Subject:
polling; National Indigenous Emergency; Australian soldiers; Medicare; state debt
E&OE...
LAWS:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John how are you?
LAWS:
I am very well Prime Minister thank you. What is your response to this report?
PRIME MINISTER:
The one that's in the papers?
LAWS:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh those things have been around for a while and there is nothing particularly new in that particular distillation. I haven't actually seen the individual report, the document that is, but it brings together some thoughts people have had through various other pieces of research. Look we have been struggling this year politically there is no doubt about that and I think that research reflected some of the negative views that were around. It was done a couple of months ago, I think our position has improved since then, but I am not particularly amazed at what is in that document because there have been some negative things about the Government around for a while, but there are also a lot of very positive things.
LAWS:
Yes but surely expressions like sneaky and clever and dishonest and out of touch and old, they are not expressions you are used to hearing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Labor Party have been running my age flat out so I suppose if you keep running age eventually some people in the community will pick up and use that expression. I mean I think you know, I think your listeners know that one of the issues in this election campaign that the Labor Party has been running on is age. They keep saying I am clever, now they don't really mean that, it's not meant to be complimentary, but I tell you what John I can't be all that clever because I'm, you know, behind in the polls. If I were really as clever as they are suggesting that wouldn't be the case, but this is all part of the election year static.
LAWS:
But this isn't the Labor Party, this is the Liberal Party.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this is a document that...
LAWS:
But, but...
PRIME MINISTER:
...represents a distillation of attitudes of people. Look John...
LAWS:
But this fella Mark Textor, he is your favourite pollster is he not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Mark Textor, Crosby Textor are our pollsters.
LAWS:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes of course they are and they have been good, accurate pollsters and I am not denying that.
LAWS:
Yes, so really it's a bit unusual for your own pollster to be giving you information like this.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no pollsters are meant to tell you what they are told.
LAWS:
The truth.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't believe in shooting messengers in relation to polling. If you are saying to me do I employ people who are unwilling to tell me when we are travelling badly, the answer is no. I don't throw pollsters out of the room when they bring me bad polling results.
LAWS:
No, of course not.
PRIME MINISTER:
And it's self evident that we've had some bad polling results, but it's also self-evident that some of the material or some of the interpretations that have been placed on this material are quite false.
LAWS:
Okay, on what basis are you saying that your position has improved since June?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's just my sense John.
LAWS:
I see and you really believe that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it has. I think people have reacted positively to quite a number of initiatives that we have brought forward. I think they have reacted very positively to the Northern Territory initiative, which incidentally was announced the same day as this document has allegedly been prepared and that is the 21st June. I've heard this morning Mr Rudd out there saying that all of our actions in relation to state responsibilities are poll driven, well nothing could be further from the truth. Let me just go through them. Our intervention in mental health, and you'll remember that because I did an interview with you just after I made the announcement, it was in July of 2006. The Murray-Darling initiative was in January of this year; the indigenous intervention in the Northern Territory was announced on the 21st June which is the same alleged date of this research; nobody in their right mind can suggest that we intervened in the Northern Territory because our pollster told us to. We intervened in the Northern Territory because of that appalling report and the total failure of the Northern Territory Government to do anything about responding effectively to that report. And the other significant intervention in areas traditionally run by the states was the Australian Technical Colleges and they, of course, were announced in the federal election campaign in 2004. So this argument being run by the Labor Party that our involvement in areas of state failure has been entirely due to what our pollster told us is palpably wrong.
LAWS:
Okay, well you are not poll driven, but you are still not doing well in the polls and it can't be blamed on Labor Party propaganda, not all of it.
PRIME MINISTER:
John we are behind, and I am not denying it and it's silly in these circumstances to pretend that we are other than behind, and we have the job in front of us, I accept that and I have never argued otherwise. I am a realist.
LAWS:
So what's your explanation for being behind?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well our explanation for being behind is I think at the present time people are interested in a competitive federal election contest. We have been in power for 11 years and when you are in power for 11 years you inevitably alienate some people, you inevitably accumulate some baggage after 11 years and somebody new comes along and he or she looks very attractive, but as time goes by people want a bit of substance from the new person, they want them to take a position. I mean, for example, on the Mersey hospital intervention, Mr Rudd condemns it, and sneers at it, but when he's asked will he actually support it, he is still equivocal because he knows that it's popular in Devonport and he doesn't want to offend people in that part of Tasmania but he's happy generically to criticise us for what he claims to be bad policy. And I think as time goes by, people are going to want a little more than what I might call surface politics from the Leader of the Opposition. We have a proven track record, we have been trusted for 11 years to keep the economy strong, interest rates low, unemployment now at a 33-year low, paying off $96 billion of government debt and keeping the nation secure. Now that's a track record, and I guess after a while people take it for granted.
