MITCHELL:
In the studio with me, in fact he's been in Melbourne for several days this week, the Prime Minister. Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, bird flu. Now we've had several birds destroyed here in Melbourne. We have claims Indonesia has covered up an epidemic amongst birds. How serious is the risk to this country?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is a risk, but we shouldn't panic. In relation to the three birds, they, and some others, have been destroyed and the other birds are being sent back to Canada. For the time being we have banned imports of birds from Canada and Mr McGauran, the Minister for Agriculture, will raise this matter with the Canadian High Commissioner. Now that's just a short term immediate response measure. I'm not suggesting that's going to be long term. It will depend on those inquiries.
Those Indonesian claims, which is the second issue you mentioned, I didn't know about them until I read the Age this morning. I will find out more about it. I don't know how much veracity the claims have, they've been denied by the Indonesian Government and sometimes with these controversial issues you do get argument and debate between individuals and governments, so I've got to try and get more information about that.
MITCHELL:
This is one of the concerns with bird flu though isn't it? That there may be countries that are covering up what's happening.
PRIME MINISTER:
There is, in theory at the very least, a possibility of that because if there is a suspicion that there is bird flu, or anything which represents a public health hazard that can have an impact on an industry, and sometimes that does happen, I'm not saying it's happened in this case, I don't want to be unfair to the Indonesians, but it is a real possibility.
MITCHELL:
The Canadians seem to have let us down, they approved these animals...
PRIME MINISTER:
They did approve them and I would like to know why, and that's why Mr McGauran has done what he's done and he's quite right.
MITCHELL:
Tony Abbott has told me this could cost tens of thousands of lives in Australia if it mutates, is he right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if it caught hold it could. But we do have a very good public health capacity in this country, we are very good at dealing with public health challenges and we are working with CSL on a vaccination, we have stored a lot of antivirals. So we are preparing, as indeed other countries are preparing, and we don't want to get too alarmed, we just have to make all the preparations we should and take all the precautions we can.
MITCHELL:
The Health Minister has been very alarming in what he said.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Tony has a sometimes a colourful turn of phrase, everybody expresses these things differently. But he is very into it. We had an extensive briefing from Tony, the Chief Medical Officer, John Horvath, and the head of the Department of Health in Cabinet a couple of weeks ago and he has certainly immersed himself in it and he feels a particular responsibility as Health Minister to try and understand the medical side of it - which like all of these things can be a little bit difficult and confronting.
MITCHELL:
But you're not suggesting he's overreacting?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not...
MITCHELL:
Your attitude is certainly a little different to his.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well everybody has their own way of expressing these things. I'm not suggesting Tony is overreacting. He is very intent on reassuring the public, as he should, that we are doing all the things we can and he's also though pointing out that if something like this does take hold it can be very deadly.
MITCHELL:
How much antiviral is stockpiled?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't give you the precise figure, but I think... look I'd be hazarding a guess, but quite a lot.
MITCHELL:
There is done, or very little, available to the public at the moment. That's causing concern.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well that's something that we'll continue to try and remedy.
MITCHELL:
Why is it stockpiled?
PRIME MINISTER:
Why? Well in the event that if there is a significant increase in the risk you have a capacity to respond and if you don't have some reserves and some stockpiles you are rightly criticised for not preparing.
MITCHELL:
Is there a specific stockpile for the politicians, the people leading...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not aware of it, I am not somebody who sort of... I haven't myself made any special arrangements, I haven't.
MITCHELL:
I assume somebody would have done that for you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know, it's not... look to be perfectly truthful I take the view generally with these things that everybody should be entitled to an equal level of protection.
MITCHELL:
Are you worried about workers in the industry; I know the unions are saying they're concerned about people in the poultry industry or industries that are working with birds. They'd be feeling particularly nervous at the moment.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they would be. If there are any particular things that unions representing them believe the Government should be doing, that we haven't done, I'd be interested to hear and interested, well Mr Abbott I know would be interested to hear and be interested to talk to them. Once again it's a question of being proportionate and sensible and balanced. We can't panic with these things and the essence of this country's capacity to handle a big public health challenge is not to panic.
MITCHELL:
Qantas is looking at taking 3300 jobs offshore. Will you try and talk them out of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hope they don't take decisions which transfer, needlessly, Australian jobs. Now you can't stop a company, as part of its commercial arrangements, doing something that might mean there are fewer jobs in Australia. I mean it happens all the time; there are sometimes companies elsewhere who take decisions that mean there are more jobs in Australia, and in a globalised world we have to accept that. I would expect that Qantas will only do something like this if it is absolutely necessary. I understand that there's no decision been taken, but that would be my view.
