MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, good morning. The critics there as you heard and the question, are you an imperialistic Prime Minister from Harry Evans?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well certainly not. All of those reactions were to be expected. This proposal will not in any way reduce the opportunity for independence or minor parties to get elected to the Senate. That's the first thing that's got to be said. There's nothing in this proposal that alters the term of a senator, there's nothing in this proposal that alters the voting system. What it puts forward is a simpler, easier method of resolving deadlocks and because of the change in the voting system in particular implemented by the Labor Party against the opposition of the Liberal Party 20 years ago deadlocks between the two houses on important issues have now become the norm rather than the exception because under the current voting system for the Senate no matter how strong is the mandate for the government of the day, it is for practical purposes impossible for that government to get a majority in the Senate as well as having a majority in the House of Representatives. That is the thing that has changed and when people talk about what was intended when the Constitution was written, it was never intended when the Constitution was written that you would have a voting system for the Senate that for practical purposes, I don't mean in theory, but in practice, made it impossible for a government having won a big majority in the House of Representatives can't win a majority in the Senate, and that is the difference. So it's not a power grab, it's a recognition that in the reality of the current way in which the Senate is voted where you have an even number of senators from each state retiring every three years it's next to impossible practically for either side of politics to get four out of six senators in any one state thereby getting majority.
MCGRATH:
Well Harry Evans made the point that all you really need is to get a majority in the Senate and then you'll have your way.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but the point I'm making is with the combination of a proportional representation voting system and the increase in the size of the Senate from 10 a state, where five, that's an odd number, retire every three years, to 12 where you have six, an even number, retiring every three years, for practical purposes makes it impossible for either side of politics to get a majority. I mean if we were to win the next election in a landslide in the House of Representatives, and that won't happen, or if the Labor Party were to win, and that won't happen either, you still wouldn't get control of the Senate, whereas previously you did, Menzies got control at a double dissolution in 1951, Fraser had control of the Senate from 1975 for heavens sake up to 1981.
MCGRATH:
We're talking here about a very small percentage of legislation that you're having trouble with, that's clear. But it is a small number. Andrew Bartlett made the point then, and you heard him, when he said this is part of the system that Australian people like.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly agree that Australian people want the right to elect minor parties and independents, I accept that completely. But I don't think all of them want a situation where a government repeatedly given a mandate on something like reforming the unfair dismissal laws for small business can't get that legislation through. See that particular piece of legislation is a good illustration, in theory that could go on being rejected for the next 10 or 12 years, I mean it's not going to happen because...
MCGRATH:
Or you could just have a double dissolution election and a joint sitting.
PRIME MINISTER:
Why should you have all the expense and all the drama of a double dissolution election over one or two pieces of legislation. Now can I go back to your point about the volume of legislation, if you look at the number of bills passed of course the great bulk of bills, 95 - 98 per cent of bills get passed, but 90 to 95 per cent of bills Catherine are non-controversial, they are related the machinery of government, they are bills that facilitate the payment of money from the Commonwealth to the states, they are the bread and butter of ordinary administration which is completely apolitical. It's the important bills that matter and this is applied whether a Labor Government has been in power or a Coalition Government.
MCGRATH:
What about a potential public backlash though Prime Minister, I mean you're making your point but if people think it is a grab for power, if the public thinks that, are you worried that your motives will be suspected?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Catherine I live in a competitive political environment and people make their judgement. We're not going to put this up as a referendum proposal unless we believe it has a reasonable prospect of success and all I have done at the moment is put out for discussion this paper and we'll get community views and if after a period of three months it's obvious to me that the community is not interested in this proposal well I'm not going to put it up, obvious that we have no hope of getting a reasonable measure of political support (inaudible) I'm not going to put it up. But surely the goodness, we can have a rational debate about something like this instead of extravagant rhetoric like grab for power and so forth and imperial prime ministers being indulged in.
MCGRATH:
Now the other big issue today is the health issue, there are nearly 2000 staff specialists ready to quit in New South Wales. In Queensland ear, nose and throat specialists have walked out, obstetricians are considering it, the AMA is meeting in Canberra with the Health Minister. Isn't this affecting your battlers Prime Minister out in the suburban areas of Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
While people stay looking after patients people are not affected but we have to try and find a solution, but a solution that is fair not only to the doctors but a solution that is fair to other doctors who have not been caught up, the 40 per cent of doctors who are not caught up by UMP, the 40 per cent of doctors who perhaps over a period of time paid higher premiums and therefore their medical defence organisations were better run. You've got to remember that this problem has arisen not through anything the Federal Government has done, I mean we're trying to solve the problem and we're happy to accept that responsibility but this arose because the negligence laws of this country got out of hand and that's under the control of the states and because this particular fund was badly run. Now that's the past, what we're saying to the doctors is, we are willing to look again at the basis of the calculation of the levy, we are ready to examine the whole issue but as a condition of carrying out that examination we naturally ask that any suggestion of people abandoning their posts and downing tools in public hospitals, that that be put to one side while in a quick order, we're not going to string this out for 18 months, in a quick order we try and resolve the issue.
MCGRATH:
The doctors want care costs to be better in damages suits, care costs are separate from the overall damages, they're happy to pay the damages they say, they want the care cost to be picked up by the taxpayer, what do you think of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Catherine I think it's probably better that I not give ad hoc comments on little bits of this separate from the discussions that the profession is going to have with Tony Abbott this morning. You don't always get the one message on something like this and it's far better that I wait until we hear this morning exactly what the doctors have to put. I want to say to them that we're approaching this in good faith, we respect their role in the community, they're very valuable Australians and they have responsibilities, we have responsibilities, but we want to find a fair basis of settling this in the interests of the Australian community and that is how Tony will approach the issue and I hope that the AMA will do likewise.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, thanks for your time this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]