CORDEAUX:
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome the Prime Minister John Howard. Sir, how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m very well Jeremy.
CORDEAUX:
Good to talk to you. The Attorney General I see here, Philip Ruddock, has asked for an investigation into why this Frenchman Willie Brigitte managed to spend five months in Australia before he was expelled. Does this worry you as well? Does this generally worry your Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we certainly acted immediately we got information from the French, and as you know the man was shipped out of the country. I have been told by ASIO that the French only recently became aware of the Australian connection for Brigitte and as soon as the French authorities did become aware, they let us know. And all the information I have at the moment, that obviously will be perhaps conditioned by any further investigations or questions, but all the information I have at the present time is that the French have been very helpful and that if it hadn';t been for the advice we received from the French, then this bloke wouldn';t have been identified and dealt with.
CORDEAUX:
It';s just worrying. I guess it';s…
PRIME MINISTER:
Anything to do with people like this is a worry. You';re quite right about that. You cannot be too worried when it comes to issues of national security, and I naturally have to rely on the advice that I get from the security authorities. But all the information I have suggests that at the Australian end - ASIO, the Federal Police and the cooperation of the NSW Police - all those agencies worked together very effectively. And I noticed that Bob Carr, the Labor Premier of New South Wales is full of praise for the work of the Australian authorities, not only his own State police but also the Federal authorities. We acted as soon as we got the information and my information this morning is that the French authorities only learned of the Australian connection, that';s presumably the presence in Australia of this man, recently and passed that on to us and we acted.
CORDEAUX:
It';s a good message to send these people that we are trying at least to be on the ball, but with hundreds of thousands of people coming and going…
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s very hard.
CORDEAUX:
Very hard.
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s the proverbial needle in a haystack. This is the terrible challenge that intelligence agencies have in dealing with potential terrorist threats. Now I can';t put it any more strongly than that for obvious reasons, but I feel sorry for the intelligence agencies because in the end it';s timely intelligence more than anything else that is going to intercept terrorist threats. But of course you only have to miss one person who might be a lethal threat, and you are in deep trouble.
CORDEAUX:
And you stick by what you say, that you really believe it is inevitable that there is some terrorist attack on Australian soil?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the language I use Jeremy is I cannot guarantee that it won';t happen. And the head of ASIO has used words suggesting near inevitability. Now we suffered very badly without a terrorist attack when that dreadful attack occurred in Bali and lost so many of our fellow Australians there, and we obviously hope and pray that something like that doesn';t happen in Australia. It';s less likely in Australia than in many other countries, but I can';t give a guarantee that it won';t occur in this country. Terrorism is very indiscriminate. As you can see in Iraq, those bombers are claiming the lives of far more Muslims now than they are the lives of others. I have to make the obvious point that we still have eight or nine hundred Australian military personnel of different kinds in Iraq, and whilst they are not involved in normal peacekeeping duties, they are in a dangerous zone and people should not assume that those eight or nine hundred Australians are immune from danger. Something could happen to one of those. I hope not and we';re taking all the precautions possible, but we are in a dangerous zone, although a zone where progress despite the attacks is being made - there is no doubt about that, they are making progress, they are restoring the electricity and the water supplies and are getting the children back to school and the hospitals operating. So in between the stories of grim terrorist attacks indiscriminately claiming the lives of people such as Red Cross workers as well as officials, progress is being made.
CORDEAUX:
Yes, it';s a shocking thing this morning to see that the death toll after the war is now greater than it was during the war. This lack of progress is hurting George Bush politically.
PRIME MINISTER:
It illustrates two things. It illustrates of course that these indiscriminate terrorist attacks are still going on and the purpose of these is to destroy any semblance of a democratic future for Iraq, and the people who are perpetrating these attacks are not interested in a democratic future for Iraq and they don';t care who they kill. They kill children, they kill international aid workers, they kill respected UN figures such as Sergio de Mello, they kill the Red Cross. The other thing it illustrates is of course how remarkably effective and speedy was the military operation conducted by the Americans and the British and us, which led to the very rapid collapse of the Iraqi resistance. But I share the concern and sadness at the loss of life largely but not entirely, on a military level of course, of Americans, some British as well, and of course as I was saying a moment ago, so many innocent Iraqis. The point has to be made again and again that the people who are carrying out these attacks are attacking their own nation, and people who are quick to criticise the Americans and say ‘told you so';, they never acknowledge the fact that if the Americans pull out, then the terrorists win.
