BARTLETT:
Prime Minister Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Liam. Great to be here.
BARTLETT:
Nice to see here too.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
BARTLETT:
Has Mark Latham's growing popularity rating and his ability to grab those headlines got you a bit rattled?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it was inevitable that in the early weeks, perhaps even months he'd get a very good run, there's a novelty, he's new, he's different, he's not Simon Crean or Kim Beazley and there's obviously a lot of interest, he had a good conference, and he'll get a bounce in the polls, I'll be amazed if he doesn't get a bounce in the polls out of all of that. But politics is a long game and we'll settle into a situation where the public start to analyse what he really stands for, what we stand for...
BARTLETT:
A marathon, not a sprint.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure. Politics is always a marathon and not a sprint.
BARTLETT:
You said yesterday that you would hold, or think about holding the election in the, or you would have to hold it in the last half of this year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's the normal time to hold it.
BARTLETT:
But you said that unless there was a special event...
PRIME MINISTER:
I've always said that.
BARTLETT:
What did you mean by that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know except that you've always got to allow for something that might justify going early in the public interest. I have said that all along, that reservation has always been there in all the statements I've made, it's not something that's just been introduced since Mr Latham became leader or whatever, it's just a statement of the obvious that you normally have the election about three years after the previous one because parliaments are elected for three years, that will be some time in the second half of this year. There might be something of which I'm unaware of, you're unaware of, everybody's unaware of would come along and the public would say well look the Government says one thing on this and the Opposition says another thing, we want a say and we want a say now. Now I don't think that is likely, I mean I think the probability is that the election will be held towards the end of the year, or in the second half of the year.
BARTLETT:
Alright, I find it very interesting the way this whole contrast has been painted in the media, very much a contest between young and fresh versus old and stale.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in the end it doesn't really matter what the media says, it's what your listeners believe and in the end the Australian public will make a judgment on who they think is better able to preserve the strength of their economy, create jobs for their children, keep their interest rates down, defend on borders and look after the defence of this country. They're the sorts of things in the end that people will make judgements on.
BARTLETT:
In retrospect though Prime Minister was it a mistake, politically, not to pass the baton to your younger deputy?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to go into that, the reason why I decided to stay on was because my party wanted me to.
BARTLETT:
You would have left them that contrast though with Mark Latham...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we'll wait for the judgment of the Australian people, that's a view that some people have put, we'll see what the great judges of all us - that is the Australian people decide. In the end people make judgements for a whole variety of reasons and I don't think it's a good idea for any of us, myself, opposition leaders, media commentators to force feed the public on the criteria they should bring to bear in their judgements. People change their views, the Australian public never gets it wrong.
BARTLETT:
Let's cut through the rhetoric, you don't feel old and stale?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well of course I don't but look I don't go around saying that, I mean people make judgements according to my physical and mental demeanour.
BARTLETT:
Talking of judgements, as you have obviously caught up with in the news this morning the British Government overnight, our time, has announced that it will now hold an independent inquiry into the intelligence on Iraq's invisible weapons of mass destruction. Are you now tempted to follow suit?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we actually are waiting, or the public is waiting, I have seen the report but I'm not allowed to talk about it because it's not my report, it's the parliamentary committee report, we actually have had a parliamentary inquiry and the first term of reference in that parliamentary inquiry is the nature, the accuracy and the independence of the intelligence that was relied upon. So on the merits of it, it could be said that we've already had an inquiry and maybe the sensible thing to do is to let the public see what is in that report.
BARTLETT:
But it's not an inquiry that was held with the same questions able to be asked...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well one of the difficulties...
BARTLETT:
... David Kay's for example, the chief weapons finder, if I can put that way, wasn't available to the people who held that inquiry here in Australia.
PRIME MINISTER:
Liam, the inquiry, any inquiry has to essentially have regard to British and American intelligence because although we did contribute the great bulk of the intelligence which formed the basis of our agencies assessments was American and British, American and British sourced. So clearly inquiries conducted into that are of a different character than Australian inquiries conducted into that same intelligence. But look could I just restate our position: we had intelligence at the time that fully vindicated the decision we took, and in any event I believe very strongly that the world and the Middle East is a better and a safer place as a result of the removal of Saddam Hussein.
