O'BRIEN:
John Howard, how do you think people should judge your backbench
MP, Don Randall, for his attack of Cheryl Kernot?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well on this issue, poorly. It was quite unacceptable. I made that
very clear when I heard about it. He has unreservedly apologised.
He acted alone. He was not encouraged to do it by me nor to my knowledge
by anybody else and the contemptible claim by Cheryl Kernot that
I put him up to it is something that I reject completely.
I have never, in my 24 years in politics, favoured or supported
or condoned the attacks on private lives of members of parliament.
I have a strong view that private lives are the business of members
of parliament and frankly I don't want any of this type of behaviour
in parliament and whenever it occurs on my side I will see that
it is reprimanded as I did very swiftly today. But the man has apologised,
unreservedly and as far as I am concerned my publicly stated views
about Cheryl Kernot's attitudes and policies are all that matter.
I am not the least bit interested in her private life. I don't
comment on it and I don't want any of my colleagues commenting
on it and I don't want anybody else doing so. I am not interested
in it and I don't think the public is either.
O'BRIEN:
Don Randall, his comments did appear to be quite premeditated.
He actually read the worst of those comments from notes, how seriously
can we take such an apology under pressure when he has done it in
such a premeditated way.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, I can not answer that, I'll answer for my own
actions. I knew nothing about the speech until this morning. I took
action and frankly that as far as I can take it. If you want to
pursue it further with Mr Randall, go ahead and do so.
O'BRIEN:
What sense of personal outrage did you feel when you absorbed the
full import of those sorts of words. Words like: "the morals
of an alley cat on heat"?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, I totally disapprove of that sort of language but let's
get a sense of proportion. I have reprimanded the man, he has given
an unreserved apology, I've explained the circumstances of
it and I don't intend to spend the next 15 minutes talking
about. I can't take the matter any further.
O'BRIEN:
And there is also the issue of Senator Parer and his coal interests
because these two separate issues, quite distinctly separate issues,
nontheless each in their own way go to the issue of parliamentary
standards. And you made a very big issue in the last federal election
and beforehand about your desire and your promise to raise the standards
the ethics of parliament and public trust in the parliament. It's
your very own ministerial guideline that says Ministers should divest
themselves of all shares and similar interests in any business involved
in areas of their portfolio responsibilities. Why is Senator Parer
still in the Ministry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if I can take that very long question in parts. I have dramatically
changed the standards of accountability of parliament. To start
with, I go to every Question Time, my predecessor went to half the
Question Times. Secondly, I have almost doubled the number of questions
that the Opposition can ask and if you are talking about accountability,
having Ministers and the Prime Minister under question every day
in parliament for a much longer period of time, has dramatically
increased accountability.
Now as far as the Ministerial guidelines are concerned, what happened
was that in accordance with the practice I established, Warwick
Parer made a full disclosure to me as he was required to do. He
sought to comply with the guidelines and to act in good faith.
The disclosure he made to me was given to me for careful perusal
and checking by the head of my department who advised me in writing,
that in his opinion, Senator Parer had complied with the guidelines.
There is no evidence that Senator Parer has been dishonest. Kim
Beazley has admitted today that there is no evidence that Senator
Parer took any action as Minister to directly advantage any company
in which he had a direct or an indirect interest. There has been
no evidence produced of a conflict of interest and in those circumstances
I do not believe there is a case for his resignation and I do not
intend to ask it and I do not expect him to tender it.
O'BRIEN:
In an interview on October 15 1996, you said precisely these words:
"The guidelines say that you can't have interests in companies
which operate in your area of portfolio responsibility". Senator
Parer is the Minister for coal. His family trust has holdings in
a coal company. That family trust, as we understand it, has stood
to benefit from that interest. Why is he still in the job?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he hasn't received any dividends himself, so I am advised,
from those particular interests since he has been a Minister. And
it is no good saying he stands to benefit, the fact is he has not
benefited as a result of any decision that he has taken as a Minister
responsible in that area over the last two years. And that is why,
and added to the fact that he sought in good faith, at all times
to comply with the guidelines, so far as disclosure to me was concerned,
it is for those reasons that I do not intend to require his resignation.
He has not behaved improperly. Nobody is suggesting that he is
a dishonest man. Nobody has produced any evidence of an actual conflict
of interest and it would therefore, in my view, be inappropriate
to require his resignation and I do not intend to do so.
O'BRIEN:
The guidelines say, very clearly, you can't have interest
in companies which operate in your area of portfolio responsibility.
Is Senator Parer, the Minister for coal, responsible for coal, does
his family trust have a direct interest in coal?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, you have asked me that question in different ways before
and I am indicating to you firstly, that Senator Parer has not done
anything dishonest. He has not benefited through any particular
decision he has taken as Minister, in relation to his own company.