MITCHELL:
The shoot to kill laws, the so-called shoot to kill laws, I've read a lot about what people don't want to happen but under what circumstances, under your laws, under what circumstances would officers be authorised to shoot to kill?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well officers have always had a right of common law in self-defence or in defence of other people to use lethal force, they've always had it. And what happened some years ago was that the circumstances in which that could happen, the precise circumstances, were codified and actually put into the Crimes Act for most of the states, certainly in Victoria, and also into the Commonwealth Crimes Act. And what we are trying to do, or what we've suggested happen, is that those same codes or that same codification be put into this law in relation to any events that might arise from people being taken into custody who are subject to a preventive detention order.
MITCHELL:
So why is it necessary? If it already exists why is it necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the reason we want to define it is to remove any doubts as to the precise way in which the police can behave. It's not actually, in many respects it's not the extension, rather some would argue it's a limitation. I mean what we would argue is that if it's good enough for the Crimes Act in Victoria or the Commonwealth Crimes Act to precisely define the circumstances in which force can be used in certain situations, why shouldn't it be precisely defined in relation to this situation because if somebody is subject to a preventive detention order, and it stands to reason that that person, if he resists being taken into custody, the police should be able to use reasonable force in order to take him into custody, otherwise it would make a complete nonsense of the preventive detention order. You could get a preventive detention order and a person could sit in this kitchen and say well I'm not going. And if the police don't have any authority at all, then that person could not be made subject to the preventive detention order and you'd have a complete stalemate. Now...
MITCHELL:
But a person refusing to leave his kitchen. That's not reason to shoot him dead is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but the law doesn't authorise that. Actually the use of the expression shoot to kill is a complete misnomer. There is no way in which this law, indeed any law at the present time authorises somebody, or the police to shoot somebody simply because that person is fleeing. You can't do that.
MITCHELL:
So under what circumstances, under your changes, what circumstances would a person be able to shoot to kill?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in broad lay terms, to protect yourself, your own life, or very serious bodily injury, or the life or serious bodily injury to another person. And we're seeking to define more precisely the circumstances in which that may occur. Now look, this is not something that goes to the core of these measures, but our argument is that by defining the circumstances in which force can be used and the limitations on the use of that force, we are removing doubt for police in the same way that the States and the Commonwealth have thought it necessary to do the same in relation to other circumstances. We're not introducing something that's new. It's very easy for those who are opposed to this legislation. And I'm not talking here about the State Premiers because they're in support of it. But others to say "oh this is shock horror, shoot to kill, terrible." I mean shoot to kill is a dramatic expression but it's a complete misnomer for this situation.
MITCHELL:
But the State Premiers aren't in support of this part....
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no.
MITCHELL:
Did you not discuss this?
PRIME MINISTER:
No because it was something that we regarded as completely incidental to the implementation of the agreement. I wasn't holding anything back. If I had thought that it was necessary to raise it, I would have. When we've made amendments to the ASIO legislation for questioning for example, we have introduced these provisions and they have not, to my knowledge, been opposed by the Federal Opposition on those occasions back in 2003. So it really is not introducing something completely new. It's not going to the core of this legislation and I'm sure that in further discussion with the Premiers which I intend to have, we can reach some compromise or understanding about it. But the legislation in my view will go through in the substance of what was agreed at the Premiers' Conference.
MITCHELL:
Another security issue. Two men arrested in a secure area at Sydney Airport. Have you had a report on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven't. I know nothing more than what's been on the radio.
MITCHELL:
And I suppose it was in a similar area. Hicks the man being held by the Americans. It's reported now that if he's found guilty, the four years he's served won't be discounted from his sentence. Is that fair?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well once again, that would be a matter for the tribunal and it would be subject to representations - it would be better for his lawyers to make at the time. Once again that is a report I have no way of knowing whether there is any substance to it.
MITCHELL:
Would that not be an area for the Australian Government to be involved?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it could be. I'd like to get some more information before I commit myself.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a break, come back with more from the Prime Minister including calls. 9696 1278 if you'd like to speak to the Prime Minister.
[Commercial break]
MITCHELL:
Fourteen to nine. The Prime Minister is with me. Prime Minister Saddam Hussein's trial has begun. If he's found guilty, should he be executed?
PRIME MINISTER:
If the law of Iraq authorises that - yes.
