other than a call? And George Bush seems to want to say if they ignore the call, he is wanting a resolution which says, well then we have to do something else. It doesn't appear as though he's got Security Council support for that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the situation is that, that is now under a lot of intense discussion between the Americans and the other members of the Security Council. The President is right to go down the UN path. I am sceptical of Iraq. I believe it to be a diplomatic ploy designed to shift the initiative away from the Americans and in Iraq's favour. The Security Council situation, I believe, will emerge over the next few days perhaps and we'll have a clearer picture. I'm in favour of the Americans and others continuing to engage the UN and trying to get some further resolution in relation to the matter because there are many things about Iraq's offer that are both incomplete and inadequate.
JONES:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
We all want the issue resolved without resort to military force. We all want that. We all hope and pray that that can be avoided. But we are now living in a world where if you leave potential threats unattended, they can have much greater consequences than we previously imagined.
JONES:
Well, let me just put this to you, which I see as the enormous dilemma, the Security Council passed resolutions, as you know, way back in April 1991, another one in August in 1991, again further down the track on November 12, 1997, all requiring Iraq to hand over all biological and chemical weapons, all those resolutions were ignored. Now, if a further resolution, tougher resolution, is ignored and if the international argument is allowed to be generated that George Bush then can't do anything without United Nations support, we're certainly making Saddam Hussein the hero of the Middle East and the militants, far greater than Bin Laden ever could be.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I agree with that. And that's why a resolution that goes somewhat further than earlier resolutions is needed. It's not enough, in my view, just to call for certain things to happen. There has to be a mechanism to ensure that happens. At this stage, I don't want to speculate as to what that might or should be. But the point you make is a very valid point and it's an issue that makes other things, I hope next week after I've been in Nigeria, I have arranged to come back through London and I'll be seeing the British Prime Minister Tony Blair very briefly and I'll be talking to both him and his Foreign Secretary about this issue.
JONES:
Just one thing that I'd just like you to make a comment on for the benefit of my listeners, just taking that point a little further. China has said that she will veto any western attempt to mount a major intrusion into Iraq, Russia has said they will use the veto. That, they say, would let France of the hook because Chirac has been expressing similar views. So if there is no resolution or will within the Security Council to approve a counter movement if Saddam Hussein doesn't allow the appropriate access that we seek, then it leaves the United States of America either having to go in unilaterally or powerless to act without the United Nations support.
PRIME MINISTER:
My mail Alan is that the Chinese and the Russian position is not quite as absolute as that. I've heard the Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov and what he's been saying, according to my understanding is, that Russia does not think a further resolution is necessary. It doesn't automatically follow from that, that the Russians would veto a new resolution - they might, I'm not saying they won';t. But I don';t think the door is completely shut from either Russia or China on that issue.
JONES:
But there is a massive push in newspapers around the world to say America can only act if the Security Council gives the go ahead and if the Security Council doesn't give the go ahead, America is left hanging out, aren't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well certainly, there is a massive push in many media areas for that. But at this stage, the appropriate thing to do is for the Americans to continue working with the UN. I'm not going to deal in a hypothetical next situation. I think it's something that those of us who have relatively similar views on this issue have to continue talking about.
JONES:
Prime Minister, it's hard to believe the people listening to you, who just know something about Zimbabwe, that while all this was going on at the United Nations this week and the President of the Unites States was addressing the United Nations, there was President Mugabe attending the General Assembly at a time when the Opposition, if I could use that word, in Harare released a dossier claiming that at least 600 of their 1,200 candidates had been blocked from contesting the local Government elections at the end of this month.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's all of the piece with what's been happening in Zimbabwe for quite a while now. It's one of the issues that will be in our minds when I met President Obasanjo and President Mbeki in Nigeria next Monday to talk about Zimbabwe. I don't want to raise hopes that we can do anything magical about it, but I have a responsibilities in relation to the Commonwealth. I think Zimbabwe has just thumbed its nose at the Commonwealth opinion. It's thumbed its nose at world opinion. Our beef with Zimbabwe is that the election there was corrupt. And that's just not finding of Britain, and Australia, and Canada, it's also the finding of many African and Asian members of the Commonwealth.
JONES:
He's also a liar this bloke. He told the World Summit in South Africa that the land reform program was being done in accordance with the constitution, but these people are just being butchered, and plundered, and pillaged, and moved off their land, no compensation.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's true, that is absolutely right.
JONES:
So, what can you do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Our main responsibility is to get him to respond to the concerns about the conduct of the election. And if he doesn't, then obviously there are some responses as far as Commonwealth membership are concerned and there are…
JONES:
Will you talk to him or about him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have invited him to attended our meeting and I've had no response to that yet.
JONES:
Amazing.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean I don't, I wouldn't, I mean I don't know and he's a completely unpredictable person. But he has been invited to attend and whether he attends or not is a matter for him. But I will be meeting the other two, and it won't be easy. I don't want to raise expectations…
JONES:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
But there are limited things we can do.
JONES:
Good. Two quick ones before I go if I might. We've got this dreadful drought on our hands and we haven't even arrived at November, or December, or whatever. There's been a lot of talk about heli-tankers. Would you as Prime Minister give any consideration to buying heli-tankers, so that they become a national asset available for use in the peak fire season and for other reasons?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have already announced that we'll pay the cost of leasing three of them…
JONES:
Part of the cost, yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
Part of the cost leasing three of them…
JONES:
We need them here now.
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JONES:
We should have them here now, shouldn't we?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you know I have to be guided by the experts on this. The experts say that it is quite okay to hire one, two, or three, whatever number you deem necessary during the peak danger periods. Now, I have to be guided by what they say. I haven't had people saying - look, it is absolutely imperative in order to have an effective firefighting unit they be stationed here throughout the year. I mean, I…
JONES:
You've got it on your plate.
PRIME MINISTER:
…and the advice and the expertise here is held by state government authorities and I am basically trying to help out.
JONES:
Well, just a quick one that Prime Minister's are never asked I guess. But arguably one of the greatest assets that the musical world in this country's ever had, Simone Young, is now being moved on virtually, her contract not renewed because her vision is not affordable apparently, making Australian musical interests a laughing stock around the world. Is this a matter for Prime Minsters?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am not an opera expert. I admire her very much. I know her and I'm a great admirer of the Australian Opera. Is it, I don't think I can get involved and tell the opera, and tell…
JONES:
We fund it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I know we fund it, but we fund experts. We fund people who are skilled in this area and I think…
JONES:
Okay…
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it does go beyond…
JONES:
I'd ask you to take it aboard, but we've got to go to the news. Good luck in your negotiations overseas.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you very much.
[ends]