BARTLETT:
But the end doesn't justify the means, you sent us to war on the strength of the weapons of mass destruction, not the strength of...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we went to went to war primarily because of the WMD issue and because of the continued non-compliance by Iraq with resolutions of the security council...
BARTLETT:
But it was the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Please, can I just finish this, I mean I have listened to your questions and I'm trying to answer them.
BARTLETT:
Well you're not, you're restating your position.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a statement, a statement by you...
BARTLETT:
... heart of the question.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am going to the heart of the question, the heart of the question is that I don't resile one iota from the decision that the Government took, now some people may not like that, you may not like me to say that.
BARTLETT:
But aren't you embarrassed?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I am not embarrassed, I'm not embarrassed because intelligence is an imprecise science, you have to make judgements on the material that you have available at the time...
BARTLETT:
But whose intelligence?
PRIME MINISTER:
... and the material that we had available at the time very strongly suggested that the possession of weapons of mass destruction, even David Kay has acknowledged that Iraq had WMD programmes, he's not suggested that they never possessed them, there are differences of view and there are different conclusions about the immediacy and the quantity but the jury is still out, the Iraq survey group is still at work, if we had had our time over again I would not have taken a different decision, the world and the Middle East is a better and a safer place as a result, the world and a Middle East is a better and a safer place as a result of the removal of Saddam Hussein and it is still the burden carried by those people who attacked our decision that if their advice had been followed Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq...
BARTLETT:
Well you could have done that 10 - 15 years ago couldn't you because he was...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I couldn't have done anything 10 or 15 years ago because I wasn't Prime Minister of Australia.
BARTLETT:
Well let's not be cute about this.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean you're being cute by suggesting...
BARTLETT:
Alright. Prime Minister, you say you wouldn't have anything different. If you had had David Kay's report for example prior to sending Australian troops to war are you saying that you would still have sent them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look Liam, self-evidently I didn't. I can only and you can only act on material available at the time you are required to make a decision.
BARTLETT:
But you're saying no, even with...
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean that is the ultimate, I mean that is the ultimate hypothetical question. I acted on the basis of the material I had available at the time...
BARTLETT:
But did that come straight from the UK or the US, did we follow them up the garden path?
PRIME MINISTER:
No most of the material that we in fact, the overwhelmingly bulk of the material I had at the time was from our agencies which in turn had received raw intelligence from the Americans and the British. I did have a number of direct discussions with the head of British intelligence and also with the head of, with senior people in the CIA, all of which confirmed the advice that we had been receiving from our own agencies, so the answer to your question is you know if I had my time over again, when you use that expression you speak of retracing exactly your steps, you don't speak of superimposing a knowledge of later events on previous circumstances.
BARTLETT:
The reason I ask you that question is there's an amazing revelation in London's Independent newspaper today from a fellow called Dr Brian Jones who was the foremost expert on weapons of mass destruction in the Ministry of Defence for them and he claims in that article today that not a single defence intelligence expert backed Tony Blair's most contentious claims on Iraq's weapons.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't seen that, and I mean I don't know whether that report is accurate or well based, I just haven't seen it.
BARTLETT:
Mark Latham seems to have an open mind on this, your Defence Minister Robert Hill said yesterday he doesn't see the need for further inquiries. Have you got an open mind or are you just saying that that's...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think what Robert is saying and what I'm saying and Alexander Downer is saying is that there was an inquiry established by the senate resolution by Parliament and it is an inquiry that includes people in the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and I think also the Democrats and that inquiry will be reporting very soon and the first term of reference was the nature, accuracy and independence of the intelligence.
BARTLETT:
Just going back to Dr Brian Jones's story today in the Independent, how much did we rely on that information in the Blair dossier?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I can't really talk about some report that I haven't even seen, I mean I haven't read the Independent so I'm not going to go down the path of commenting on something I haven't read and I don't know the context of.
BARTLETT:
Can you answer my question about the Blair dossier?
PRIME MINISTER:
The one that was published?
BARTLETT:
How much did we rely on...
PRIME MINISTER:
Which dossier are you referring to?
BARTLETT:
Well the main dossier that months ago, before we actually went into war...
PRIME MINISTER:
You mean the one that was the subject of the Hutton inquiry?
