Subjects: Paralympics; Badgery’s Creek; very fast train; Telecards; business activity statements.
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
JONES:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Alan.
JONES:
What are we to make of these people? It just seems to have pushed the frontiers of achievement beyond what we can sensibly understand.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s done that and a lot more. I thought I had some understanding, as best I suppose anybody who’s fortunate enough to be reasonably able bodied, of the difficulties that disabled people have in life and in sport. But the time I’ve spent at the Paralympic Games has taught me more. To find their direct cheerfulness, their incredible down to earth description of their disabilities, the fact that once a contest begins you forget that the people are disabled. You watch them competing enthusiastically. I think the sight of those crowds and the way in which the people of Australia have got behind our team, the way in which they’ve embraced them just as they embraced the Olympic athletes. It is a fantastic experience and it’s something that makes us all I hope better people and more understanding.
JONES:
Yes. And Australians have demonstrated a quality that even Australians may not have thought they had in the way in which they’ve embraced this.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think they have. I think we’ve learnt something very positive about ourselves. We often read and hear that we constantly should be learning negative things about ourselves. What the past few weeks, both the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games have done is to tell us that there is a side to the Australian character not always exposed, not always recognised that is generous and fair and warm and that has really been on display. And I spent time with the sit-down volleyball team after their match against Bosnia Herzegovina, I’ve spent time with the wheelchair basketballers, time with all of the athletes and they are young Australians competing with great skill, extraordinary skill.
JONES:
Sometimes with ferocity.
PRIME MINISTER:
With great ferocity. Very enthusiastic, put it that way. And like anybody they are disappointed if they lose but accepting in a good sportsmanlike fashion, exhilarated if they win and the experience tells you some tragic stories.
JONES:
Yes I spoke….I was going to raise that with you. I spoke yesterday about the Cambodians. 11 of their volleyball team are victims of the 4 to 6 million land mines that still are there.
PRIME MINISTER:
And the sit-down volleyball team, two of the strongest teams in the world of course are Iran and Bosnia Herzegovina which of course are, there are some 300 of those teams in Iran and apparently there is a regular television program on that sport each evening. It is a tragic reminder of the mutilation of young men particularly, and women, in that country because of war. I mean you are reminded constantly of those grim realities yet through it all these people are cheerful, they are competitive, they have great spirit, they are can I say to the people listening to your program who have supported these Games that the athletes you are supporting are so incredibly grateful for that support.
JONES:
Absolutely.
PRIME MINISTER:
Your visits have not only been enjoyable for you but they’ve also been inspirational, exhilarating for the athletes. Time and time again they’ll say we’ve never played in front of a crowd like this. And I think all of that….
JONES:
When you see that as the Prime Minister, I mean you’ve got to sit around Cabinet tables where money is hard to come by and budgets have got to be tight, and surpluses in this current economic environment are important, and yet you’ll get a request from Paralympians to get an increase in funding. You’ve seen what sport and activity has done to these people. I trust that that comment that you made the other day that you will be providing an increase in funding will be consistent with the appreciation you’ve had from going to see them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan I can assure you that we will be doing that. We will be doing the same for the Paralympians in proportionate terms as we do for the Olympic Games. We said after the Olympic Games that we’d put some more resources. We’re going to do the same thing with the Paralympics. In no way are they going to be the second cousin.
JONES:
Prime Minister just on a couple of other things. Badgery’s Creek?
PRIME MINISTER:
I saw that report in the Australian this morning. We did discuss the matter at length yesterday. We have not taken a final decision yet. There are a few other aspects of it that we need to talk about. It’s a difficult issue. There are strong feelings in all directions but we will be announcing a final decision as I promised some time ago, we’ll be announcing a final decision this year.
JONES:
And the very fast train?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s tied up with it. You can’t really make a decision on the transport needs of Greater Sydney in isolation. You can’t just look at aviation, you can’t just look at roads, you can’t just look at rail. You’ve got to look at the whole thing in an integrated fashion.
JONES:
So if you knock off Badgery’s Creek as you most surely will then there will be a very fast train. Is that what you’re telling us?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I’m not telling you that yet. I’m not telling you anything yet. Not because I’m holding back on you. It’s just that we haven’t taken a decision.
JONES:
Did the Olympic Games demonstrate that there is a far greater capacity at the new Kingsford Smith Airport than previously had been understood? They seemed to handle magnificently increased volumes of traffic.
PRIME MINISTER:
They certainly did that. As to whether that has longer term implications is something that I am still pondering and the Government is pondering. Certainly the airport performed magnificently at the time of the Olympic Games. Bear in mind that that was a concentrated period. There was a complete public involvement in the Games and you can’t automatically extrapolate that to every day of the year. I think that would be an error. However you are right to say that. The airport coped very well.
JONES:
The Department of Admin Services is supposed to be reporting within weeks if you’re to believe what you read, details of Telecard use by about 200 MPs and Senators. Do you know of any circumstance in which MPs have been giving their Telecards contrary to remuneration guidelines to members of their family other than Peter Reith?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Mr Reith, so I’m told, has not broken any guidelines in relation to his mobile phones, and I’m not aware of anybody who has. There are rules that provide Members of Parliament with mobile phones and I am not aware of anybody who’s broken those rules.