LAWS:
I believe that.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think there's any doubt and they think well this other bloke well he'll be the same.
LAWS:
Why however are you seen as dishonest?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is the view of some people. I reject that totally. There have been a number of incidents where that claim has been made and because of the circumstances of it, some people have believed it. Let's take weapons of mass destruction. If you actually look at the record, Mr Rudd was even more strident than I was in saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but because he's not in government, and when it was found that the intelligence suggesting there were weapons of mass destruction was demonstrated to be false, people said well I lied to the public. I didn't lie, I didn't deliberately state that there were weapons of mass destruction knowing there weren't. I made that statement based on the intelligence available. That intelligence was proved to be wrong.
LAWS:
Okay, but when that was proved to be wrong, why did we continue our invasion of Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the invasion had taken place.
LAWS:
Why didn't we withdraw?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because that would have been completely and utterly irresponsible.
LAWS:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because having militarily occupied a country, to then leave it behind in chaos and particularly as in the process we had removed a loathsome dictator, in fact at that particular time Mr Rudd was indeed urging upon me, and I even had letters from him, a greater role, not a lesser role for Australia in Iraq.
LAWS:
Okay, but when you say that we would have been leaving the country in chaos, that would indicate to me that we caused the chaos?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think if you remove, no, no, but if you remove the established, established in the sense that it has the power, government of a country and then just to turn your back on that country and not accept any responsibility for its continued welfare would have been totally wrong.
LAWS:
Just on another subject, Pat Anderson and Rex Wild say that you have ignored every single one of their recommendations in that report relating to Aboriginal people. Why have you done that? Why have you ignored it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what we have done is not go out of our way to ignore their recommendations, but what we have done is to accept their analysis of the crisis but then to set about doing what we believe is necessary to improve the situation and the quality of what we are doing has to be judged according to its intrinsic merits, not according to whether it complies to the letter with the recommendations of that report. It is common ground amongst everybody that there is a huge problem with child abuse in the Northern Territory. The question is, what do you do about it and we argue that our intervention plan is the way to respond. You restore law and order, you create some conditions of trust in local communities so that people feel they can lodge a complaint and something is done about it and they don't suffer retribution. And having done that, you can set about providing people with an environment where the kids can go to school and you can give them proper medical care and attention.
LAWS:
But without the cooperation of the Aboriginal elders, how can anything work up there? How can anybody trust what is happening if the elders believe it's wrong and the wrong way to go generally?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well our advice is that not all of the elders have that view. There are certain Aboriginal leaders that have always been opposed to what the Government is doing, who are critical of us. But my advice and Mr Brough's advice and Mr Brough's experience; and if you look at the views of Sue Gordon an indigenous magistrate from Western Australia who is the chairman of our indigenous council and also the chairman of this taskforce, she is strongly in favour of what we are doing. And so is Warren Mundine, the former President of the Australian Labor Party who is critical of left wing opposition within the Federal Labor Party to our intervention. I don't accept that majority Aboriginal opinion is against what we're doing. Certainly many of the more well known Aboriginal spokesmen...
LAWS:
Like Pat Anderson and Rex Wild?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Rex Wild is not an indigenous spokesman.
LAWS:
No, but...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no he's a former, what, DPP.
LAWS:
They are saying...
PRIME MINISTER:
I know what they are saying. They don't agree with what we have done.
LAWS:
No.
PRIME MINISTER:
I accept that, but I don't agree with them and the reason I don't agree with them is that having accepted their analysis of the problem, we believe that the sort of action we've outlined is necessary to address it. And that is why we are addressing it.
LAWS:
But wasn't their report the whole trigger for the intervention initially?
PRIME MINISTER:
Certainly yes, but it was their analysis of...
LAWS:
They saw what was happening.
PRIME MINISTER:
They saw what the problem was, they analysed the problem, but you can often have a situation where somebody will tell you what the situation is, but they are not so good at recommending the antidote and the response. And in the end, it's the government that has the responsibility.
