Subjects: Cricket; Konrads Kalejs; RAAF bombing in Darwin; Sex Discrimination Act and IVF; broadcasting regulations; East Timor; interest rates; future in politics; petrol prices
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
First up should Shane Warne be dumped as the Vice Captain of the Australian team?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’ll leave that to the Australian Cricket Board. I’ll watch the announcement with interest. But I don’t think it’s fair on cricket authorities for me to be giving advice from the sidelines on something as personal and as precise as that. I will leave it like other cricket followers to the Board to take the decision.
MITCHELL:
You’ll be watching with interest?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will certainly be watching with interest. I watch all of those things with immense interest.
MITCHELL:
Can I ask you, is it correct that you’ve rejected an appeal from leaders in the Jewish Community, it’s reported in the Herald Sun here today…
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh this is the Joe Gutnick…
MITCHELL:
…To revoke the citizenship of suspected war criminal Konrad Kalejs.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes it is true that I had correspondence from Mr Gutnick and indeed others. And I’ve written back saying that I like every other Australian am bound by the rule of law. And one of the reasons why Australia is such a haven for persecuted people is that we do live by the rule of law. And everybody’s entitled to the proper processes of the law and they are working. We have worked overtime to get an extradition treaty in place with Latvia. And the proper course of action is for Kalejs to be extradited on application by Latvia and to stand trial in that country in relation to his war time activity.
It’s not appropriate in my opinion for the arbitrary use of executive power to supplant the proper process of the law. In any event the capacity of the Government to act in the way requested, as I recall it, and I haven’t been able to refresh my memory of the Gutnick letter, it’s some months ago now, is that there would have been, it would have been necessary for the Government to have amended the law to give itself the power to revoke Kalejs’ passport. Now much and all as I understand the totally justifiable sensitivity of the Jewish Community and as Mr Gutnick was correct in acknowledging in his letter to me I’ve been a great friend of Israel’s and a great friend of the Jewish community in Australia and remain very proud of that association. It’s not really a good thing to interfere with the ordinary operation of the rule of law in places like this.
MITCHELL:
Kalejs entitled to be considered innocent at this stage?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well everybody under the law of Australia is entitled to a presumption of innocence until otherwise found by a court. Now that is the law under which we have lived for so long. It’s one of the great things about this country. And I would never want to see it overturned.
MITCHELL:
It seems unlikely he’s going to be extradited doesn’t it without his day…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t know. What I can say to many people and not just people in the Australian Jewish community who are concerned about this is that we have worked very hard with Latvia to put an extradition treaty in place, very hard indeed. So nobody can say we aren’t doing everything we possibly can in accordance with the normal legal processes to expose this man to trial if the weight of evidence and the proper process suggests that should occur.
MITCHELL:
Is it correct that you have advice that he is probably guilty but it couldn’t be proved?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t recall having seen any advice to that effect. In any event it’s not something that I would confirm or deny.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Now an incident up in Darwin it seems the RAAF is bombing Darwin. Nobody injured fortunately. Do you have a report on that yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’ll get one this morning but I have no more reports than what I’ve heard on the radio. I heard when I was out walking this morning that was the first I knew of it. I think it happened overnight.
MITCHELL:
Yeah. It would be a matter of some concern wouldn’t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It would and I will get a report on it this morning.
MITCHELL:
Now the IVF debate. We’re really talking about artificial insemination here aren’t we, not IVF?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we’re talking about a number of things and in particular the legislation. But I understand the point you’re making. We’re talking about whether a state like Victoria should have the right to specify those who should receive this tax payer funded service.
MITCHELL:
Is it tax payer funded?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in many cases it is. I mean there’s a Medicare entitlement.
MITCHELL:
My understanding was Medicare was only available to people who had fertility problems.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well many people you know would argue it’s for a combination of reasons they fall into that category. I mean I don’t want to get into a technical debate about social and medical infertility. I’m not a doctor. I just try and bring a layman’s approach to these things. And there are of course costs involved in providing the whole treatment and the whole service it’s not just the one aspect of it. I mean look this whole thing can get too confused if we get bogged down in the technicalities of it. What is involved is a very simple proposition- whether the state government that has the power to legislate in these areas can impose restrictions on the availability of these services. And at the moment the law is, as a result of the Federal Court decision last Friday, the law is that state laws to that effect are in conflict with the federal act. And what we’re offering to do is to amend the federal act and give the states the right to do that. We don’t have direct power to intervene. I’ve got advice to that effect, that there is no relevant commonwealth head of power that would give us an effective right to legislate in the way that states have the right to legislate to specify the circumstances in which the service should be made available.
