OAKES:
Mr Howard, welcome to Sunday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good to be here Laurie.
OAKES:
Before we get onto terrorism and politics, Ian Thorpe. Can we afford to throw away a certain Olympic gold medal? I mean, can't - shouldn't the rules be bent?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I guess just about every Australian feels that way. But the problem with bending the rules - I mean, the problem with prime ministers saying that rules should be bent is that they're really interfering in the conduct of sport. You have rules for everything, and this is no exception. I think it's a tragedy that arguably one of the greatest swimmers this country has produced is not going to be performing for his country in his prime event. But that ultimately is a matter for the swimming body. They have to take account of any retaliatory measures that might be meted out internationally. You never know. I've listened to a lot of the experts over the last 24 hours, and almost to a man and woman they've said, well, this is terrible, but the rules have to be obeyed. I respect the independence of the swimming association and the Olympic body. I'll bet they're trying to find, you know, an honourable way of handling what is atrocious bad luck and a real tragedy for the country.
OAKES:
But we can't expect a bit of quick legislation through Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no. I'll - I don't think that would be - I do respect their independence. Politics should as far as possible be kept out of sport, although that's a pipe dream that you ever do completely.
OAKES:
Okay. Well Mark Latham's troop withdrawal promise. Do you think this is now the defining issue of the forthcoming election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I am looking at this on its merits. I'll leave to the Australian public a judgement as to how it ultimately influences them. But as far as the issue itself is concerned he's made a huge mistake and I still ask him to change his position. He's sending the wrong signal to the terrorists in Iraq. He gives the impression that it is in some way, however much he may not intend this, that it is in some way a response to what happened in Madrid. Experts judge that it could make life more difficult for our own troops in Iraq. I think it is the wrong time to appear to be separating ourselves from the United States. I mean, you can be the most passionate opponent of our involvement in the Iraq war, you can be the greatest sceptic about the American alliance, but right at the moment, when the world is as tense and tender as I can remember about terrorism, we should be aligning ourselves strongly with countries like America and Britain, and our other friends and allies. Not giving the perception of being the first to break ranks. Because there's 35 countries got people in Iraq, and Mr Latham's position is more a cut-and-run position than that of any other country.
OAKES:
Is it possible, though, that he's picked the public mood? That this will be popular?
PRIME MINISTER:
Laurie, I don't know. It might be popular. But that doesn't make it right. And I have formed my view on this issue not on the basis of polling or any perception of what the public mood might be. I've no idea whether it's popular or unpopular, but I do know that it's wrong.
OAKES:
We've only got a very tiny contingent in Iraq. It's only 270 people, and I think 100 airmen who fly missions in there. That's not going to make much difference if they're pulled out.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, Laurie, well they're - they're doing very good work. And I read yesterday of our representative on the interim body, Mr Golidzenowski, and he was talking in very, very glowing terms of Australia's contribution. He spoke of the fact that Australians have been able to establish a link with the Iraqi people which is better than that of other countries. Now that may be the - you know, the pride of an Australian. And good on him for feeling that way. But the symbolism as well as the actuality of our presence is very important, and more so Laurie, the symbolism of cutting and running now would be very powerful, particularly given Australia's participation in the sharp end of the military operation.
OAKES:
But hasn't the Government already announced that the ADF traffic controllers are coming out in May or June?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, what we said in February was if the transition to the local was completed by then, then they'd come out. But it's conditional on the thing that I've said all along. You don't go until you've done the job. And doing the job there is training up the locals to run the airport. The mistake that Mr Latham's made is to set an arbitrary time for the withdrawal of all of the forces, irrespective of whether they've done the job. We don't intend to keep them there longer than is necessary to do the job. But you do the job. You're satisfied the job has been done. Then you pull them out. You don't pluck a date out of the air and say we're going to pull them out regardless.
OAKES:
But - but a third of our contingent could be out by May or June?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the air traffic controllers could be. Only if the transfer to locals has been completed.
OAKES:
All right. You talk about the impact of all this on the US alliance. Will that still apply if George Bush loses in November and we have President John Kerry?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it would, Laurie, because - perhaps with a different level of emphasis. But Kerry voted in favour of Iraq when it came before Congress. See, John Kerry as the leader of the opposition, if I can put it that way, in America, and Michael Howard, as the leader of the conservative opposition in Britain, have both taken the line that I'm taking. And Mr Latham's position is beyond that of the new Spanish socialist Prime Minister, who has said that he would leave the 1300 Spanish troops in Iraq if there was an extended UN mandate. So John Kerry was an Iraq supporter. And therefore he would in my view have the same view - I don't know, I haven't spoken to him, and I'm not planning to, but he can do what he likes, and we'll make our position clear, but I don't know that in substance the view of the alternative President of the United States would be different. Although obviously emotionally and - and personally, he's less directly involved in the American position than is George Bush.