LAWS:
Okay, there's been a huge take up in the Medicare provision for psychological assessments?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes terrific. It's terrific in one sense that we have clearly filled a gap.
LAWS:
The experts however are a bit worried that these checks are not going outside the big cities and they believe that there are big problems outside the big cities and I know that to be a fact?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we will investigate that because we don't want it limited to the big cities, but by its nature, it's as available, just depending on the availability of doctors, to a person in a rural area as it is to a person in a city because the big change was the extension of Medicare to certain psychiatric consultations. So that was a big change.
LAWS:
Yeah will the demand blow out the cost?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it will make it more expensive but it's an uncapped commitment. We're not going to say once it gets past a certain level well no more people can go to their doctor. But it does illustrate that there was a need there and this flows very directly from the announcement that I mentioned earlier in the interview in July of last year. It represents a very significant reform and a long overdue reform in the area of mental health.
LAWS:
Doctor Mohamed Haneef says that you should make him an honorary Australian. What is your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I won't be doing that.
LAWS:
I see, why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because there is no case for that to occur and we don't, sort of, normally have, I am not sure that we have honorary Australians anyway, but he wouldn't be the sort of person you'd make an honorary Australian. But I am not aware that there is such an animal, such a person, such a beast. I don't think so, I don't think we have honorary Australians do we?
LAWS:
Well, I...
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not aware of it.
LAWS:
I have never heard of it.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. I mean we do have honorary awards in the Order of Australia to people who aren't Australians for conspicuous service rendered to the country and we give them to a whole range of people from a whole variety of countries but I am not aware that there is such a status of honorary Australian. But it wouldn't be appropriate.
LAWS:
Okay. The video of drunken soldiers in Darwin, you've dismissed that as just boys letting off steam?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no, what I am saying...
LAWS:
That's what you said wasn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I said I don't think we should overreact. I think they were letting off steam yes, I do. I mean I don't, it's not sort of something that I would encourage, but I just don't think people should overreact. I think they should leave it to the military to deal with. That is the point I want to make.
LAWS:
Yeah, because senior officers said it was absolutely disgusting and intolerable and if it's unacceptable to the Defence Force one would wonder how it would be acceptable to you and Brendan Nelson?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I'm saying is that let the Defence Force deal with it.
LAWS:
Ok, you've also said that you were the person who kept the interest rates down. They're going up again...
PRIME MINISTER:
I was the person who kept them down?
LAWS:
Lower...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well I said that they were lower under my government than under the previous Labor Government and they would be under a future Labor government, yes and I'm right on both of those counts.
LAWS:
Now they're going up again and you're blaming the states?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't, well we don't know whether they're going up again or not. What we have done is to point out that states are going to borrow $70 billion over the next five years and we're not going to borrow anything. We've in fact paid off our debt. We have a zero debt position and the states and going into debt to the tune of $70 billion over the next five years and what I'm saying is that that does exert some upward pressure on interest rates and it's, that's just a straight economic fact.
LAWS:
Ok, but why is it the states are to blame when they go up and you take the credit when they come down?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not saying that, I'm not saying that every reason that if interest rates go up then all of it is due to the states. What I'm saying is that when it comes to government borrowings it's state governments that are competing with households and business to borrow the available funds. The Federal Government is not a borrower. The Federal Government is not a net borrower whereas the states will be net borrowers to the tune of $70 billion over the next five years and it stands to reason that it's the state governments that are competing with households and business to borrow the available funds. Now that's just a statement of fact and, see it's something that people I don't think realise. I mean, there's this enormous focus on the Federal Government deficit and when you eliminate it people say gee, isn't that fantastic. But there's virtually no focus on state debt yet if a state government has to borrow money to finance a debt that is just as competitive with a household or a business in the money markets as is the Federal Government borrowing to finance its budget deficit. It's an entirely legitimate point for this government and the Liberal Party and the National Party to make that observation.
LAWS:
Prime Minister, do you think you're getting a little more rattled than you used to?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not really. I'm somebody who responds to criticism but I notice that word's been rattling around. The answer is no, but these things in the end, and I'm a lousy self commentator, I'm a very lousy self commentator, but these things in the end are going to be resolved by the Australian public.
LAWS:
Yeah, they make up their mind don't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
They do and they're always right.
LAWS:
Ok, I appreciate your time, I know it's the beginning of a busy week. I hope it's a good one for you Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]