MITCHELL:
There seems to be something of a contradiction today between yourself and the Health Minister Dr Wooldridge as to whether Medicare will be available to people undergoing this form of artificial insemination. Do you think Medicare should be available?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t… I’ve read this story and I’ve read what Dr Wooldridge said. There’s no conflict. He was making the point apparently in discussions with some doctors some time ago about the original intent of the Medicare rebate and the way in which that is administered is something that, is not something that I’m directly involved in. And the question of what constitutes a social infertility and what constitutes a medical infertility can often be a matter of debate and ultimately something that the doctor concerned may have a view on and I would have thought that would be highly relevant if not conclusive.
MITCHELL:
I would have thought that the issue of physical infertility would be simple because it’s physiological?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well I mean…
MITCHELL:
…sleeping with a woman…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I understand … in many cases it’s clear cut but the point I’m simply making is that different people bring different interpretations and different views to these things and I don’t presume to put myself in the shoes of an individual doctor or individual case.
MITCHELL:
What about from the point of view of sperm donors? Do you think sperm donors should have the right to refuse their donation being used in such circumstances? That’s the proposition.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hadn’t thought of that until I read this morning where somebody was complaining about it. I guess anybody if you’re talking about individual rights I guess the people might start doing that. I’m not, I can’t imagine that if they wanted to do that they wouldn’t have the right to do it. I would imagine that you would have the right to specify that if you wanted to but frankly I haven’t given that any thought.
MITCHELL:
Isn’t it going to be an issue for negotiation with the Democrats and the Labor Party because they seemed, well they are suggesting that they’ll just dig in, in the Senate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if they want to talk to me about it they can. But it’s a fairly simple proposition. What we are putting forward is a very simple proposition and that is you change the law to remove the federal impediment to the Victorian legislation. Now they are either for that or against it. I don’t know how you can come down half way. That’s why I found Mr Bracks’ complaint that I hadn’t consulted him so extraordinary. What need was there for consultation? And in any event I assumed that Mr Bracks would be happy with what we’ve done because Mr Bracks three or four weeks ago said he supported the Victorian act and he voted for it in 1997. So if Mr Beazley or Senator Lees want to talk to me of course I’m happy to talk to them. But I can’t see where there’s a half way house on this. You either support what the Government is doing or you oppose it. I don’t think there’s a half way house. Have they suggested they want to talk? I haven’t seen any suggestion.
MITCHELL:
No not yet but we could be in a position if it’s going to be passed there might need to be negotiations.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m always happy to talk to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats. But both of them, well certainly Meg Lees, I know where Meg Lees stands and she’s made her position very clear and the position of her Party very clear and it’s easy to sort of deal with that because you know where she stands. I’m not sure where the Labor Party stands on this. Mr Beazley is sort of personally for the principal I enunciated but he is against what I am going to do personally and he’s going to leave it to the caucus and I read this morning where there is pressure on him to allow conscious vote. Look, that’s a matter for him to work out but the Australian public is entitled at some stage to know exactly where he stands on this.
MITCHELL:
What’s your answer to the claim that this is a political diversion that, I mean nobody is talking about interest rates, the Labor Party is under pressure and apparently divided over it and there is no question that your raising it has put it very much in to the public spotlight this week, whereas it had sort of stepped back a bit.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil, that claim is wrong.
MITCHELL:
Well that’s the effect of it isn’t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well you ask me whether our motivation was political and I am telling you it wasn’t. Our motivation was a concern for the rights of children in the circumstances I have explained ad nauseum over the past few days. The timing was not dictated by the Hobart conference of the ALP, it was dictated by the fact that the Federal Court decided the matter last Friday. I mean I had no control over that. I heard of the decision, I sought advice, I knew the government had to have a view on this, the matter was dealt with in Cabinet on Tuesday and I made the announcement of the Cabinet’s decision, held a press conference and I have been explaining and advocating the government’s position ever since. I mean it was a totally orthodox, authentic, genuine, government decision, taken speedily as governments should, if the circumstances allow it. The fact that it coincided with the Hobart conference of the ALP was pure coincidence. Equally the suggestion that I should have delayed it out of deference to the ALP, well heaven’s sake.
