Subjects: Fiji crisis; GST; Government spending; apology; Mr Mandela
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, Fiji first. Is George Speight a terrorist?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he has behaved like one yes.
MITCHELL:
Should he get a pardon?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don’t think so. I think if a country allows somebody to take hostage a democratically elected Prime Minister and hold him hostage, make demands and behave the way he’s behaved, if you give that person a pardon you are in effect suspending the rule of law.
MITCHELL:
How does that affect Australia’s relationship with Fiji ?
PRIME MINISTER:
It will have an effect. Now as to what effect, well the Government will have a careful look at that. We’ll give an appropriate response, there will be consequences unless the course of action on which Fiji has now embarked changes very dramatically, there will be consequences and we’ll consider that in an appropriate way. We’re not going to make up our minds this morning, that’s foolish but there will be consequences and this is a very disturbing, profoundly regrettable event. Fiji is an important pacific partner of Australia’s. What is happening is the introduction of a racially based approach…. to Government, to democracy. We had a democratic constitution in Fiji with everybody being treated equally. Mr Chaudhry who I met only a few weeks ago in Canberra when he came to visit me as the duly elected Prime Minister of Fiji, he was elected. He has every right to be there and it’s an act of rebellion and a criminal act what’s occurred to him.
MITCHELL:
Could those consequences include the removal of aid to Fiji?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s one of the things on the agenda. When something like this happens Neil you put everything down and you make a response that is commensurate with the disapproval you feel towards what’s occurred, but also has regard to humanitarian consequences. One of the things that I was able to do for Mr Chaudhry when he came to see me was to agree to a request by him to defer a little longer a transitional arrangement in relation to a trade matter between Australia and Fiji because of the possible impact of the change on the population of that country employed in a particular industry. Now all of these things have to be measured. We want to disapprove what’s happened but the living standards of Fiji, although it’s higher than a lot of many other countries in the Pacific is still quite low by our standards. We have to bear that in mind, we don’t want to punish the innocent ordinary people of the country whether they’re indigenous Fijians or Fijians of Indian heritage. They’re all citizens of Fiji and they’re all entitled to be treated equally. That is the point that appears to have been completely put aside by the Chiefs, put aside by Mr Speight, put aside by General Rabuka and it’s just not acceptable. I thought we had a good constitution, I thought we had got away from the idea that there was something inherently superior about the indigenous Fijians, but apparently not and I think that is deeply distressing. And it’s something that I know a lot of friends of Fiji will feel very aggrieved by it.
MITCHELL:
It’s a little like Pacific aparthied really.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well of course. You can’t sort of have a situation where twice in the space of fifteen years because somebody of Indian heritage has become Prime Minister, you have a coup. And that is essentially what has happened and it leads inescapably to the conclusion that people want to run the country on racial lines. Well Fiji has been to most countries an exercise in multi-racialism. Nobody can do anything about the history, nobody can turn the clock back and say well this shouldn’t have happened or that should have happened. They are there. Fijians of Indian heritage born in that country have come there and made their lives there. They are entitled to be treated equally just as anybody who comes to this country accepting the responsibilities of residency or citizenship are entitled to be treated equally and not in any way denied or discriminated against according to their racial or ethnic origin. It’s just very fundamental.
MITCHELL:
Is there a possibility or indeed a need for the world to treat Fiji in the way it treated South Africa?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think that’s sort of jumping a little ahead. I think there are a lot of the apparatuses of, say the apparatus of tyranny and so forth that are not there. There are some different circumstances but let’s not get tied up as to whether one thing’s as bad as another. You look at the thing in isolation and it’s bad and it ought to be condemned and General Rabuka was right when he said there’d be world consequences as a result of the decision made by the Chiefs and there will be.
MITCHELL:
Is it possible Australia will be in a position of having to accept or being asked to accept Fijian Indians as refugees?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our preference, I mean we will treat people in relation to refugee status in accordance with our normal practices. If people qualify well they along with others, they will be considered. But it’s not really the right thing to immediately talk about people leaving the country. What I would prefer to do is what I could to bring pressure on Fiji to change its attitude. The Indians who live in Fiji, Fijians of Indian heritage they want to stay there, they want to be part of the community, they want the right to be treated equally. Isn’t that what we should be trying to bring about? If you immediately say we’ll allocate, or say we’ll take people, the problem with that is that really means the Fijians have won.