OAKES:
Now, if Mark Latham's risking the American alliance, do you think his comments have complicated the ratification of the Free Trade Agreement by the US Congress?
PRIME MINISTER:
I hope not. I hope that gets through. I believe it will.
OAKES:
When you say you hope not, you think there's a risk there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I - well, because we're still trying to get it through Congress. There's a lot of opposition. And there's opposition from Congressmen and women on both sides. But I'm still optimistic, and the latest readout I had from our embassy was that it was going pretty well.
OAKES:
Well, Mark Latham says that you've put us here in Australia at increased risk of terrorist attack. Is the government planning any more action to deal with - with that threat?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're doing things - I mean, I don't - I don't accept that. But let's put that aside. I don't accept that proposition, but let us put that aside for a moment. What are we doing? Well, we will have by the end of this year we will have put ASIO in a situation where it has a greater capacity than it's had at any time since it was formed. Greater even than during the Cold War. We are recruiting more agents. I have said to the Director-General of ASIO that whatever ASIO believes it needs it can have. I've made that clear on a number of occasions and as recently as a few days ago. They are recruiting more agents. So that's what we're doing in relation to intelligence. But the strength of the intelligence services is really the greatest capacity you have in fighting terrorism. This is not a conventional war. This is not a war with armies rolling across borders. This is a war where you have to power up your intelligence agencies, and doing what we're doing with ASIO is a very important element. But I'm ...
OAKES:
Mr. Ruddock says you're considering new legislation ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah.
OAKES:
Have you made your decision?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, we have. And I'll be taking - or Mr. Ruddock will be taking to our party room next Tuesday for approval a number of changes to the anti-terrorism powers in the Crimes Act. One of them will be to increase to 24 hours the amount of time that somebody can be questioned for a terrorist offence. The initial period of four hours, with extension of another 20 hours, up to a maximum of 24. That is a doubling of the existing provision. And then on top of that we're going to strengthen the offences in relation to membership and training with a terrorist organisation. At the moment it's only an offence to be a member of a listed terrorist organisation. In future that will be extended to include not only a listed organisation but also an organisation that is in fact proved to be a terrorist organisation, even though it may not be listed. And then in addition the training offence is going to be introduced. If you train with an organisation which is a listed organisation then you can be liable for prosecution, although you can raise as a defence a reasonable belief that the organisation was not listed. We're also going to amend the foreign incursions legislation to make it an offence to train with an organisation such as the Taliban. We're also going to - we're also going to make it unlawful for people to make money out of selling their books and their memoirs on training with a terrorist organisation.
OAKES:
So that would be aimed at David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, among others?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the operation - I mean, that sort of situation - we're not - I mean, clearly it could apply to other people as well. I think most people would regard it as pretty offensive that somebody can be associated with a terrorist organisation which has killed people, including associates, may have killed our people in Bali, and then they go and write a book about it. I think that sticks in the craw of most Australians, and ...
OAKES:
What about - what about the proposal to hold some terrorist trials in secret, so you can retain confidential information?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're not - we don't have anything on the table about that just at the moment.
OAKES:
And I suppose the other thing is consorting with terrorists. Will that become an offence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what we're proposing to do is what I've outlined. I mean, obviously we don't say that's the end of it, but at the moment we don't have further proposals.
OAKES:
So you've stopped short of that at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, at the moment what we have is what I've explained.
OAKES:
Prime Minister, we'll take a break. Return in a moment.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Commercial break]
OAKES:
Welcome back. Our guest is Prime Minister John Howard. Mr Howard I don't think even you would deny the Government's in a lot of political trouble at the moment. Do you think you can spend your way out of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Laurie, we're behind at the moment. We won't waste money. But there's nothing wrong with spending money on things like additional ASIO officers, additional roads. A Medicare safety net. Additional education spending. If you look back at the things that we have been criticised in general by the Labor Party for spending money on, they're all thoroughly worthwhile, and in most of those areas the Labor Party has promised to spend even more. Now, our record on balancing the budget and getting rid of Labor's debt is probably the strongest argument that we have for re-election at the end of the year, but I think - I've got a fight on my hands. I've recognised that for some time. And ultimately the Australian public will make a judgement as to whether they think a Howard Government is better able to look after our national security and to build our economy and keep it strong than a Latham government. It's something that the Australian public will have to make a choice on.