JONES:
No, I was asking you about Telecard use. There is a report that Admin Services are going to report within weeks the details of Telecard use by about 200 MPs and Senators. Are you aware of any circumstances where Telecards have been used by people in a family other than the MP?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m not aware Alan but I wouldn’t frankly know.
JONES:
Would you want that made public? I mean Senator Ellison said that the details of desaggregated Telecard use would be made available to the Parliament.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes that will happen. You see what was the case for many years was that your Telecard bill was not separated from your electorate office bill, telephone bill. You were never given details of usage of your Telecard and recently Senator Ellison, because of what happened in relation to Mr Reith’s Telecard, has changed that so you now get a separate Telecard account. If Mr Reith had been given a separate Telecard account circumstances may well have been different. At least he would have known of the very heavy usage of the Telecard. Now this was an instruction given back in the early 1990s by a minister in the former government. There were, can I say, there were privacy considerations that were applying at the time and the Department acted in accordance with that ministerial instruction. But I’m not personally aware of any irregularities by anybody and of course in relation to Mr Reith, he’s paying the bill even though he has no legal liability to do so. I mean he’s paying $50,000 that he’s been told by the nation’s top law officer he’s not legally obliged to do but he’s doing it because he sees it as his moral responsibility because he gave the details of the card to his son in the first place. I’m not aware of the circumstances of other members. That information is not provided to me. But it is going to be tabled in the Parliament, that is the separate usage of Telecards is going to be tabled. It’ll show zero against my name because I haven’t used the Telecard. But there’s nothing wrong with…..I mean let’s get one thing clear, entirely legitimate indeed extensive use of a Telecard particularly for people who live in areas and work in areas where mobile phone range is not very good, that is a perfectly legitimate expense of office.
JONES:
Could I just ask you a couple of questions that the battler out there would be flummoxed about. How can Telstra, a major authority, give what seems to be in this occasion irresponsible if not reckless credit to the extent of $50,000 without question? I mean Telstra would give no battler in struggle street $50,000 credit.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well to be fair to Telstra, Telstra sends the bills to the Department and the Department of Administrative Services was paying the bill. And you know, there had been an instruction given that the details of the bill, that is the phone calls made, the destinations of those phone calls, were not to be made available, were to be kept secret. I mean it’s as simple as that. Now there were privacy considerations for that which may or may not have been justified, I don’t know. But I think it’s been a very unfortunate saga. Let me say again Alan in the end that the taxpayer is not out of pocket for a dollar. Mr Reith is paying the money in full.
JONES:
But see the public would say there were questions of principle. I just want to ask you because the public are asking these questions. Recently a Telstra sales executive used a corporate credit card to withdraw cash advances totalling $10,000. He was later told that cash withdrawals were against Telstra policy. He said he wasn’t aware of the policy and would make sure the money was repaid. He was reportedly sacked for misusing the card. He lost an unfair dismissal claim. The commissioner said it was incomprehensible that as a senior executive, he wouldn’t be aware of company policy on cash withdraws. So the public are saying that if you’re an ordinary worker out there the rules are different from those which apply if you’re a member of the Parliament.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I say in fairness there’s one crucial difference in that example to Mr Reith’s in that at no stage did Mr Reith get any personal benefit. I mean the $50,000 was not given to Mr Reith. People keep talking about it being repaid. I mean if you repay something it means you’re handing back something you should never have got in the first place. He wasn’t given anything, he wasn’t given the $50,000.
JONES:
Well that’s the second point because people are saying well if someone got $50,000 worth of benefit it must have been a fraudulent benefit. How come no one’s being prosecuted?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we sought the advice of the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution. He didn’t conclude that the fraud may not have been committed. He concluded, which is his job, there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution but….
JONES:
Should that opinion be made public, the detail of the opinion?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well a summary of it’s already been made public but the Director of Public Prosecution is an independent person. We don’t control him, nor we should because criminal prosecution should be separate from the executive government and it’s up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether or not he makes the opinion public. It’s not up to me as Prime Minister or to the Attorney General but we did go to the police, we went to the Director of Public Prosecutions, we went to the Solicitor General about civil legal liability and he said there’s no civil legal liability. But despite all of that, can I just say again, Mr Reith is paying the money.
JONES:
Okay, just a quick one before you go. Are you aware that almost 500,000 businesses will reportedly be late lodging their business activity statements. They’ve got to have them in by November 11. But that means they could face penalties of up to $88 million. Apparently, and I’m not sure whether you’re aware, there’s a survey of 2000 accountancy firms has forecast that up to 400,000 would be late lodging their return because accountants can’t process the one million quarterly BAS returns for small business in 42 days. Are the fines that they will face a case of too much too soon?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan it’s too early to be talking about fines. The due date for these returns has not yet come.
JONES:
November 11, yep.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, so I think it’s an issue that we deal with, and the Tax Office...
JONES:
But you would look sympathetically at the problem.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in my view, I mean the Tax Office administers these things, but my view is that the Tax Office should be sensible and understanding. That’s a view that, obviously, they’re aware of and we’ll continue to communicate it.
JONES:
Thank you for your time.
[ends]