JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, good morning and welcome to Brisbane.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello John.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard.
JOURNALIST:
First question - let's deal with the really big issue first of all, will you big visiting the Big Brother house?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I won't. I'm not criticising Mr Latham for doing so, but everybody has their own way of campaigning but I won't be no.
JOURNALIST:
Well, Mr Latham was down there yesterday and, of course, it's not the only big house he's keen to get inside.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I understand that, it's competitive, that's what it's all about and it's my responsibility for the welfare of the Australian people to keep him out. I notice he's adopting Gough Whitlam's "It's Time" slogan...
JOURNALIST:
Ah, we can update you on that. According to a piece which has just appeared on the web this morning, 'Labor leader Mark Latham - I'll just read this out - today ruled out using Gough Whitlam's slogan "It's Time" for the election campaign and says its use was limited to a fundraiser.'
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, yes, anyway, look...
JOURNALIST:
So, apparently he doesn't think it's quite time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not only isn't it time but many people remember Gough Whitlam as a less than successful Prime Minister of Australia, many people associate him with permanent changes for the worse in this country rather than permanent changes for the better. And I think the fact that even momentarily, Mr Latham should reach back for the slogan of another person shows a marked lack of originality.
JOURNALIST:
You must be buoyed though by recent polls that show Mr Latham's approval rating has dropped from a high at one stage at 66 per cent to a now underneath your's, around the 50 or high 40s to your 53.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, on the two party preferred polling we're still behind. These last two polls have been interesting but it's a very hard slog. We don't have a big majority. If we lose eight seats we're history. I'm working on the assumption that we're behind and I believe we still are. But people are starting to raise doubts about Mr Latham, I thought that exercise in saying 'it's society stupid', to paraphrase The Australian's headline, I thought that was a sign that he doesn't want to talk about economic management because he knows he's vulnerable. Now, I'm very happy to talk about social issues. But I want to make the point that the two are linked: happiness in the family and stability in the family has a lot often to do with whether mum and dad have a job and if they don't have a job then the family has a hard time and they're focused very much on the challenges of that. So having a strong economy, which has produced the lowest unemployment rate in decades and great prosperity and expanding opportunities, that has a great social dividend. I never see a good economy as an end in itself; I see a good economy as a means of delivering higher living standards and giving young people opportunities. And when I list the economic achievements of this Government I see it in human terms. I mean, low unemployment, job growth rates, more apprentices, all of those things, they are the human dividend of good economic policy. So this idea that you can somehow or other talk about society in a vacuum misunderstands the linkages between a strong economy and good social outcomes.
JOURNALIST:
Well, (inaudible) saying though, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Do you believe there is a growing divide between the have and have nots in this country?
PRIME MINISTER:
What is happening is that the rich are getting richer but the poor are also getting a little richer - that's what's happened. There has been a big... there has been a change at the top, more people, partly because of the wealth effect of rising property price and value, the fact that you have an increasing number of families where you have two high income earners and all of those and the benefits of a booming economy do mean that a growing number of people are getting quite good incomes. But at the bottom end, there has been a significant increase in the benefits. I mean, the increase since we came to power in family benefits and family payments has been enormous. And people at the bottom end are better off than they were. We have a stronger safety net now than we used to have. So it is true to use the vernacular, the rich are getting richer, but the poor are not getting poorer. In most cases, they are a little better off. I'm not saying it's good to be at the bottom - don't misunderstand me - it's not and I'm always very well aware of that fact that it's not right to say that they're going further down, that's not right.
JOURNALIST:
In a place like Sydney, though, Mr Howard, it's virtually impossible for young marrieds to even purchase a house now without their mum and dad and getting involved (inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
There was always an element of that. Mum and dad were always coming to the rescue and in many ways mum and dad are better able to do that now because they're better off. But, look, I don't deny that the affordability of the first home is more difficult and more challenging for a lot of people. This, in a sense, is a product of our affluence. Low interest rates mean that people borrow more to either buy a better house or add to their existing house. I mean, you know from your own friends and your own experience, that's exactly what happens and I haven't met anybody yet who's stopped me in the street and shaken their fist and said - Howard I'm angry with you, my house has got more valuable.