MITCHELL:
Okay. We will take your calls to the Prime Minister, 9696 1278, Lisa, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Neil, hello, Mr Howard, thanks for listening to me, um, I find it incredible that you can sit there and talk about the cricket and the personal issue of whether Shane Warne is going to be the vice captain of the cricket or not and yet you are going to step in about the personal lives of people, the decisions they make based on more factors than just merely being a lesbian. I mean, I’m a lesbian, I have a child, I didn’t go through IVF because it wasn’t available to me. I took the risk of getting aids to have a child, I changed my career to make sure I could be home after school and also thought every long and hard before I did it. Also something else I have heard you say is that it’s a lifestyle choice. Well when I was 17 and realised all my life that I had no choice and yet one thing I definitely wanted to be was a parent. There is nothing I could do about being a lesbian, but there was something I could do about being a parent and I thought long and hard and I am a damn good parent with a wonderful son who excels at school, who gets fed, looked after, better than the children that I work with with two parents that are drug addicted, 25, with five children and one on the way and they could be entitled to IVF but I can’t. Can you answer me, where is the logic in this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay, well on the question of cricket, I was asked a question about that and I think…
MITCHELL:
The point she’s making is that it’s too personal to get into the Shane Warne issue, but…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, the reason I don’t answer that is, that’s it’s not my job. I don’t…
CALLER:
…not your job to dictate to people how they’re going to live their lives either..
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I answer you? I listened very politely and very carefully to you. I did not interrupt you and would you now show me the same courtesy.
CALLER:
Sorry, yes I will.
PRIME MINISTER:
On the question of Shane Warne, the reason I didn’t answer it Neil and Lisa is that I don’t control it. I don’t have any role in choosing the Australian cricket team. I might be passionately interested in it, but I don’t think it’s fair to the cricket board for the Prime Minister a known cricket fanatic to be giving gratuitous advice from the side lines, so that’s why I didn’t answer that.
Now, the issue that Lisa raises. Lisa, it is not just a question of the government intervening in something which is intensely personal because there are public resources made available in relation to IVF, so therefore the government does have a role. I mean the idea that governments who are the representatives of the entire community have no role at all in relation to a service which is in part at least funded by the general community of tax payers is wrong.
Now I don’t criticise in any way or denigrate in any way your affection towards your child. Equally I don’t think it is fair to, as your observation and comparison suggested, to categorise all two parent families in quite the derogatory terms of the example you quoted. I mean look there are good and bad two parent families. There are good and bad parents. That is not the issue. I mean the issue is whether you believe, or society believes in the principal that every child born in this world should have the expectation, other things being equal, of the care and love of a mother and a father, whether that is a reasonable principal. Now, I happen to believe and the majority of my colleagues in the government happen to believe that that is a good principal and we think it’s a principal that’s worth supporting and it’s a principal that is worth promoting. It does not represent a negative value judgement on people who have a homosexual lifestyle. I have never wanted people in that situation to be discriminated against or persecuted and that is why I supported the former Labor government’s legislation to over turn the Tasmanian anti homosexual laws. It’s a question of whether you wish to positively assert that fundamental right of children and I think that fundamental right takes precedence over all other rights in this case.
MITCHELL:
Okay, we’ll take another call quickly please if you would Geoff, cause we’re tight for time. Go ahead Geoff.
CALLER:
Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
I just can’t believe how discriminate the government is sitting on all these lies, being that, you know I don’t know how you could have it where homosexual couples, I am a married man with two children, even women who don’t want to be married, who have got careers, why shouldn’t they be entitled to the IVF, I mean, Jesus, there are that many unmarried mothers that go out of their way to get pregnant that stay on the dole and pensions and those kids never see their father and you are going to discriminate against workers whether they’re homosexual, heterosexual or what…
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just, the basis of that argument, your argument seems to be that the great bulk of single mothers are by implication, young girls who go out and deliberately get pregnant. Now that is wrong. That is one of the great myths about single mother hood in Australia. The overwhelming bulk, over 80%, of sole parents in this country are what we used to call deserted mothers and because of politically correctness, we no longer employ that term, but they are women who were previously either married, or in stable relationships and the great bulk of them are not people who go out and deliberately get pregnant. There are not many people in this country who are single mothers by choice. They are single mothers by dint of circumstances that they in many cases would not want it to have wanted to occur.
MITCHELL:
Do you think Mr Howard that a person, a single mother who became pregnant under IVF by her choice should be entitled to the single mothers pension?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a separate issue and in any event you have got to worry about the child. Once again if I may say so, what is the dominant motivation of that question is the position of the mother not the child. I mean the reason why I support sole parent pensions is a concern to the care of the children because if you don’t provide lone deserted mothers and sole parents with pensions they won’t have the wherewithal to look after their children. We must always ask ourselves which interest is the one that the state should be most keen to protect….