BARTLETT:
Correct.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's the one. We relied to some extent on that but in all of these things Liam there's a consistency between the material you get privately and the material that can be made available. My recollection of that document was that it was prepared by the intelligence agencies, it was not as you remember Lord Hutton concluded 'sexed up' by the Blair Government, in fact that was a false allegation made by the BBC and my recollection again is that the dossier was totally consistent with the information that we had been receiving privately.
BARTLETT:
Let's take some calls, 17 minutes to nine and first up Pamela, hello Pamela.
CALLER:
Good morning. Mr Howard, the NAB bank is quite mischievous with its money isn't it, other people's money. Everybody is bagging it, can you tell me and the Australian people why you haven't stepped aside and Mr Costello hasn't been sacked for doing $2 billion worth on the international stock market diddle, it was just shrugged off, swept under the carpet and nothing was said.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't share your assessment about an international stock market fiddle, that's why I haven't resigned and why Mr Costello hasn't been sacked.
CALLER:
You consider that fiddling Australia's $2 billion in cutting health and everything else isn't kosher, you reckon that's good? You're a real smart cookie on managing the household account? I don't think so.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay.
BARTLETT:
Pamela, thanks for your call. Hello Jason.
CALLER:
Good morning Mr Howard. Your Government claims to be tough on drugs and I just recently noted you've announced several million dollars of extra funding for the Federal Police and I also note that drug treatment and education missed out this time around, maybe you're saving that one up for a bit later in the election campaign. My question to you is, if your Government is tough on drugs, and I mean all drugs not just those drugs that say your generation haven't used in the past, how do you react to recent claims by the police minister in WA no less, a police spokesperson for the Liberals, Matt Burnie, bragging about a four day drinking binge in Bali? Now when is your Government going to seriously tackle the real drugs of concern in this country which are alcohol and tobacco and will that happen whilst you're still taking money from political donations from these groups?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't read about Mr Burnie's comments on what he's done in Bali, I'm going to Kalgoorlie tomorrow perhaps I'll ask him about that. But clearly we have an uncompromising attitude on illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine and we're making progress, there's been a 67 per cent reduction in heroin related deaths and we are making steady progress on the Tough on Drugs campaign. I'm against the abuse of alcohol, I think tobacco, cigarette smoking is bad, I used to smoke, I gave it up when I was about 39 and it was the best decision I've ever made for my health and anybody who's listening who's tempted to give up smoking I'd encourage you to do so. But it is a legal product and while it is legal then obviously people are going to smoke and even if it was made illegal people would still smoke tobacco but there is a big different between it and drugs such as marijuana and cocaine and heroin and I think most of the listeners understand the differences.
BARTLETT:
Jason, thanks for calling. Hello Barbara.
CALLER:
Good morning Liam.
BARTLETT:
Morning.
CALLER:
How are you?
BARTLETT:
Well thanks.
CALLER:
That's good. Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Barbara.
CALLER:
I had a question, it's in connection with the debits tax that's charged on withdrawal of pension money, which the Federal Government makes it compulsory to deposit in a bank account...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry. Which tax?
CALLER:
Your debits tax that's charged...
PRIME MINISTER:
The bank account debits tax?
CALLER:
... withdrawal of your pension money.
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought that was a state tax?
CALLER:
No, no, no. The [inaudible] went but the debits tax is still there and I wrote to both the Federal Treasurer and to the Minister for Community Affairs in September 2003 and I had replies from both of their respective lower order repliers and it gets back to the same thing.
PRIME MINISTER:
What did they say in their replies?
CALLER:
Pardon?
PRIME MINISTER:
What did they say... I'm sorry, what did they say in their replies?
CALLER:
In their replies they virtually say, well I can read it to you but it's too long on the radio, but...
BARTLETT:
It's definitely a federal issue, is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
What's the... I thought...
CALLER:
Tax is charged on withdrawal of all monies in your bank account, right? And it may be a small amount in your estimation, but to the elderly on a monthly budget basis it is very much needed and it gets back to according to the letter from the Federal Treasurer's office that it's up to the state government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's... I didn't want to interrupt you, but that was my understanding.
CALLER:
Yeah well...
PRIME MINISTER:
The deal we had with the states when we brought in the GST was that they would use the GST progressively to abolish state taxes and if the West Australian Government hasn't abolished the bank account debits tax, then it's their responsibility and not ours. Now, that was the arrangement that was signed up between the states and the Commonwealth. All the states, most of them are better off now, and all the states will in time be a lot better off as a result of the GST. So it was an agreement that they would get rid of that tax.