OAKES:
Well big spending announcements over just the last two months have eaten up, I think, a quarter of the proposed surplus for next year. I mean, is the surplus dispensable in the interests of being re-elected?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we won't be going into deficit.
OAKES:
You won't.
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
OAKES:
And can we expect more big announcements in the areas of health and education?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we've done an enormous amount in health. With the help of the Demo - I'm sorry, of the independents, and Meg Lees in particular, we were able to get the Medicare Plus package through the Senate, and also with the help of the same people we were able to get the education package through. No help from Labor - from Labor on either score. We've done quite a lot there. But there are one or two areas where there is justified further resources needed. I mean aged care is one such area. Now is the Labor Party saying we don't need to spend a bit more on aged care? I mean, is that what they're saying? They can't have it both ways. They can't - for two or three years call for more money and then, when the necessary money is made available, as a result of recommendations from an inquiry by an eminent person, they turn around and say oh, this is outrageous. They're spending money. I mean, you can't - that kind of hypocrisy won't wash with the Australian public.
OAKES:
What about income tax cuts? Are they still a priority on top of this other spending?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've always said and Peter Costello has always said that you - you keep the budget in balance so we don't go back into debt. You spend what is necessary on social and important other infrastructure. And then, if you have something left over, you return it to the people whose money it is, after all, and that's the Australian taxpayer. So that is the priority that we've always brought, and that's the priority we'll give to the budget in May. I can't give guarantees about these things. All I can say is...
OAKES:
Well let me ask you - let me ask you ...
PRIME MINISTER:
That's the ... priority.
OAKES:
... for one guarantee. I asked Mark Latham this question. Can you rule out, in the next term, increasing any taxes or imposing any new taxes?
PRIME MINISTER:
I certainly can, yes.
OAKES:
You said you promised not to increase any taxes before the last election, as I recall, and I think 36 taxes either went up or ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean I'd like to see that list. But I thought we cut income tax in the last budget. I thought last Friday the state treasurers ...
OAKES:
We've had all sorts of things like the Ansett levy, for example. New taxes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well - well the Ansett levy is not in the same category as an income tax ...
OAKES:
But ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, I'm not - hang on. I'm not saying that we're going to have those, but I'm simply making the point that that was for a particular purpose and it terminated.
OAKES:
Well, after your first election, when you also promised no new taxes, one of the first things you did was introduce a surcharge on super. That was a new tax.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well ...
OAKES:
So why would people believe you now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, well Laurie, people will make a judgement about that. But you asked me a question and I've given you an answer.
OAKES:
Okay. Well, can you promise that no pensions or benefits will be cut in your next term, if you win the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
We would not - not cut the level of any pension or benefit. That doesn't mean to say that you mightn't argue, which we'll continue to argue, that some people who now get the Disability Support Pension should have their eligibility for that pension reassessed. So I certainly would put that caveat.
OAKES:
Well, tell me - tell me ...
PRIME MINISTER:
But the actual ...
OAKES:
... about the working-age payment that the Government's considering.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry?
OAKES:
The Government's considering a working-age payment.
PRIME MINISTER:
Mm.
OAKES:
How would that work?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we don't have any advanced proposal on that. And until we're in a position, if we are to go ahead with something like that, I'm not going to speculate about it.
OAKES:
Well you say it's not an advanced proposal, but there's a leaked letter to you dated November, from Community Services Minister Kay Patterson. Indulge me and let me read out an excerpt.
PRIME MINISTER:
Please.
OAKES:
She says to you, "there's ultimately a limit in managing programme growth through compliance, therefore reprioritising must involve structural reform of payment arrangements for the 2.75 million working age Australians that receive income support payments." She goes on, "I consider that this reform can only be productively addressed through a carefully managed process that will be the subject of my joint submission with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on a working-age payment." So there's - the proposal's there.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but Laurie, we - and is self-evident from that letter you've read - we haven't made any decision on anything like that. And I can assure your - and I can assure your viewers that in the process of making decisions in areas generally covered by that we're not going to cut any pensions or benefits.
OAKES:
But by definition if this is to save money, doesn't it mean that single parent pensioners and disability pensioners under 65 will go onto this new payment, which presumably will be lower?