JOURNALIST:
Yeah, I mean, speaking as one whose stepfather lent him the deposit for his first house and the (inaudible) was about $3,000 I think back then. But you know how long ago... seven years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, there you are.
JOURNALIST:
You can see what Mr Latham is doing, though, by going to places like the Big Brother house and it's called by some diversionary tactics avoiding the big issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not... let me say this Ross, I'm not criticising it. I'm not. I mean, he's entitled to conduct his campaign in whatever manner he sees fit. I was just answering the question...
JOURNALIST:
Sure.
PRIME MINISTER:
.... (inaudible) .. am I going? I'd just say no.
JOURNALIST:
No, I guess the point I'm making is that whilst you appear to have the votes sown up in the 55 plusses, he's certainly canvassing the youth vote and probably, I would think the blue collar vote. He's gone to the Big Brother house because he sees 300 people in jobs down there and he thinks it's a good place to visit. I suppose where I'm headed is, he seems to be getting in touch with the grassroots voters, are you in danger of seeming a bit aloof with the population out there?
PRIME MINISTER:
I meet grassroots voters everyday, they are found in every age cohort and I don't take anybody for granted, I certainly don't take the over 55s for granted and I certainly don't accept for a moment that he's got the under 25s sown up. Indeed, I've seen research suggesting that the under 25s, many of them are more attracted to some of our policies, not Labor policies I think this assumption that everybody under 25 is automatically attracted to the pseudo radicalism of the Labor Party is not necessarily right. Look I just have my way of interacting with the Australian public, I was in Darwin at the beginning at the week and spent almost an hour wandering through a shopping mall, I think I met more people from Melbourne and Perth than I did from Darwin because most of them were on holidays there. And I'm going out to a gathering today and I'll be talking to 700-800 people coming to it and I spend an enormous amount of time just meeting a cross section of the public. But as I say I'm not criticising him, he had a perfect right to relate to the Australian people in whatever way he thinks fit.
JOURNALIST:
Okay. Mark Latham, now once again, when will you or do you already think that you have his measure?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look I would never make claims like that. Whether I've got his measure or not is a matter for your listeners to decide and for you to decide on, and the cameramen in this studio to decide, but it's not for me. The Australian public will decide that, I'll work as hard as I can; I believe that people see a very good track record in this government. I notice in one of the polls this morning on the attribute things, according to the Australian newspaper, 31 per cent of Labor voters thought that we were better at managing the economy than Mr Latham. Now these are very interesting figures, and you're not dealing here with Coalition voters, I mean I think 90 per cent of Coalition voters thought we were, but what I thought was very interesting that almost a third of people who say they're going to vote Labor admit that we're better at managing the economy. Now I'm flattered by that and I thank them for that but I think it's a sign that we do have a good track record. Now that's not enough, we have to persuade the Australian public that we have enough views about the future as well. But whether we have or not and whether I've got his match or not is not something I would ever claim, I will leave that to your listeners to decide.
JOURNALIST:
Yesterday on the programme Mark Latham shrugged off the claims of his, well the claims of his lack of I should say economic management when he was the Mayor of Liverpool.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I think this is an issue, you're dealing here with a public office and he had made statements in Parliament and then there was more material that's come to light, now obviously we have a perfect right to look at that and to see whether the two things match up. You're not talking here about anything personal or private, you're talking here about his public office and I've been in public life for 30 years and people will go back and look at my performance in any ministry I held, they're entitled to do that, and I have to answer those questions and if I've made mistakes or I've had failings, and I'm sure I've made mistakes, everybody does, then I'm accountable for them. But there's nothing wrong about having a look at his performance, because after all if you can't run the council you can't run the country.