MITCHELL:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because it's the law of that country and the law should apply equally to everybody. We don't believe in capital punishment in Australia. But that doesn't mean that we conduct a campaign around the world in every case to stop it occurring. My view is that the laws of that country should apply to all its citizens in the same way that the laws of this country should apply to our citizens. I take the view in relation to capital punishment that I will always argue against its introduction in Australia, always. And I will always argue that if an Australian has received the death penalty anywhere in the world, I will make representations to the Government of the country in which the penalty's been handed out that it not be implemented. Beyond that, I don't see it as the role of Australia to run around expending an enormous amount of energy in relation to the death penalty, particularly in the case you're talking about which is a somewhat egregious one to say the least.
MITCHELL:
Does that apply as well to the bringing forward of the execution of the first Bali Bombers? Because the Indonesians are considering bringing that forward.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I'm not going to oppose that.
MITCHELL:
Same reason?
PRIME MINISTER:
Same reason.
MITCHELL:
Hello Edward. Go ahead please Edward.
CALLER:
Yes, good morning Mr Prime Minister and Neil. Mr. Prime Minister, I'd like to just bring your attention to the impact that the tariff on Chinese furniture. I'm an upholsterer, been in business for sixteen years. I work for myself. I used that have four people working for me. I had to lay them off because of the industry. I know of a (inaudible) who makes (inaudible) to last twenty years in Dandenong. At Christmas time he's closing his doors because none of us can compete with the $1500 fully imported leather lounge room suites. If we buy Australian leather, and our leather for one lounge room suite works out at $1500 alone for the leather and we are buying Australian leather. This Chinese stuff's not up to our standards and we wonder why it's allowed in the country.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's allowed into the country, and I don't pretend to know all the circumstances of it, it's allowed into the country unless it's being imported as a result of some clearly established dumping activity. I mean dumping duties might be imposed but there's a very heavy burden in order to establish that. It's allowed into the country because we have to, and quite properly do allow, Chinese companies to sell goods to this country because we sell a lot of goods and a lot of resources to China. We can't have it both ways in relation to China. China's a very valuable export destination. It's our second best customer now after Japan. We can't say to the Chinese well we're happy for you to buy our product but we're not happy to buy yours. Now I sympathise with your position. I don't pretend to know all the circumstances and clearly if there is some case of dumping, well that's a different matter. But that's quite hard to establish. But we allow it in because we have to trade to live and we can't expect countries to buy our product unless we take their products.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for calling Edward. Prime Minister, the workplace advertisements, the workplace reform advertisements. Do you know what they're costing yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't been given an exact figure. I think, I mean I would hazard a guess; it would be in the order thus far of about $15m.
MITCHELL:
That's thus far. But what's your budget?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our budget would be somewhere, the upper limit of it would be somewhere in the thirties or forties.
MITCHELL:
Are you aware that some of the workers were paid; twelve workers were paid $6000 each to sit around and not even...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I learnt that but I am also told that the normal commercial arrangements that apply in relation to these things applied in this case. What happens and we're no different to any other client, as a government you hire a company, an agency and they make the arrangements to produce it. Now I think you would find with anybody that that sort of situation obtained. We certainly didn't give any instructions that any different (inaudible) be as we adopted and clearly if people want information to the extent that it's reasonable to supply it, it will be.
MITCHELL:
It is a bit rough some workers were used in it and didn't even know that they were going to be.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have been told that the particular allegation made on A Current Affair that there was no knowledge of what was involved; I have been told that that's not right, I have been told that individual releases were signed and the individual releases included a reference to the Australian Government and to Workplace Relations, I've been told that.
MITCHELL:
I spoke to a man who was in it and he said he thought it was a video for work safety...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well...
MITCHELL:
...driving a forklift.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well...
MITCHELL:
His mates have rung up and said you're on John Howard's side.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no well I have been told and told very explicitly that the document said Australian Government Workplace Relations, Now the bloke who appeared on A Current Affair, good luck to him, has resigned from the company because he was offered a job with higher pay, that sort of says it all.
MITCHELL:
Peter Costello, Malcolm Turnbull are at each other, contradicting each other on tax, who's right?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think they're contradicting each other.
MITCHELL:
Well Mr Turnbull said in his speech yesterday that the Treasury/Costello figures were wrong.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but that doesn't make Peter and Malcolm at each other's throats.
MITCHELL:
Well they are hardly on the same side.
PRIME MINISTER:
We are a party that encourages people to express their points of view. Peter's budget will result in only 3% of Australian taxpayers from the 1st July next year paying a top rate of tax, now that is a huge improvement and it's a huge reform.
MITCHELL:
But has Treasury mucked up the figures as Mr Turnbull's saying?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't looked in detail at Mr Turnbull's latest presentation.
