JONES:
The Prime Minister's on the line. PM good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
JONES:
Now before we get down to the nitty grit someone tells me that you're off to the western suburbs this morning, may I ask what all that's about?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm chasing the hot weather.
JONES:
Go early, go early.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah I will. Alan I'm going out to visit Penrith and doing a number of things for Jackie Kelly who's been a wonderful member out there. But one of the things I'll be doing is making an important announcement about a sporting facility for that area which I think will be widely welcomed by the community and it's an area that has needed some additional sporting facilities and this will cover a lot of sports and it's something that Jackie Kelly has championed for a very long time and it's part of the arrangement that was come to and announced earlier this year regarding the former ADI site which has been sold by the Government. So this is an announcement I'll be making in a couple of hours time, or a bit longer than that, three hours time...
JONES:
So you're just going to tease us for the moment are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yeah, it's going to involve about a 100 hectare park and sporting precinct and it's a very fine facility and it'll cover a whole lot of different sports, outdoor playing fields, tennis, netball, basketball, walking trials, it will be very big.
JONES:
Well done.
PRIME MINISTER:
And it will be particularly valuable for an area of Sydney that...
JONES:
Often ignored.
PRIME MINISTER:
And, yes many argue it has been ignored by some, and it's going to be something that the whole community will like very much.
JONES:
Good on you, good to talk to you about that one. Gregory Heywood writing yesterday, I just want to come back to something I spoke to you about last week, for the Fairfax press said while electorally appealing the knee jerk decision by both John Howard and Mark Latham to scrap current pension entitlements for current parliamentarians is guaranteed over time to result in a considerably less skilled legislature. Now given that these changes, and yours are a bit tougher than Mark Latham's, will more than half the remuneration of MPs, unless MP's salaries are dramatically increased, how do you recruit good people to the Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well good people have gone in for a variety of reasons over the years and remuneration is part of it but it's not the only part of it, one of the reasons why a lot of good people are reluctant to go into politics now is the enormous amount of public and personal scrutiny, high levels of abuse often, it's a far more fishbowl existence than it used to be, I'm not saying that is wrong because we all live in a more transparent society. Your profession now is exposed to a lot more accountability, sportsmen are, everybody's more accountable now. Of course in more private days perhaps people were a little more willing to go in.
JONES:
But given that people of high quality do have alternative career options...
PRIME MINISTER:
But people of high quality have always, many people of very high quality came in when the remuneration was less generous than what it is now, I mean 30 years ago I think in relative terms the ordinary pay was lower than what it is now but we still attracted people of high quality.
JONES:
But are we at risk talking about community standards, I mean it's a...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I do agree that, I mean I've said before and I'll repeat it that I don't believe the current package in overall terms is unreasonable, I don't.
JONES:
I mean it was introduced in 1948 by Ben Chifley, he wasn't a rorter.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I don't believe any of my predecessors were rorters, I've never, and in fact federal politics in this country is by and large been quite free of that, I'm not alleging anybody's been a rorter, I'm just making the observation that in overall terms the package was reasonable, the superannuation part was seen as generous, now I don't know what's going to happen in the future and of course one of the consequences of this change is that newly elected Members of Parliament, in their early years, even without any adjustment to their salaries, will be somewhat better off because they won't be making...
JONES:
The 11.5 per cent.
PRIME MINISTER:
... contribution after tax to their superannuation, a contribution which most of your listeners are probably not now aware is made under the present scheme...
JONES:
Correct, 11.5.
PRIME MINISTER:
... contribution indeed than many people imagine.
JONES:
Absolutely, we pay nothing as an ordinary employee but we get nine per cent from the employer, you get the percentage from the employer which some say, Mark Latham says is too generous but you pay 11.5 per cent.
PRIME MINISTER:
And after tax.
JONES:
After tax.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I paid that for most, under the scheme, for you know 18, 20 years...
JONES:
That's right, so you don't have that as disposable...
PRIME MINISTER:
... over a very long period of time. I'm just making the point that with this new scheme, new arrangement, when people are elected at the next Parliament they won't pay that and they will therefore have a larger take home pay even if there is absolutely no adjustment.