JOURNALIST:
Centrelink are sending out letters to pensioners, that's a bit crook, some people are very, very annoyed about that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John I sought some information on this, I understand that the great bulk, not all of them, are people who have previously been on unemployment benefits and may have got a job, in which event I don't think anybody would argue they should continue to get a concession card. And other people who may have been on particular benefits. There are some pensioners, but we have a system where you are entitled to a concession card if your income and assets are below a certain level and when they go above that level then you're not entitled to it. Now unless we are going to embrace a policy of having a completely non means tested social welfare system it's only reasonable that this happen. And I notice incidentally that the Labor Party is not really saying we should get rid of the assets test and the means test, they're not really saying that, they're just grabbing hold of a headline and being rather opportunistic about it. Now there's no, quote, crack down, we're not introducing a new policy, all we're doing, well Centrelink is doing in an administrative way, is making sure that the people who are entitled to these cards keep them and those who are not don't.
JOURNALIST:
Okay Mr Howard, let's move on. In your opinion have the Philippines bowed to terrorism and before we ask you to answer that let's have a listen to what Philippines President Gloria Arroyo had to say.
PRESIDENT ARROYO:
I made a decision to bring our troops home a few days early in order to spare the life of Angelo. I do not regret the decision.
JOURNALIST:
There you go.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Ross, I feel for the President in the very difficult position she faced, but you asked me the question, I won't avoid it in saying yes I do believe that it's a mistake. I don't believe that you can negotiate with terrorists, I don't believe in the long run it is going to buy the Philippines any greater immunity from future terrorist attacks. The record of al-Qaeda and other organisations is that they hold weakness in contempt, that if people make concessions, in the medium to longer term they will still pursue those people and they will see them as a softer and more vulnerable target. Now it's an awful dilemma that she just faced, I thought in the past and I think now, continue to think, it's a dilemma I may face, I hope and pray I don't but I may. I am of the view that you can't give into terrorists, they win, you won't buy immunity, you won't buy privilege or sanction. So I understand her dilemma, I don't agree with her decision, naturally I am happy that the man has been released but the price that's been paid for this is a very high price and it just is a reminder of the great struggle we have and what I say might not be popular, but I do not believe that you can bargain and parlay and deal and give into terrorists.
JOURNALIST:
... give a little ground in that here is a man's life has been saved...
PRIME MINISTER:
I said I am happy for him and his family, it must have been an unimaginable period of anguish for them and I would not want any family anywhere in the world to be put in that position. But if you are in a position such as the one I'm in now and the one the President is in, you have to take into account the broader impact. Now won't this help these terrorists? Won't this encourage them?
JOURNALIST:
Well I think it would...
PRIME MINISTER:
Won't it embolden them to kidnap more people?
JOURNALIST:
Having had a victory...
PRIME MINISTER:
And bear in mind that other countries like Japan didn't give in.
JOURNALIST:
Okay, let's look at our preparedness then in the current world climate, yesterday you announced new arrangements for a maritime security package, I've had criticism of that overnight to me with people saying look we get something like 3,500 ships into Australian ports each year, most of them are foreign owned and registered under flags of convenience and the claim is that all too often we've got no idea really where they've come from as an original port of destination of where they might have been on the way. The screening of cargo once the ship is in the port might be shutting the barn door before the horse, well after the horse I should say has bolted.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can understand that argument, but it's a balance between security, precaution, practicality and common sense. 74 per cent of Australia's imports and exports go and come by sea and you can't examine everything any more than you can search everybody who gets off an aircraft. Not everybody who gets off an aircraft is thoroughly searched, most people who are caught either bringing in something that's illegal or bringing in a weapon or being a potential terrorist, they're caught as a result of intelligence of information and of risk assessment and no country can possibly search every single thing. Now I understand why people might say that to you and I understand why they say it but if we created a situation where, even if we could do it, we had people posted in every port from which a ship bound for Australia left and we searched every person who went on board, I mean it's just impractical and you just have to try and settle on a point that's midway between practicality and security.
JOURNALIST:
Since we're on the waterfront, Don McGauchie's appointment to the Telstra board, your political opponents would say that's a payback for his support during the waterfront dispute.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they would be wrong. It is true that Don McGauchie played an heroic role during that historic dispute and he was on the right side. But Don McGauchie's appointment as the chairman of Telstra was a decision of the board of Telstra...
JOURNALIST:
Yes, but who appoints the board?
PRIME MINISTER:
The shareholders.
JOURNALIST:
And who's the major shareholder?
