Subject:
Afghanistan; Mersey Community Hospital; Dr Haneef; federalism; workplace relations.
E&OE...
GILBERT:
Mr Howard thanks for you time this afternoon.
PRIME MINISTER:
Always a pleasure Kieran.
GILBERT:
There's been an incident in southern Iraq, can you tell us the latest in relation to the injuries to Australian troops there?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't add anything to the public reports, fortunately there are no serious injuries. A vehicle rolled over and there were some minor injuries sustained and my advice is the same as has been publicly announced and that is that the five people are okay, and just a reminder that things can happen no matter where people are stationed around the world. But they seem to be okay and thankfully there are no serious injuries.
GILBERT:
Is it a sigh of relief every time that our troops escape a fatality?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is, it is, I have it on my mind every day because I am the bloke who sends troops overseas. In the end it's my responsibility and it's something that I think about on a very regular basis. We've been very lucky and we just should hope and pray that that luck continues. They are also very well trained, but they've also been very fortunate. Australian soldiers are very skilful, they interact with the local people very well, it's one of their great assets. They understand the hearts and minds business better than any.
GILBERT:
On another matter, some extraordinary claims this week in relation to the Haneef case, a dossier in India that made links to Al Qaeda. How did you respond to it, what do you know about it and what does the Federal Police do from here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Federal Police should be able to conduct their investigation unmolested by others, by a constant commentary from the sidelines. I am not commenting on the investigation. I knew nothing of this until I heard about it from SBS I don't know whether it's true or false, I am not saying it's true I just don't know.
GILBERT:
It didn't seem like a lot of detail there.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not, you know I've got nothing to do with the report it didn't come from me, it came from an SBS program, it came out of India as to whether there is anything in it, I do not know and I do not intend to speculate. I do intend, however, to let the police get on with their job. They should be left alone, the Australian Federal Police do a very good job and we want them to look after us, but there seem to be some in the community that whenever anything untoward happens, they start putting the boot into the coppers. Well I don't think that's very smart and I don't think the public appreciates it.
GILBERT:
Given that this was a bit of a litmus test in terms of the new laws, new counter-terrorism laws, you yourself say it's better to be safe than sorry, why not test the whole process and have a judicial inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the great litmus test of the new anti-terrorism laws was yesterday's decision by the High Court of Australia upholding the control order legislation and I am very pleased that the High Court has ruled in favour of the constitutionality of those laws, and I think that demonstrates that the laws were soundly based. As to your question to have an inquiry, no we don't need a judicial inquiry that is a politically inspired call by Mr Rudd. See what Mr Rudd is doing, he's trying on the one hand to say to the Australian public, I am with John Howard in supporting tough anti-terrorism laws, but he's got a left-wing rump in his own party who is giving him hell over this and saying you are not attacking Howard enough. So the compromise is I support what Howard is doing but I will call for a judicial inquiry. That is a stunt and he knows it.
GILBERT:
But there has been some inconsistencies from the Immigration Minister, he said he was happy for him to leave the country, then we he left he said he was more suspicious.
PRIME MINISTER:
But that's not an inconsistency. What he said was that he had no basis for preventing him going because his visa had been cancelled.
GILBERT:
He had a go at Labor for agreeing with your policy as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but that is a separate issue. Look on this particular issue, what Mr Rudd is doing is having two bob each way. He wants the public to see him standing side-by-side with me in supporting tough anti-terrorism laws, yet because he's got a noisy rump in his own party, he's got to soothe them by saying I want a judicial inquiry. Well that is just a complete stunt and we will not be having a judicial inquiry, it is quite unnecessary.
GILBERT:
Do you think people, on the hospital issue in northern Tasmania, do you think people will be a bit cynical given that the Mersey Hospital is smack bang right in the middle of Braddon, a seat you hold by about 2 per cent?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is no reason in the world why if something is good, if it's popular at the same time, there is nothing wrong with that. I mean, the test is, is it a good decision. Is it good to give back to 70,000 people in Northern Tasmania the guarantee of a full range of public hospital services, surely that is the test. And I would say to Mr Rudd in relation to that, his problem is that he's hand-cuffed to the Premiers because they are all Labor. And what this illustrates is dramatically as you can imagine, the folly of having governments of the same political persuasion in power at both the federal and a state level. See, a Labor government in office now would not have taken the decision that I've taken in relation to the Mersey Hospital because they would be hand-cuffed to the Tasmanian Labor Government and that is Mr Rudd's problem. See he's locked himself into doing essentially what the Labor Premiers want and he doesn't have the same freedom of movement, he doesn't represent a check and a balance. Whereas at present, as a Liberal Prime Minister, I'm not under that obligation and it represents a check and a balance and it represents a contestability in relation to Commonwealth/State affairs that you simply wouldn't have if you had a Labor government in office federally as well as in every state.
GILBERT:
Seven hundred public hospitals around Australia though, is it just a coincidence that the one you choose to intervene in is in one of the most marginal seats, one that you were lucky pick up last time?
PRIME MINISTER:
I know the politics of that, I know the politics of just about every seat in this country I understand that and people will say that. I just come back to the simple proposition though was it a bad decision, is it good for the public that public hospital facilities be available for a community of 70,000 in a regional area, and the answer to that has to be yes. Will we do this in other parts of Australia, I don't rule it out, I don't rule it out, however, I see the Mersey Hospital in Devonport as being something of a trial, a test case, to see how it works out, but I don't rule it out.
GILBERT:
What about the headlines today about schools? Have you got more plans to intervene in terms of schools, public schools?