CORDEAUX:
They';ve won.
PRIME MINISTER:
They never acknowledge the fact that if the Americans had not done what they did, with our support and the British support, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and are people saying that would be better than what Iraq now has? I don';t think so.
CORDEAUX:
When you launched that campaign to be aware - with the fridge magnet and the 1800 number - are you aware of anything that that 1800 number turned up from the general public, anything of substance?
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand it turned up quite a bit. Obviously I';m not at liberty to go into it, but I';m told that it was helpful and I';m also satisfied from the feedback we had from a lot of people, including people who analyse the impact of campaigns, that it was a very effective campaign. I know it was criticised by our opponents, but it has got people thinking and whilst for obvious reasons I won';t go into detail, I am informed that it was very effective.
CORDEAUX:
I';m not sure how many triggers you have for a double dissolution, but you';ve got quite a few - more than you need. You are trying to come up with some way to avoid this frustration for any Government - not just yours - going forward. This sort of deadlock that occurs in the Senate, which must be enormously frustrating for you. What exactly are you going to do? You';ve put a couple of ideas…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';ve put a discussion paper out which puts forward two propositions. One of them is that if the Senate twice rejects a bill put forward by the Government, then instead of having to go to a double dissolution before you can hold a joint sitting to pass that bill, if you get a majority at the double dissolution election, you might have a joint sitting without the need for a double dissolution. The argument being that we have to find some way other than the sledgehammer effect of the double dissolution in order to resolve a deadlock between the two houses. The alternative proposition is that you have a power to call a joint sitting of the two houses automatically after each ordinary election, and you can present to that joint sitting legislation that has been twice defeated in the previous Parliament. That is a variant of the first proposition. From my point of view, I think from the working of the Parliament';s point of view, either proposition would be preferable to the present system. We have legislation like the unfair dismissal laws which would make it more attractive for small business to take on people, we have propositions like that that we have had in our policy now for three elections. And we';ve won three elections and we still can';t get it through the Senate.
CORDEAUX:
But can';t you say we have a mandate.
PRIME MINISTER:
You can say that but the Senate takes no notice of that, and on that basis they would have passed our legislation on unfair dismissal some time ago, and they would have passed legislation on a lot of other issues. I mean you can say things but in the end if the Senate under our Constitution has the numbers, they can block things. Now what I';m arguing is that we should change the Constitution and we should look at changing the Constitution, and I';ve put out this discussion paper and we';re going to kick it around. There is a meeting in the Adelaide Town Hall at 7.30 tonight which will be a public forum on this issue, and I';ve asked three people - Neil Brown a former minister in a Liberal Government under Malcolm Fraser, Acting Attorney General, Communications Minister, Employment Minister; Michael Lavarch who was the Attorney General in the Keating Labor Government; and Professor Jack Richardson who is a very eminent constitutional lawyer - and they';re forming a panel and they';re going around getting public reaction and they';re in Adelaide tonight at 7.30 at the Town Hall to talk about this issue. What I';m doing at the moment is getting public reaction and if I think there would be public support for either of these propositions, then I';d be willing to put it up in conjunction with the next election. If I don';t think it will get through, I';m not going to put it up, I';m not going to go to the expense of adding it to the general election. But I think it';s a fairly cautious incremental change which provides an alternative. We';d need the support of the Labor Party for it to have any chance of getting through. They are not completely dismissive. They are adding some other things. We';ll probably have a discussion. I';ve had one discussion with Mr Crean and I';ll have another discussion with him when the consultation process is over.
CORDEAUX:
Another one of the things that you want to do of course is to sell Telstra, and this is another source of frustration for you because of the Senate';s stance on it and the power that they have, which seems to be quite…
PRIME MINISTER:
The Senate has power under our Constitution to block things because it';s a fully elected chamber. It';s different from a lot of upper houses, but of course it';s elected by a different system. And the way it';s elected now makes it mathematically impossible, absent a landslide that we';ve never had for 100 years, that the Government of the day will have a majority in its own right, because we now have an even number of senators retiring from each State each three years, and while it was easier to get three out of five senators in the past, it';s impossible mathematically and for a range of practicality to get four out of six, because you need a much higher vote.