CALLER:
Well, apparently there's some reference here in the Federal Treasurer's...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he would have explained that. The Treasurer understands this very well and that was my recollection.
CALLER:
So you maintain that it's the WA state government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely and I also maintain that we're giving them the money through the GST to get rid of those taxes.
BARTLETT:
Alright, Barbara. Thanks for your call this morning.
CALLER:
Thank you.
BARTLETT:
Good morning, Terry.
CALLER:
Good morning, Liam. Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
My question relates to the indexation of commonwealth superannuation pensions, that is pensions paid to the government's former employees. You'd be aware of the Senate report which has been gathering dust on the Senate table now for almost three years recommending change to this. The report established a fact that during the previous decade the variety of indexation methods used for various government payments left the government's former employees as the very poor relations. Federal parliamentarians' indexation meant it yielded them pay gains which was twice that in percentage terms of what their former employees got. Even aged invalid pensions, the mechanism for that, the male's total average weekly earnings benchmark yielded 50% higher than that paid to the government's former employees. My question is, in light of all this, how can you defend your Finance Minister's continuing assertions, and this affects over one million people with dependents and what not Australia-wide, that this is a fair and equitable indexation method used, the CPI, the sole indexation tool for commonwealth superannuation pensions paid to your former employees?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the CPI is not an uncommon indexation measure. I know some benefits and some payments are indexed according to different things and I know that some things aren't indexed. I know that there's a lot of people who would like us to alter that. There are a lot of different groups in the community who would like more generous indices in relation to benefits. What I can say to you is that as we move through decisions in relation to the budget and the like, it is one of many requests that we will take into account.
BARTLETT:
Alright, Terry?
CALLER:
Not really.
BARTLETT:
No, you...
CALLER:
It doesn't answer the question that how can they justify what's happening and they've been doing it for three years now that's fair and equitable... go away and bury your head, sort of thing.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not a question of saying, you say how can I justify? I mean, in the end, I've got to take decisions which prioritise all of the requests that we get from different sections of the public and it's always going to be the case that I can't agree to everything. And I understand your point of view. I'm respectful of your point of view and we will further consider it. That is the honest position because I get people in groups everyday asking us to spend more money and I get people in groups everyday asking us to reduce taxation. And it's part of my job and people make an assessment every three years on whether they think I've got the priorities right. And, Terry, I respect your view, but I repeat that we will consider it. I can't promise anything, but I'll do my best to treat it fairly.
BARTLETT:
Thanks for your call, Terry. Talking about vengeance, Prime Minister, superannuation, in December last year Mark Latham said on this programme that he intended to do something about the lucrative politicians' superannuation scheme and I noticed he's repeated that on the frontpage of The Financial Review today. Do you support that...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well...
BARTLETT:
Doing something about this overly lucrative scheme.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't quite know what he has in mind. I do know this though that we made a very significant change to the superannuation arrangements of parliamentarians in relation to people who entered at the last election and that is we moved their single entitlement age into line with the general community standard...
BARTLETT:
... you did nothing about what the politicians actually get back. I mean, you're looking at something like seven times what the average worker, the normal worker receives in entitlements.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the contributions that are made are high, but look...
BARTLETT:
Not that high, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we can have a...
BARTLETT:
Have you met anybody outside the political circle that doesn't think it's obscene?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I suppose, most, a lot of people out in the community think anything in relation to Members of Parliament and anybody in elected office is unmeritorious. I have to say that the salaries paid to senior ministers compared with the responsibilities of people in the private sector are way below what is received in the private sector. But, as far as the parliamentary superannuation scheme, I'm not aware of the particular proposals that Mr Latham has in mind, he talks generally. Let's wait and see what he proposes.
BARTLETT:
So you're not keen to follow that lead and...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't...
BARTLETT:
And bring back the scheme into some sort of...
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think any lead has yet been given.
BARTLETT:
So, it's a no, is it? You don't want to do anything to that scheme?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the changes that were made a few years ago were very good changes and they certainly reduced a lot of the generosity.