MITCHELL:
The rights of….
PRIME MINISTER:
..the rights of the just born child or the rights of the parent.
[commercial break]
MITCHELL:
If I may Mr Howard, a couple of topics quickly which I’d like to raise with you away from the IVF issue. The radio industry, do you think there should be sanctions on radio stations and possibly the power to suspend broadcasters?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we’ve got a big report from the ABA on that and we’ll be having a look at it in the next few weeks and I think I’ll hold my fire on that. I haven’t read the report.
MITCHELL:
It’s a pretty dangerous area though isn’t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, there’s a balance here. I generally don’t like too many government controls in this area, I really don’t. I also hold to the view that I expressed some time ago that when I hear somebody’s view on a program I assume that that view has not in any way been influenced by commercial considerations.
MITCHELL:
East Timor, two of the militiamen, the two militiamen killed rather, both wearing Indonesian uniforms and carrying technically advanced weapons. Have we protested or will we protest to the Indonesian government about the possibility of them providing this to militiamen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have already raised the issue with the Indonesians. Mr Downer raised, after the death of the New Zealand soldier a couple of weeks ago he raised in Bangkok with the Indonesian Foreign Minister our general concern about the activity of the militia.
MITCHELL:
Does it seem the Indonesians, the rebel groups within the army or officially are supplying the militiamen with guns…..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well not officially. Our evidence is that officially the Indonesians are trying hard to reign in the militia and to generally get them to behave in a responsible fashion. Now that’s not to say that that is reflected all over the country and we’ll just continue to push it very hard. And we should bear in mind that this is still a very dangerous theatre of operation for our men and women.
MITCHELL:
Interest rates Mr Howard, anything to do with the GST the latest increase in interest rates?
PRIME MINISTER:
That’s not the view of the Reserve Bank and it’s not our view either. You saw what the Governor of the Reserve Bank had to say about the latest increase. I don’t like interest rate rises. The average homebuyer is still $204 a [month] better off than when we came to office under his mortgage. The independence of the Reserve Bank in setting interest rates means that they will move, have moved in both directions over the last few years and that independence remains.
MITCHELL:
Would we….is it reasonable that there’s new pressure on interest rates though when the GST inflationary effect comes through in the next few months?
PRIME MINISTER:
No because it’s only meant to be a one off impact and the indications we have to date, and albeit they’re based on only just over a month of operation of the GST, but the indications we have to date are that the inflationary effects are no greater than what were forecast and if that turns out to be the case there will be a one off increase in the CPI. But that’s been factored into everybody’s calculations and that will recede so that by the middle of next year that will be right out of the system.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Your much discussed, much speculated upon retirement, just to very simply get it clear, if you’re reelected at the next election would you stay for the full term?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I said was that I would go to the next election and there was a possibility that in the next term, if I were re-elected, I might consider retiring. And because there was a possibility I felt I ought to tell the Australian people that to be quite open and honest with them.
MITCHELL:
Fair enough, and that remains...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah that remains. I didn’t say any more than that. I didn’t set a date. But I prefer to sort of be open about this. I mean nobody goes on forever. As you can tell I’m rather enjoying the job and the Government’s travelling fairly well but I’m not arrogant about that. And you know, I feel very fit and you feel as though you could go on for ages but I’m just being realistic. And isn’t it better to be open about it and say look there’s a possibility that I might retire in the next term. I tell the Australian people that unlike Bob Hawke and Paul Keating who made a secret deal at Kirribilli House and kept it from the people.
MITCHELL:
I assume you’d like to go out a winner too which…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well everybody likes winning in politics.
MITCHELL:
The longer the government’s around the more likely it’d get beaten obviously.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s right….but look there’s nothing complicated about this. I’m a fit 61, nobody goes on forever. I raised the possibility that if I were to win next time, and I don’t take that for granted, it’ll be pretty tough, then I might retire sometime during that term. Now that’s the position. That’s been the position, nothing I’ve said in the last 24 hours has altered that, but equally nothing I said originally a couple of weeks ago went any further than that.
MITCHELL:
Price of petrol through the roof Mr Howard…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well not through the roof in Melbourne.
MITCHELL:
Over a dollar in parts of Victoria.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well hang on. The average price in Melbourne is less than, I think is only a half a cent higher than what it was when the GST came in. But it is bouncing around but the average in Melbourne is not much greater than what it was on the 30th of June. World pressures have a big influence on that as you know.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay.
[Ends]