MITCHELL:
I found myself in the unfortunate position of interviewing George Speight this week, I didn’t realy intend to but he came on the phone and he was saying really Australia, it’s got nothing to do with Australia, it’s got nothing to do with the rest of the world. What’s your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well every country can take that attitude and that’s true in the sense that we have no right to automatically intervene. I am not arguing that we should in any way physically intervene, but we do have a right to express a view and we have a right to react diplomatically and economically to what’s happened. I am not saying for a moment that we should physically intervene if Fiji decides to go down that path it will be condemned and it will pay a price and to that extent it is right. I don’t think Mr Speight and others were taking that view when they joined the rest of the world in condemning the apartheid practises in South Africa and condemning racial discrimination where it occurred in other parts of the world. They had every right to be part of that condemnation. So Australia is reacting in a normal, democratic fashion. We thought there was democracy in Fiji, we are saddened that that is not the case and we are particularly concerned that it appears to be lurching back to an approach to Government based on a race and there is no justification of any kind for that, none what so ever.
MITCHELL:
I mean broadly, sanctions are a possibility.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are a number of things but I don’t want to just off the top of my head say we’ll do this, that or the other. We will have a look at it. I would expect in an appropriate time, in the not too distant future, I or the Foreign Minister will announce a response. But the situation is still evolving, we don’t know the final outcome although the direction we know and that’s pretty grim and pretty bleak.
MITCHELL:
OK, on to something else. The GST. Now do you stand by the promise no Australian will be worse off under it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do stand by that commitment yes.
MITCHELL:
There are a lot of people who think they will be worse off.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I guess we have to analyse that when it all comes in and we don’t have much longer to wait and I think we are all rather looking forward to the first of July then we’ll be in real time so to speak and I just think that’s good and could I say to people who are concerned, wait until it comes in. If you have a legitimate basis for saying that, well let us know and we will examine it. But we don’t believe that people are going to be worse. Of course you could have been cheating in the past, and it is not our intention that anybody be worse off. If people believe after they have given the thing a fair chance to operate and got a fair idea that they are worse off, well then let us know and we will have look at it and what they have got to say.
MITCHELL:
Did I understand you correctly this week is that you agree political fund raising is not exempt, is exempt rather from the GST some forms of political fund raising?
PRIME MINISTER:
Some forms of political fund raising are exempt yes because they’re a not for profit organisation. The Liberal Party doesn’t make any profits Neil. I spend a large part of my life engaging in fund raising activities for various divisions of the party because we need money in order to run our campaign.
MITCHELL:
Could I just ask you then about. This is, Rick Matthews, the Deputy Commissioner for Taxation, I asked him about it yesterday and he said this:
“[Mitchell].. tell me that fund raising by political parties will be subject to the GST?
[Matthews] They are certainly not charities so they don’t get any of the entitlements of charities.
[Mitchell] So will they be subject to the GST on fund raising?
[Matthews] I think they will.”
The Tax Department thinks you will.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is very interesting.
MITCHELL:
I am trying to make…I am not trying to embarrass either side, I am trying to make a point that if there’s confusion between the Prime Minister and the man who is implementing the GST in the Tax Department, what hope have we got?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I thought Rick, I mean I’m not… I heard what he said, but I thought Rick was talking there about we don’t have some of the entitlements of charities. I mean if we for example engage in any kind of commercial activity then that would be subject to the GST but ordinary fund raisers are not.
MITCHELL:
We’ll take some calls on this. Hello Ray, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Hi, good morning Neil. Good morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
G’day.
CALLER:
Mr Howard, I’ve got a bit of a question to ask you. My wife and I [inaudible]Australia are building a house at the moment. We started very early this year and we seem to be caught up in a shortage of trades people, possibly as a result of the Olympics and the GST rush if you like. Our house has been delayed like many others. Our builder told us that we would be up for a ten per cent on progress payment. There’s, my estimation is that if we get to lock up by the end of June, it will cost us eight and a half thousand dollars with tax but that’s not likely and we could possibly be up for twenty thousand dollars in tax. I guess my question to you is Sir, is that is there any possibility that people like ourselves could have some sort of concessions from the taxation department on these costs because we have no idea how we are going to finance this and other people we are speaking to are in similar positions.
PRIME MINISTER:
How..Ray, is it?
CALLER:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
How big was the building contract?
CALLER:
Well in our particular case, the house is worth about two hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
PRIME MINISTER:
About two hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
CALLER:
Uh huh.
PRIME MINISTER:
And what are you claiming is the additional expense?
CALLER:
Well we made an estimate. If the house got to lock up based on the progress payments, the additional ten per cent of the remaining amount would be eight and a half thousand dollars.
PRIME MINISTER:
The additional ten per cent of the remaining amount would be eight and a half and what you are saying is because of shortage and everything that’s being delayed…
MITCHELL:
There’s been a few people in that position that have been delayed in building and they have to pay more GST than they budgeted for.