PRIME MINISTER:
Laurie, Laurie, I can only repeat the commitment, and I can only make the observation, that we haven't made any such decision. But we are unapologetically looking at ways of improving and strengthening the welfare system. We've never walked away from welfare reform. But you can have welfare reform which doesn't involve cutting the level of necessary pensions and benefits.
OAKES:
Okay, now look I know you won't talk about retirement plans. I won't waste a question. But let me ask this: will the promises that you make in this election campaign be binding on your successor if you - if you do step aside in the next term...
PRIME MINISTER:
Hypothetical question, Laurie. But I'll answer it this way - I'll answer the question this way - I will make commitments at the next election on behalf of an incoming coalition government and those commitments will obviously be effective for the whole term.
OAKES:
So Peter Costello ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm - I'm not getting into that. I've said - I'm simply making the - it is axiomatic that if you lead a party to an election you make campaign commitments for the duration of that term on behalf of that coalition.
OAKES:
And Peter Costello accepts that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've never discussed it with him. Why would I?
OAKES:
Well, Mark Latham is playing Robin Hood on education policy. He's promising to take money away from very wealthy private schools such as The King's School ...
PRIME MINISTER:
He hasn't actually named them, though, has he?
OAKES:
Well, he's certainly named The King's School.
PRIME MINISTER:
That - The King's - poor old King's School has sort of become the emblem - the emblematic example, if you like. But he doesn't list all the other schools.
OAKES:
But it's not a bad emblematic example. I mean ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, well ...
OAKES:
... you gave to The King's School $2.85 million last year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, yeah, but Laurie, once you start down this track of saying that certain schools are either entitled to no Government support at all or their parents, where does it end? It might be The King's and a couple of other schools one year. Then it will go further down to schools that are not regarded, certainly by the parents who work hard to send their kids there ...
OAKES:
But isn't it a question of do the richest people in Australia need the biggest Government grant?
PRIME MINISTER:
They're not necessarily ...
OAKES:
Let ...
PRIME MINISTER:
... the richest people in Australia.
OAKES:
Well, what Mark Latham says is this: he says that he wants to re-allocate the money to more needy schools. He says that King's School got a 280 per cent funding increase while the William Carey Christian School, I think it's in his electorate, got a 66 per cent increase. Now where's the equity in that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Laurie, there is equity in recognising that when parents decide to send their children to independent schools they take a load off the general taxpayer. Our view is that everybody who sends their child to an independent school should get a minimum amount of Federal Government support. Then as to whether they get more support, that should be determined according to the need of the parents and the school. And that is our approach. And the problem with Mr Latham's approach is that he'll try and knock off some of the - you know, the tall poppies, as he sees them. But in the process he could go much further, and you'll find a lot of schools that can't by any measure be regarded as wealthy, who'll start to lose their funding. Once you start playing with a formula that recognises the essential equity that a person who sends their child to an independent school is taking a load off the taxpayer, once you start down that path there is no end, and every parent of a child at an independent school should feel under threat.
OAKES:
Prime Minister, we had local government elections yesterday. Labor was routed in the election for control of Sydney Town Hall. The Liberals had a rare win in Queensland. Your candidate was elected Mayor in Brisbane. Do you see any message in those votes?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think there are any Federal implications. I think in Sydney Clover Moore's election was just a deserved rebuke to the Labor Party under Bob Carr rorting the amalgamation of South Sydney and Sydney City Council. I mean, they got everything they deserved in doing that. I congratulate Campbell Newman for winning in Brisbane. I don't draw any Federal implications from that, and he'll have a Labor dominated council to deal with. I think he was just a very attractive candidate, and of course the Brisbane City Council's stronger than any other city council ...
OAKES:
It's a bigger budget than Tasmania, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, much bigger. Runs transport. So it's really a mini-state. It's a different deal altogether, and it'll make for an interesting bit of chemistry between him and Peter Beattie. And I'm sure they'll end up getting on quite well. But good on you Campbell, I think it was a very good result.
OAKES:
It's been a long time between drinks for the Liberals in Queensland.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thirty years, Laurie.
OAKES:
A final question. President Bush told some jokes at a social function last week about making - making fun of his search for weapons of mass destruction. Do you consider that in bad taste? Were you offended?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I wouldn't have told those jokes.
OAKES:
Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I wouldn't have.
OAKES:
You didn't think they were funny?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Laurie, every - every - every country has its own style. But, you know, I'm an extremely cautious person about those things.
OAKES:
Prime Minister we thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]