PRIME MINISTER:
That was a total beat up that headline and the story didn't back it up. All the Minister did was to state the policy that's been there for a decade and that is if a local community wants to form a school, provided they meet the curriculum requirements of the state and all the other requirements, they can apply for federal funding, now that's been the law, for the last decade, there is nothing new, it didn't represent a new power grab. That was a very over-excited headline writer.
GILBERT:
Someone who is probably a bit excited now is Tony Abbott because he's been pushing for a federal takeover of public hospitals for some time. Is there any scope down the track for this to evolve that far?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kieran, this is not the first step towards a public full-scale takeover of the public hospital system. We don't have any current plans to do that, we don't. But I have for some time now been of the view that where the states are not doing the job or where the cooperative model has failed it's the responsibility of the Federal Government to, in what I might call an actively pragmatic way, step in and do the job. Now we're doing it in the Northern Territory. I have proposed it in relation to the Murray-Darling. We've done it with disability services where the states have fallen down on the job to provide enough supported accommodation. We've done it in mental health and that was a couple of years ago we did it with mental health. And in the last election campaign the Australian Technical Colleges proposal represented for the first time the Federal Government actually establishing its own technical schools. Now what has been the result of that? The result of that has been 25 magnificent technical colleges around the country but on top of that it's provoked the state governments in a number of areas to bring back, into bringing back rather, dedicated technical schools which incidentally should never have been closed down in the first place, it was one of the great education mistakes this country's made. But that is a classic example of where there has been a state failure we've moved in, we've provided an additional facility that we've funded, but better than that, we've actually encouraged the states to go back into the field of dedicated technical schools and that is a great outcome. Now this is what I call actively pragmatic federalism. We're not hung up as to whether its states' rights or centralism. Nobody marches in the streets with a placard saying states' rights or centralism, but they do march in the street for a public hospital or for an educational facility or for something else, and that is my guide. It's whether you're delivering a benefit to the Australian community.
GILBERT:
A confidential briefing paper from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations says WorkChoices has created widespread panic and fear. The public is blaming it for a fundamental shift in the Australian way of life. Is this your single biggest challenge to combat that fear in this election year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that was some research from some months ago and it was the product of a ferocious and dishonest fear campaign by the union movement.
GILBERT:
But it's a worry isn't it? If you think, if there's that sort of panic and fear about one of your laws?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but Kieran you're asking me to be a commentator. Let me talk to you about the laws. The laws are not as represented by the Labor Party. The laws are those as represented by the advertisements the Government is now running which are obviously being effective, they're telling the truth and that is why the person speaking on them, the head of the Workplace Authority, is being attacked by the union movement. She is just stating the facts. She's not taking sides. She's pointing out that you can't have your penalty rates taken away without compensation, you can't have your holidays taken away, you can't be sacked because your child is sick. Now that has been the tenor of the ACTU television campaign and of course people would get upset if they saw that on their television screens. They think gee this is no good. I mean what people say to me about these laws is I'm okay, I haven't been affected, my kid hasn't been sacked or intimidated, but I hear that it might be going on. That is the feedback I get.
GILBERT:
Is this your biggest challenge though? Is this the biggest challenge?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I have a lot of challenges Kieran and it's for the Australian public to make a judgement. But what I will do in relation to this and I will do in relation to anything else, that where our laws and our intentions are misrepresented, we will state the facts to the Australian public. And the true outcome of WorkChoices is that we've had 300,000 more jobs created since the law came in, real wages have continued to rise, strikes are at their lowest level since the year before World War I, so WorkChoices have been, you know, very, very effective laws as far as the overall economy is concerned. The one thing that WorkChoices has changed is the monopoly power the union movement had on the bargaining process in industrial relations and that's what this campaign by the unions is all about. It's not about workers, it's not about unemployment, it's not about workers' rights, it's about union dominance of the bargaining system.
GILBERT:
Mr Howard, your state secretary, the Liberal Party state secretary said that it was inappropriate for working class suburbs like Woolloomooloo to be put in the same electorate as beachside suburbs like Bondi. Why is that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I saw that. That thing's been on the website of the AEC for about 12 months and if you actually look at the context of it, it's not as represented. But any suggestion that the Liberal Party is full of silvertails couldn't be further from the truth. On behalf of all the boys that grew up in Earlwood and Canterbury, let me say we're no silvertail party.
GILBERT:
Parliament returns next week for the spring session.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
GILBERT:
The winter break is over and now we're just a few months; well you'll know better than me, but how far away from the election, we're not far. Is this the biggest fight of your political life? Are you ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh this is the toughest election I have had in the last decade or more. I had a tough election in 1987. But this is the toughest one of the sort of current cycle. Of course it is. The longer you're in office the tougher it is, but what does Mr Rudd really stand for? When it comes to things like health and education he's handcuffed to the states. He can't really do anything without the states saying yes, Mr Rudd, you may. See he's thrown in his lot with the state Premiers. They're working together. I mean they have this great routine. He stands up and says oh yes, John Howard is right and then a day or so later Peter Beattie attacks me, and then the next day Alan Carpenter attacks me and then the next day Mike Rann attacks me. I mean it's a sight to behold and it's quite obvious, the pattern to it. But I think people will say well you know, what do you really believe in Mr Rudd, I mean what are your great beliefs about the future of Australia and I think as the time goes by people are starting to be a little bit disappointed about the lack of policy conviction. It's all right to have a process, I mean he's always talking about a taskforce and a meeting and a list and I heard him on infrastructure in Western Australia yesterday, he says within 12 months he'll have a list. Well, I think people want a bit more than a list.
GILBERT:
This is a fight for your legacy as well isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look my legacy is something that I don't think of. Legacies are things...
GILBERT:
You don't think of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think of my legacy. Well legacies are the sort of things you think of after it's over and I don't intend it to be over.
GILBERT:
Mr Howard thanks for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]