JONES:
I suppose I'm saying to you though if you take superannuation away from High Court and Federal Court Judges...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that is a different matter.
JONES:
And leave it in place at a state level, how do you recruit good people to the High Court?
PRIME MINISTER:
I feel very strongly that it was wrong of the Opposition Leader to bring judges into this issue, the best recruitment area for judges are high performers at the bar and the great Justices of Australian history like Dickson and Gleeson and Barwick have all been great performers at the bar, people who do very well, quite properly are well remunerated and then in their very active middle years accept appointment to the bench at a much lower salary than they were earning at the bar.
JONES:
But the reality is that judges have been drawn in haven't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no, judges haven't been drawn into our change.
JONES:
Well if Mark Latham wins they will be.
PRIME MINISTER:
I made it very clear that as far as I was concerned the whole question of judges had to be discussed co-operatively between the Commonwealth and the States and I have made no knee jerk reaction in relation to judges, I have not dragged the judges in, I have left them out of it because I think it was wrong of them to be included, I have an open mind as to whether there might be some changes to their system but if there are changes they have to be changes that apply with equal force to federal and state judges and they have to be changes that recognise the need to secure the top quality lawyers essentially from the bar to go on the bench and although the incomes go down they have the security of a pension.
JONES:
And if the pay is generous, I mean we thought all along, if it were, if it were generous it provides a disincentive to the chronic corruption that's been the bane of legislatures around the world.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well of course corruption, I mean one of the great bulwarks of Australian democracy has been the incorruptibility of our judiciary, I mean we have had a wonderful record in this country of judges being beyond corruption and part of the process is to keep the present system in place.
JONES:
Okay PM. The national competition policy website says that national competition policy is about delivering benefits to the Australian community and the reforms are designed it says to enable and encourage competition. It mentions the need for reform in big monopoly areas like gas, electricity, water and road transport. Where then is the public interest in say the dairy industry where because of national competition and deregulation 3,000 farmers are knocked out of business, the price for milk in capital cities now is 27 cents a litre higher than it was at deregulation. Farmers have been driven out of their jobs, the farm gate price now is 34 cents a litre, before deregulation it was 53 cents. And $1.8 billion of taxpayer money has been spent, allegedly compensating farmers but their losses are greater than the compensation. How the hell can that pass as public policy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan I'm not sure that the competition, I'm sorry the compensation outcome is quite as you've described, I would have to check those figures, because I do know that a lot of people have been paid or helped to leave the industry...
JONES:
Who's benefiting, who's benefiting, the people listening to you are paying 27 cents a litre more for their milk.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I understand that but the industry did need some major change, there did need to be a process whereby people were allowed to help to leave the industry. We have...
JONES:
Why do we want people leaving the industry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because many of them were going broke.
JONES:
Well that's their business if they want to go broke, if I want to go broke opening a jeweller shop I'd go broke.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but Alan it's quite hard as you know in many of these isolated rural communities for people to find if they've been involved in something like a dairy farm all of their lives, if they have to leave that because they can't make a go of it, some kind of assistance into another industry or another activity will reduce the impact and the loss of that, not only...
JONES:
And the government's picking winners, the government's picking winners.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think we're picking winners, I think we're recognising that in many of these isolated rural communities as a big industry goes it has an effect beyond the closure. I mean in the metropolitan area if a corner store closes it doesn't have an impact on the suburb, in a rural community if a whole industry goes it has an enormous...
JONES:
But see all this is done here, all that they've done here is that the consumer listening to you is pretty dirty that he's paying 27 cents a litre more for his milk and the farmer who's left behind, the poor coot that says I'll hang in there and make a fist of it, is getting 34 cents a litre when he was getting 53 and as a result of government policy someone in the middle is making a hell of a rip off.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know that somebody in the middle is making a hell of a rip off, I think, and if you're talking about competition policy you have to talk about the whole range of it, I mean ...
JONES:
Well let's talk about the range of it.
PRIME MINISTER:
... it's had a very beneficial effect on ...
JONES:
I know that, was it meant to apply to grog? Was it meant to apply to grog? We've got 4,500 outlets in New South Wales selling grog, now under competition policy we've got to be - allow it to be sold at milk bars and cafes.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no that is not correct because under the competition policy rules there is absolutely no reason why state governments can't prohibit places where it is sold.