CORDEAUX:
And for the same reasons, your Medicare reforms will not get through either.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the indications are that the Senate will not support a number of our Medicare proposals. There will be a report coming down in the Senate today. I can predict now that the majority will condemn the Government';s proposals because the majority are Labor and anti-Government senators. I think one of the interesting things out of that report will be to see whether or not it provides an unequivocal endorsement of the Private Health Insurance Rebate, because if it doesn';t it will give us a clue that that';s one of the things on the executioner';s block if a Labor Government comes to power. They never supported the Private Health Insurance Rebate five years ago. It was only with the support of Brian Harradine that we got that through, and I have no doubt that if Mr Crean wins the next election, that will be on the chopping block.
CORDEAUX:
So we';ll see that later today.
PRIME MINISTER:
That report is coming out later today, but I';ve indicated and Tony Abbott has indicated that we are naturally, with Tony';s appointment as the new Minister, having a look at aspects of our health proposals and if there are some changes to what we put forward a few months ago needed in the light of the public reaction that we have received, then we';ll make those changes. Health is a very important issue. I don';t think the Australian health system is perfect. I think there are some deficiencies, although it';s much better than any alternative system. For example, we have a much better balance between public and private support for health in this country. We have very high life expectancy levels, which is a very good indication of the effectiveness of our health system. And I suspect that the waiting lists for the general community in this country are shorter than in many other countries and that the quality of healthcare is not as directly proportional to your income in this country as it is in countries like the United States, and I want to keep it that way. We have safety nets in things like pharmaceutical benefits which incidentally will not be taken away by any part of the free trade negotiations with the United States. I noticed it keeps creeping in. I made it very clear to President Bush when he was here last week, that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a integral part of the social security safety net in Australia - I';m very proud of that scheme, it';s a very good scheme. Although, it could be made more durable and better if the Senate agreed to some modest increase in the co-payment because unless we have those modest increases over time, we won';t be able to afford to put all these new lifesaving very valuable, but expensive drugs on the free list, on the list.
CORDEUAX:
Prime Minister, will you take a couple of calls?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will.
CORDEUAX:
Collette.
CALLER:
Hi, Jeremy.
CORDEUAX:
Here';s the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Hello, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
Prime Minister, there is no humane aspect of live exports and Australians more [inaudible] than the countries we export by [inaudible] several million [inaudible] but knowing full well [inaudible] the animals [inaudible] compassionate if we in turn will not practise elementary compassion towards our fellow creatures.
CORDEUAX:
Collette, have you got a question for the Prime Minister?
CALLER:
Yep.
CORDEUAX:
Okay.
CALLER:
Isn';t it true, Prime Minister, that the refrigerated carcass trade is four to five times greater in value than the live animal trade with no government promotion of it, where there are always repeated efforts to expand the live animal trade?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Collette, is it?
CORDEUAX:
Yes, it is.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, Collette, certainly we prefer the refrigerated trade but there is some custom that wants live sheep exports. It is a valuable custom for our primary producers. As a result of what';s happened with the Cormo, the government';s established a group led by Dr John Keniry, a former head of the Chamber of Commerce to look at all aspects of the live sheep trade, including the animal welfare codes and standards. I am as concerned as many other Australians that this trade be conducted in the most humane way possible. I would not be honest with you if I said that we favour in principle getting rid of the trade, I continue to support it, but I support it in circumstances where it must carried out in the most humane way possible. The difficulties with the Cormo were not of our making. Those sheep were actually sold and then those who bought the sheep for a combination of reasons weren';t able to land them in Saudi Arabia. We don';t think the reasons advanced for not being landed were very convincing. But that now, as they say, is history and we have found somewhere for them. We have provided some additional financial assistance to Eritrea which is a poor country so they can take them and process them. And I';m pleased that they have been able to be sent somewhere else rather than having to be brought back to Australia where there would have been a big quarantine challenge - we would have been able to handle it and do it safely, but nonetheless would have been a challenge.