CALLER:
Even if it rains.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean I’d be happy if you sent me all the details on it through the station. I would have a look. I would have to honestly say though I think it would be very, very difficult just off the top of my head to give you immediate comfort in relation to that because there are, there will be a lot of circumstances in which people will argue well if this happened earlier then I wouldn’t have been subject to as much GST and I think it would be very difficult for us to devise rules that had a very fair and even application. I mean..
MITCHELL:
Yeah but there is somebody who is worse off.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well not necessarily, it depends on all his other economic circumstances Neil.
MITCHELL:
They are not going to be picking up an extra twelve grand anywhere
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends on a whole lot of other circumstances. I don’t know what his entitlement to the ... I don’t know the precise terms of the home owner, new home owners grant in Victoria.
MITCHELL:
Ann, go ahead please. Go ahead.
CALLER:
Hi Neil, hi Mr Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello Ann.
CALLER:
I’m just, one thing. I belong to a sports club and we went to a seminar the other night for the GST. Now with your fund raising, we were told, if you are registered for the GST, it is GST. Now the only way.
PRIME MINISTER:
When you say it is GST..
CALLER:
You have to pay the GST on your fund raising, on your…
PRIME MINISTER:
Not on the money you raise, no I’m sorry, not on the money you raise.
CALLER:
Yeah, its the whole lot.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am sorry, you’ve misunderstood that.
MITCHELL:
Ok, thanks Ann. Now Prime Minister, Mr Costello has taken after the brewers a little, accusing them of what’s he saying, money politics for their running a campaign against the GST.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t think Peter’s denying the right of someone to run a campaign but I think part of the campaign is an incorrect allegation that in answering a question during the 1998 election campaign I said certain things about the impact of the GST on beer across the counter which I didn’t.
MITCHELL:
Well the quote is there will be no more than a one point nine percent rise in ordinary beer.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but that was in answer to somebody who said he had a bottleshop and what apparently the ad doesn’t do is to acknowledge that fact and clearly gives the impression that I was talking about all beer sales, but if you look at the transcript, you will see that I clearly wasn’t. Now I think what the Treasurer quite legitimately was venting was his anger about that and it’s an anger that the Government has, but the broader question he was making, the broader point he was making was yes there are increases in the price of beer, there are increases in the price of children’s clothing. And I think he was quite legitimately saying that companies who sell beer apparently by nature of this campaign think they are in a special position and the Treasurer, and I agree with him, doesn’t think that’s the case.
MITCHELL:
George, go ahead please George.
CALLER:
Yes, good morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello George.
CALLER:
I work in the wine industry and when I voted for the GST, I voted for a 10% tax across the board, with no tax on tax. So I guess I would like to know why we’re having a 29% WET tax on wine, which is effectively replacing the wholesale.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well that’s right. We didn’t, you didn’t vote – I mean what you voted for was a set of measures that would have a particular price impact and that price impact that we . . . hang on let me finish. I mean the price impact that we spoke of in that campaign is essentially the price impact that has been delivered. I mean it is very easy to talk about 29% taxes, it gives the impression to the listener that wine is going up by a big amount, it’s not. You know that. You know that cask wine is going up by quite a modest amount, premium bottled wine is going up by a little more, but when you take into account the reductions in personal income tax. And I was with a group of people in the wine industry, can I tell you, the largest assembly you could get in a, of people in the wine industry on Wednesday night in Sydney at a dinner saying farewell to somebody who had been the chief wine judge in Sydney for about twenty-five years, Len Evans. I mean can I tell you that that industry is booming and I have never, I have never seen so many happy people.
MITCHELL:
Ok, can I ask you, the RACV today has estimated that GST will add to the cost of the running of a car. They say spare parts will come down, labour will be up, insurance up, petrol up.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would like to see the basis of that analysis but petrol is not up as a result of the GST. Petrol might be up . . . I am sorry Neil, but petrol might be up as a result of the increase in the price of crude oil.
MITCHELL:
And the excise which goes up as a result of the inflation rate, which goes up as a result of . . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
But that, yes but that is going . . . I mean we’ve had . . . I think we have been down this track before. I would like to see their analysis.
MITCHELL:
Fair enough.
[commercial break]
Some more quick questions to the Prime Minister in our Sydney studio. Mr Howard is there a danger that your Government’s losing touch with people? $30,000 curtains, $440,000 on medals for the Federation, a $1 million trip to London and every second minister running with the torch – including Michael Wooldridge sponsored by AMP?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t think anybody involving themselves in the torch relay is necessarily losing touch. I mean it is an event that . . .