JONES:
Haven't we got enough outlets when we've got 4,500 and Canberra is saying you have to have more.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no what Canberra is saying, or what the competition policy requires is that there be adequate competition so that the consumer benefits...
JONES:
Well 4,500 has got to be adequate hasn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's nothing to stop an individual state government placing a limit on the sort of outlets and other states have done it and there's absolutely no reason why, and my understanding is that the New South Wales Government has introduced some legislation which includes prohibitions on liquor being sold... milk bars, but requires in relation to other sites in the interests of reasonable competition that there be a proper assessment...
JONES:
So we think alcohol is socially damaging...
PRIME MINISTER:
I think abuse of alcohol is socially damaging but not it's moderate use.
JONES:
Well you take competition policy in Queensland in the optometry practice, we were told then more deregulation anyone could own optometry practices, including Nelson Rockefeller, some American or Asian, so OPSM bought up Budget Eyewear, Kay's Optical, Precision Eyewear, Ian Elcock Optometrists and Laubam & Pank, it's blindly obvious that competition has been reduced, then OPSM itself is bought out by Luxottica, which is an Italian multi-national, so not only is there concentrated ownership but the dough is going overseas. How the hell, is that the kind of country we want?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan you've chosen an industry, I must confess I don't know all the details of that...
JONES:
No, I don't expect you to.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't and I won't try and comment, but I have to say in defence of the policy that according to all of the economic investigations that have been made, and looking at the whole economy there have been a lot benefits which you acknowledge, the pricing of water, electricity prices, the productivity commission has estimated that Australia's GDP is about 2.5 per cent higher than it otherwise would have been as a consequence of competition policy. Now it stands to reason that you have to look at something like this over the whole economy, in some areas it won't work as well, in other areas it will work a lot better.
JONES:
I just don't believe we should be telling anybody, anybody, a Nelson Rockefeller somewhere that he can own all the dental practices.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I give you two bread and butter examples, one of them relates to interests rates for housing, one of the reasons, I mean the main reason is the good economic policies of the last few years, but one of the other reasons why we have lower interest rates is that we have more competition, 20 years ago you didn't have Wizard, you didn't have Aussie Home Loans, you didn't have any of these mortgage interveners who have actually provided greater competition to the banks. Twenty years ago the whole thing was run by the banks and that's one of the reasons why you have lower interest rates.
JONES:
I'm just saying though I don't think this is where competition policy belongs. Can I just ask you, because we're running out of time, and a quick one, you had comments in the Parliament yesterday about the leader of the Australian Muslims, there's genuine concern here when this bloke is meeting with Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, he's calling allegedly for a Jihad or a holy war, he says that Afghan Muslims were Australia's first non-Aboriginal settlers. Is the Government monitoring the speeches of this fellow and is the Government prepared to act when some of the language is so inflammatory as to represent a security risk to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan like any other citizen of this country he is obliged to obey the law and he's also entitled to the protection of the law and I'm going to, in an ad hoc way, speak as if we're singling anybody out, we're not, I was reacting to the reports of his statement and if those statements are true, and I've said to him that if they're not true than he should explain exactly what was said...
JONES:
So you've spoken to him?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I said publicly, no that wouldn't be appropriate.
JONES:
So you said publicly.
PRIME MINISTER:
I said publicly in the Parliament that I would unconditionally condemn those remarks if they were correctly reported, they are unacceptable. The question of whether they breach any law I have not sort any advice on that, obviously those...
JONES:
Have you asked for a copy of his speech and had it independently translated?
PRIME MINISTER:
... seeking clarification, I'm seeking further information of what was said but I mean it was reported and there's no place for that kind of stunt.
JONES:
And you can get a copy of the speech and have it independently translated?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can't be certain about that because the speech was made in another country, in a language other than English. We will endeavour to do so but I want to say, I mean I'm not out to get him, I'm just as Prime Minister I am reacting to something which on the face of it from somebody who is the titular leader of 300,000 people in this country is quite unacceptable.
JONES:
Okay, we're beaten for time, as we always are, but we'll talk again. Thank you for your time PM.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]