BARTLETT:
Alright. Well, let me spell it out - he says under the plan all new Federal MPs would become members of a more conventional superannuation fund instead of receiving those benefits estimated to be seven times more generous than most employees.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there's still words. I mean, one of the things I have to say about Mr Latham is that over the past few days he says one thing one day and then changes it the next. He said he was going to have a pooled federal/state funding mechanism for education - he backed away from that. He said that he was going to take money away from rich so-called rich private schools - the next day he backed away from that. He said he and his party were going to have an evidence based approach to things like heroin injecting rooms - yet yesterday he backed away from that and said there was going to be no more King Crosses. I will sort and wait and see what emerges after a period of a few weeks and a few months. I'll apply what you might call a bit of a longevity test to his promises before I start responding to them and I think it makes a lot more sense.
BARTLETT:
Now, look, you're a sports fan - I don't know whether you know about this or not - it's a West Australian issue. There are moves afoot to relocate the men's and women's national hockey teams from Perth to Canberra, back to the east coast.
PRIME MINISTER:
I've heard about that. I don't pretend to know the background. My immediate reaction though is that there's always been a very strong affinity between Western Australia and hockey.
BARTLETT:
Certainly, the program has been here for something like 20 years, the high performance hockey program.
PRIME MINISTER:
And, of course, you have, I mean, there's always been a lot of special investment in hockey facilities in Western Australia. And, as I say, I don't pretend to know the arguments on the other side. You're asking me for a kneejerk reaction. I always associate hockey in Western Australia, hockey in Perth very strongly.
BARTLETT:
I suppose it's not just about hockey, it's about the decentralisation issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's very important that there be adequate sporting facilities and opportunities in all of the populated areas of Australia and that's very much the case for Western Australia. My instinct is against centralising sporting facilities, it really is. I mean, Canberra's a great place, but I'm not sure that it makes a great deal of sense. As I say, I don't pretend to have delved in to all of the arguments one way or the other. But there's always been an identification of hockey with Western Australia that's had a very strong patronage and it has lasted for a very long time. But more generally, to the extent that it can be afforded and the like, you should have top class sporting facilities in every major population centre and particularly given the isolation of Perth and this part of Australia from the rest of the country it's all the more necessary.
BARTLETT:
Wayne, good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning, Liam. You just caught me swallowing a mouthful of coffee. Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Wayne.
CALLER:
Look, I'll keep this brief because I know we're running out of time. But Prime Minister I'm a provider of both residential and community aged care. I'm not one that believes necessarily there's a crisis in aged care. But at the moment we have in excess of $20 million committed to building two sites that we'll open this year, a nursing home and a low care accommodation. And it's tough because there are no avenues for raising significant capital in certainly nursing homes. So my question is Prime Minister - are you able to advise if and when Professor Hogan's review into residential and aged care is going to be released and might that have any alleviation for capital raising for residential aged care providers?
PRIME MINISTER:
We've received the report and Cabinet will look at it very soon and then we'll be in a position to indicate what responses might be.
CALLER:
Thank you.
BARTLETT:
When do you think, Prime Minister? Any sort of timetable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Quite soon, like a few weeks we'll be looking at it.
BARTLETT:
Thanks Wayne, does that answer your question? That's helpful, thanks.
BARTLETT:
Cheers.
CALLER:
Bye.
BARTLETT:
Hello, Michael.
CALLER:
Yes. Good morning, Prime Minister. Good morning, Liam. I'll try to be brief as well. I ask you Prime Minister, I sent you a letter and never received even a reply at all, so I'd be grateful for one now. At the time that the Government made the decision to commit Australian troops...
PRIME MINISTER:
What's your surname so I can have my staff check whether we received the letter and your surname and address if you give it to the station.
CALLER:
I'll do that, I'll do that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you very much.
CALLER:
Yes, well, I'll cut straight to the chase here. This morning you said that the Australian public rarely gets it wrong, but when troops were committed the polls were showing that about 80% of Australians favoured waiting for a UN sanction for the use of force and that was bypassed. So my question is - how can you justify that bypassing of public opinion or the bilateral sanctioning of the commitment of our troops and financial resources by the full Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Michael, the reference I made to the public rarely getting it wrong was a reference to the judgements in election time. And secondly, if you made every decision between elections on the basis of public opinion polls and on the basis of nothing else, you'd be a lousy government. Often governments have got to take decisions that at the time the majority of the public doesn't support and as part of the judgement the public then makes at election time.
BARTLETT:
Thanks for coming in today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]