PRIME MINISTER:
We're the major shareholder, of course we're the major shareholder, but that doesn't mean that we nominated him, I can tell you he was chosen and nominated by the board, I know that, I'm in a position to know it because it's an issue I discussed with the board, or most of the members of the board, and I can assure your listeners that the decision to appoint Mr McGauchie was taken by the Telstra board, we did not raise any objection, now that Mr McGauchie is the chairman he will have the full support and co-operation of the Government, it's a very important post, he is a respected figure, particularly but not only in country Australia and that is a very good thing, I got to know Don McGauchie very well when he led the National Farmers Federation and I found him a good bloke and a straight shooter. He'll do a very good job and he'll have my good will and co-operation. But I stress, he was the board's choice.
JOURNALIST:
I guess the question is Mr Howard, will he facilitate the push to sell the other half of Telstra?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think that will be his major priority, his major priority will be to make sure that Telstra performs well as a company and delivers value to the Australian community and to its shareholders. He is aware of Government policy, it's Government policy to sell our remaining 50.5 per cent interest, it's not the policy of Telstra, it's Government policy. He won't be in any way antagonist to that policy, he supports that policy, I know that, but his job is to chair the company with its present ownership and to do that effectively and I'm sure he will.
JOURNALIST:
Now given he is from the bush, he is from Victoria, he's been criticised in the past for not being in touch, too much in touch with the real regional Australia, if you know what I mean?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm surprised to hear that John. He's been chairman of Telstra CountryWide which is the rural section, if I can put it that way, the bush section of Telstra. Everybody says he's done a very good job of that. I am surprised to hear that criticism. I really am.
JOURNALIST:
Well, really yeah. Some on indeed as come from Mr Bob Katter who worked with him closely when he was President of the National Farmers' Federation. Katter says he didn't do a good job.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't agree with Bob on that. I often agree with Bob. I often disagree with him but I don't agree with him on that. Most people found McGauchie a very good leader of the National Farmers' Federation and as I say, he was heroic figure in that historic waterfront dispute and I remember very warmly the strongly stand he took.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Katter did say you were a good bloke, but you'd got this one wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're in furious partial agreement.
JOURNALIST:
We are talking about the bloke who threw eggs at the Beatles by the way?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Okay. Drugs in sport, what are your reports on the current situation with the Australian cycling team, the fact that we have a cloud another athlete, we don't know who that is at that moment - how do you think our customs officials have performed in terms of them sending some correspondence to a cyclist, there's no signs of that correspondence or any records there of any more, it's all a bit cloudy isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Ross, I don't want to comment on something that may have just broken and is the subject of investigation. I can only say that I accept the decision of the court of arbitration in sport, sport's arbitration - whatever it is precisely called - in relation to the cyclist, I have to accept that and I do. My hunch is that Australia is rather freer of drug taking in sports than most other countries - that is my hunch. Now maybe that's just me as Australian Prime Minister wanting to think the best, but that is my genuine belief. I think there are in all sports, in all countries some people who cut corners and break the rules. Of course there are and it's unrealistic to think that it wouldn't come to Australia. But by and large I think our sports people are pretty free of it and I think our administrators try very hard to keep it that way.
JOURNALIST:
Okay I'm going to do it just before we go. One more time! Look, I understand research is being done, polling that's normally done once a month is now being once every two weeks. Ads have been made, literature has been published, the decks are cleared, we're ready to go and it's now a day by day decision for you as to when we go to an election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I never talk at all about internal or private polling.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) I've got to get this out...
PRIME MINISTER:
..either as to the content of the it or the regulatory of it. John, nothing has changed - there'll be an election sometime between now and the end of the year. I can't really do more than that and I have not made up my mind when - I promise you that, I haven't.
JOURNALIST: Okay. Would the result of US poll have any influence on your thinking?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there is an overemphasis on the link between the two, I really do. I think there is an overemphasis. I don't think the result of the American election would have much of a bearing here and incidentally I don't think comments made by American political figures have much of an influence either.
JOURNALIST:
Alright, Prime Minister, we're going to have to leave it there. Time has gotten away from us but thank you very much for coming in. We look forward to your company the next time your in town.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]