MITCHELL:
You know there is a bit of tension there isn't there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I don't think you should exaggerate it.
MITCHELL:
May be it's constructive tension.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's a good idea for members of Parliament to promote ideas, I think it's also a good idea to recognise who's got the runs on the board with tax reform and Peter Costello has certainly got runs on the board.
MITCHELL:
Yes but Malcolm Turnbull hasn't been in the team, he can hardly make any runs.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no.
MITCHELL:
(inaudible). We'll take another call, Rudi please be quick Rudi.
CALLER:
Yes Mr Howard, I was sacked unfairly and I got all my $20,000 cause I won the case and I was clearly sacked unfairly, got nearly 20 grand. If I was to factor the same circumstances (inaudible) when (inaudible) these laws come out and I work for someone that only has 90 employees, clearly I am not going to have that availability to me and anyone else in that position, how do your deem if your Prime Minister for all Australians, how can you make it so?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would have to know all the circumstances of your case to give an answer yes or no, even if one hypothetically accepted it. I might argue that there were many circumstances where small employers struggling to make a living for their families were forced to pay people who they should have been able to let go, $20,000 or $30,000 to go away so the rest of their workforce could be left in peace and I mean there are swings and roundabouts in all of these situations. I don't pretend for a moment that every employer is an angel; that's not the case any more than you would pretend that every employee believes in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. It's a question of balance and the balance has in my view been too heavily weighted against small business in this unfair dismissal area and that's why we are making the changes.
MITCHELL:
Thank you Rudi. Prime Minister is it time we had the Republic debate again?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's up to the public, I don't...
MITCHELL:
There's a group on both sides of politics ...
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean you will gather from the answer I gave to the last question. I think the mark of a competent government is that it does allow debate providing the debate does not become destructive and providing the debate is not based on personalities, I think it's good for a government to have debate on issues, I think the public wants that. Now if people want to talk about the republic they can. My only observation as somebody who spends a lot of time talking to the general public is that nobody raises it, they don't. Now that is not to say people can't from this day forth raise it, they can. But I don't find the average person out there raising these matters.
MITCHELL:
Have you changed your mind on a republic?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven't changed my mind, I don't see any great need for constitutional change but I, if you want to know my view in 10 years time, ask me in 10 years time.
MITCHELL:
I hope so.
PRIME MINISTER:
No matter where I may be.
MITCHELL:
Could still be around as Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I just thought I would put that in - in case you thought I was implying that any particular situation.
MITCHELL:
Where do you think you will be in 10 years?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have no idea, I hope I am still alive and healthy but you know as the years go by that becomes your strongest hope doesn't it?
MITCHELL:
Petrol, a study released today suggesting that petrol prices could take $12 billion a year....
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I read that, the ACIL Report.
MITCHELL:
Yes that's right and 50 per cent of the companies this country have already put up their prices, now this has to be inflationary I am sure.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it can be, it's over time, so far it hasn't been, but we have not suggested that it won't be and it is the biggest generic threat to the economy.
MITCHELL:
Do you think it is headed for $80 a barrel as suggested?
PRIME MINISTER:
On balance no, I would have thought it might drift down a little, I don't think it will ever go back to 20 or 30, it could drift down to 45 or 50, could I emphasise, underline could, I don't really know I don't think anybody does.
MITCHELL:
There is a report today that India wants to deal with us now on uranium, is that correct?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know whether it is correct but it wouldn't surprise me.
MITCHELL:
But this is a strange one, there is a campaign starting in fact today to make nannies tax deductible, apparently you can get $144 in childcare but only 22 for nannies which are really doing the same job in different circumstances. Would that be something you'd look at, making them tax deductible as in small business?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you have to distinguish between tax deductibility and the present childcare support going to nannies who look after children at home. Straight tax deductibility; which means you can take the cost of a nanny off your income for tax purposes would clearly advantage very well off people to... and it wouldn't be of the same advantage to others. I think the proposition that if it's good enough to pay somebody x dollars a week to defray the cost of formal childcare then why isn't it good enough to pay the same amount of money to another couple in a similar situation when the care occurs at home. Now that's different from tax deductibility. I think there is some argument for looking at that, although others would argue that all that will result in is the tax deductibility for a family minding arrangement which would otherwise have taken place. But then again people argue, why not. If Grandma's willing to do so, why shouldn't there be some financial advantage; it's something that I think open to debate.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
MITCHELL:
Is Malcolm Fraser on your side or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't comment on what Malcolm says.
MITCHELL:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wish him well. Well we were former colleagues and we clearly have different views on some things but I don't want to generate any disputation.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for your time.
[ends]