CORDEUAX:
You must be [inaudible] mad about the Saudis though, this is not the first time they';ve done this.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we do have our Minister who';s going to talk to them but it';ll be talking to them on the basis of sorting out any misunderstandings. I mean, we have acted in good faith. I mean, I don';t know all the background and I have to be diplomatic, but I';m not pointing fingers. I';m simply saying there didn';t seem to be any proper basis for the shipment to be refused.
CORDEUAX:
You';ve bent over backwards, you';ve done everything you can…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, certainly this was in no way our fault.
CORDEUAX:
No.
PRIME MINISTER:
We were left with the difficulty of handling it.
CORDEUAX:
Why did you give this businessman, who obviously… the sheep belonged to him, was his problem, why did you feel it necessary to get him off the hook?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it wasn';t a question of getting him off the hook, rather it was a question of us getting control.
CORDEUAX:
I see.
PRIME MINISTER:
Because we were being held responsible around the world, Australia, that means the Government and as you know from your radio programme the people were saying… the Government do something.
CORDEUAX:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
And the only way the Government could do something was to assume ownership of the sheep. We couldn';t tell people, no matter how difficult the situation was, what to do with their property.
CORDEUAX:
No, I understand. Trevor, Prime Minister';s here.
CALLER:
G';day, how are you? I sent you a letter a long while ago, right, for my boy and you never answered it and he';s a little bit upset over it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what';s your surname, sir?
CALLER:
King.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if you leave your name and address with the studio, with the radio station, I';ll find out why it wasn';t replied to. I do get literally hundreds of letters every week. I think I have a good system, but sometimes things can slip through the cracks and if that has happened with your son';s letter, or the issue you raised about your son, I apologise and I will do my best to find the letter and reply to it.
CORDEUAX:
All right, Trevor, you just hang on there for a second. Prime Minister, the other thing that';s run hot in this programme is this Ansett levy, the levy for the entitlements. And it seems that A Current Affair have been promoting the idea that the money never got to the employees.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have honoured in full our commitment. We have. I mean, we said that we would guarantee the long service leave, the holiday pay and the redundancy pay up to the community average of eight weeks. We never said that we would provide beyond eight weeks redundancy and that guarantee has been delivered and we have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the administrators. Now, there is a court action that we haven';t initiated and we naturally can';t control because we';re subject to the courts like everybody else, which is in some way [inaudible]. But it';s not tardiness on the part of the Government. The Government never said that we would underwrite or guarantee everybody';s redundancy, no matter how generous that redundancy was. If somebody had 50 weeks redundancy, which some of them did, we never said we';d pick that up, we said we';d pick up eight weeks redundancy, we said we';d pick up the holiday pay, long service leave etc. But not an unlimited commitment in relation to redundancy and I made this clear on the 13th of September 2001 when I got back from the United States, and I remember very clearly that day because I met a delegation of the Ansett workforce at Sydney Airport the moment I got off the aircraft. And I sat down with it and I said - look, I feel sorry for you in relation to your entitlements, I';m having a Cabinet meeting later today and that evening I announced that the Government would underwrite, guarantee the long service leave unpaid etc and the redundancy up to eight weeks. We imposed a levy and we collected money, we';ve paid a lot of money to the administrators and if there';s a gumming of the works, it';s not the fault of the Government.
CORDEUAX:
Prime Minister, I know we';ve only got a couple of minutes left, but we have another subject that';s running hot in South Australia, and I think it';s running hot in Tasmania and Western Australia as well. And that is gangs of young kids, thugs, sometimes as young as 12 and 14 roaming around terrorising people and just creating havoc and a lot of damage in the community. And people ring this programme and they say why don';t we reintroduce things like national service…?
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, why don';t parents assume a bit more responsibility?
CORDEUAX:
Yes, we';ve said that too.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, I really do think that if the community wants to have a sensible debate about larrikin and loutish behaviour, it ought to start where the first responsibility is. No responsible parent will allow a child of 12 or 13 or 14 to be out at all hours and I don';t think we emphasise enough in our communities that parents have responsibilities. Not everything can be cured by the Government. If parents are not looking after their children then no government can take their place. Governments can hold reports, so to speak, and protect people but no government can give to children the role modelling, the moral guidance, a sense of discipline and good behaviour that good parents do. And I don';t think as a society we emphasise enough the individual responsibility of parents.
CORDEUAX:
Prime Minister, thank you very much for talking with us and have a great day.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]