MITCHELL:
But you decided not to, why was that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well that was just my personal decision, but I don’t think you have to impose a rigid rule on people in relation to this. I just decided that I wouldn’t and I would be happy for any place that might be offered to me to go to somebody who’s a volunteer in a sporting organisation.
MITCHELL:
I agree with you entirely. But wouldn’t it be better if all ministers . . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, but look. I don’t believe in this sort of school masterish approach to running a government that you know I am the arbiter of taste, I am the arbiter of who does what. I mean they are a group of independently-minded men and women and I treat them like that and people make their own decisions on these things. It’s hardly a matter of high Cabinet policy as to whether people participate, it’s a matter of individual decision.
MITCHELL:
That’s true, but you can see it would get up people’s noses.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I know, but can I just say about the trip to London. Can I defend that? Can I defend it on the grounds that what we are marking most of all is 100 years since the passage through the British Parliament of the Act that established the Commonwealth of Australia.
MITCHELL:
I understand that, but why are you taking twenty-four staff?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not taking twenty-four staff. I am . . .
MITCHELL:
How many?
PRIME MINISTER:
Fewer that that. Far fewer. Twenty-four staff, I am certainly not taking twenty-four staff.
MITCHELL:
That’s what was quoted.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well I think that was quoted by, maybe by an Opposition figure. Neil, look . . .
MITCHELL:
You’re taking a band.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes, we are.
MITCHELL:
And spending a million dollars.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil look – it is an important historical event. I mean are we saying that we never celebrate these things? Are we saying that . . .
MITCHELL:
No I think we are saying there are more important priorities.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can say that about everything. You can say you don’t have any celebration of anything. We don’t have any – I mean we could cancel the whole Centenary celebration next year and you would save $150 million or something. Do you cancel the whole thing?
MITCHELL:
What about the curtains? The curtains in the office? When in opposition, your party was jumping up and down about the teak table which cost $30,000.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think what they were jumping up and down about more than anything else was the fact that we were going overseas to buy it.
MITCHELL:
Well these are Thai curtains.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well these curtains are ordered by the parliament. I mean you could once again not have them. And you can sort of have a progressively dilapidating waiting room where foreign visitors come.
MITCHELL:
Well of course – no of course you don’t want that. But . . . But $30,000 buys a house in parts of the country.
PRIME MINISTER:
But you can say that about anything, I mean anything for, you know as well as I do Neil, anything for a public building is expensive. But quite honestly, I wish nothing ever deteriorated or dilapidated while, you know one was there, but you can’t win on these things. If you don’t have something that’s reasonably tasteful people say well what a rum show you know, people come and visit the Australian Prime Minister and he, compared with other countries it doesn’t match up. I mean look I understand why people get riled about this but I tell you, I am and let me tell you that I am quite sensitive to it and . . .
MITCHELL:
You shouldn’t – you couldn’t - you didn’t even know about it though.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I certainly didn’t know about the price, I mean eighteen months ago I now recall there was some discussion about this. The bill was, the quote was never shown to me, it was just gone ahead and ordered. I had no idea until it actually came out what the price was. Now that’s the way these things work. But . . .
MITCHELL:
Can I ask you quickly, about sorry day. . . there’s an interpretation in the papers today that you are changing your position on the issue of apologies – are you or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I am not changing my position on the apology but I think at long last, people are starting to realise that even though I don’t agree with a formal national apology, I am committed to reconciliation. And I hope people are starting to realise that because I have always been committed to reconciliation and I have always had a difference of opinion – look can I put it like this, if you lose a relative, somebody close to you I will say to you Neil I am sorry. I don’t say to you, Neil I apologise. I mean you would think that odd because you would say well John you didn’t have anything to do with it. I mean maybe some of your listeners think that is a semantic difference, I don’t think it is.
MITCHELL:
I think the important thing is that your position’s not changed.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, my position on a formal national apology has not altered, no. But I am trying to communicate to people the fact that I am committed to reconciliation. I do feel a sense of sorrow and regret about past injustices but we have to get on with it. We have to worry about the now and the future and not sort of spend too much time debating the past.
MITCHELL:
I would like to get this call in if we can, very quickly Graeme, go ahead Graeme.
CALLER:
Oh Mr Prime Minister, we’ve got Mr Mandela who’s accepted our invitation to speak at an event called World Reconciliation Day on September the 8th during his visit. It’s meant for the younger people in the world to give them a blueprint, broadbrush not delving into particular issues – is that an event and concept that you would support?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, I was one of those who encouraged Mr Mandela to come.
MITCHELL:
Oh really?
PRIME MINISTER:
I in fact asked Mr Mandela to come to Australia for a number of events, and including obviously that. I mean I think Mr Mandela is a fine man, a great man.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Ok.
[Ends]