He has sought at all times to make full disclosure. He was told
by the Secretary of my department and I was advised by the Secretary
of my department, that on examination of his return that he complied
with the guidelines.
Now in those circumstances I do not intend to require his resignation.
We can sit here all night and you can ask me the same question in
different forms but I do not intend to alter my view.
O'BRIEN:
But I would suggest, with respect, that you still haven't
explained how he somehow or other avoids your own definition of
what the guidelines are. Very simply does Senator Parer share in
an asset in the coal industry, which has increased in value or is
increasing in value, while he is the Minister responsible for policy
on coal?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, those words that you have just used don't appear
in my guidelines. But look you can spend the whole night, we can
waste the remaining 10 minutes, or whatever you have allocated for
this interview, on this issue. I have made my position clear. You
have got to look at the totality of a man's conduct. He has
not been dishonest. He has not taken the decision to directly advantage
a company to which he is connected. There is no suggestion of personal
enrichment, as a result of his Ministerial holding. He has not received,
so I am told by his financial advisers, he has not received any
dividend from any coal interests during the time that he has been
a Minister.
O'BRIEN:
But what if the value of the asset rose?
PRIME MINISTER:
If it were the direct result of a decision that he had taken specifically
to benefit that company that would be another matter.
O'BRIEN:
Has the coal industry benefited from your decision on greenhouse?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, you could equally say that Peter Costello ought to
resign as Treasurer because the interest rate on the mortgage he
has on his Melbourne home has gone down by 2.5 per cent as a consequence
of his economic policies. What you are really arguing is akin to
saying that a farmer can never be the Minister for Primary Industry.
O'BRIEN:
No sorry Mr Howard but the guidelines specifically exclude farmers.
PRIME MINISTER:
You weren't asking me about guidelines, you are putting a
proposition that because, even if it had nothing to do with what
Warwick Parer had done himself, specifically as a Minister, in relation
to a particular company if the value of a coal interest had risen
over a particular time, then he is responsible. You have got to
look a the totality of a man's behaviour and you have got to
go to motive. And at all times his behaviour, honestly, at all times
he has sought to make full disclosure to me. I was advised in good
faith, after an assessment in good faith by the Secretary of my
department that he had complied with the guidelines.
O'BRIEN:
But isn't it true that you are also talking, not just about
real conflict of interest, you are talking about potential conflict
of interest and you are talking about perception of conflict of
interest in the public eye.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I am talking about what my attitude is to what Senator Parer
has done. I have given you my answer and you are frankly wasting
my time and that of the viewers by pursuing it.
O'BRIEN:
Well I am sorry Mr Howard, but you are the person who first put
great importance in the issue of propriety, of parliamentary ethics
and of public trust in politicians. As any lawyer who deals with
family trusts knows, if Senator Parer is an object of that trust,
then at some time he stands to benefit from the appreciating assets
and or dividends of that trust. Isn't that a potential conflict
of interest? if he doesn't get money in his hand now, if at
some point in the future he stands to benefit financially.
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry you are talking about ethics. He has not behaved unethically.
I am interested in actual conflict of interest. There has not been
an actual conflict of interest and frankly I have got nothing further
to add to that.
O'BRIEN:
Today's newspaper editorials disagree quite clearly, The
Australian, the head of its editorial: Government tries to fool
the people, The Sydney Morning Herald: Parer caught in the
mess, The Age: Why Senator Parer must stand down, The
Adelaide Advertiser, The Courier Mail and so on. I mean
politically, where does that leave you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Most editorials in the country are critical on my stance on native
title. Editorials are frequently critical. Commentators frequently
say that politicians shouldn't do what the press tells them
to do, they should make up their own mind on what they intend to
do. Now I have reflected on this, I have discussed it with my senior
colleagues. I have taken a stance. I don't agree with you.
I don't agree with the editorials. I am standing by Senator
Parer. He has not behaved dishonourably or improperly. He has been
a very good Minister for Resources and I don't believe there
has been any actual conflict of interest.
I was told after an examination, in good faith by the head of my
department, that his return fully complied with my guidelines and
in those circumstances I just don't intend to take action against
him.
O'BRIEN:
To what extent, if any at all, have you been influenced by the
fact that you have already lost seven frontbenchers, either sacked
or resigned, over problems with shareholdings or travel allowance
claims that an eighth Minister in an election year would be disastrous?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry I have looked at the merits of this particular issue and
that is the basis of the decision.
O'BRIEN:
If we can move on to the issue of health. You have copped a caning
this week from state health ministers and some state premiers over
the fact that you are refusing to budge, that is your Government
is refusing to budge, go any further, in terms of the new Medicare
arrangement. Is that your line going into the Premiers Conference,
Peter Costello was very strong on that today, you are not going
to go any further than you have already established?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry, we have put out a very fair offer to the states. They always
complain, in relation to health, that the Commonwealth hasn't
given them enough money. We have made a real increase of three per
cent to the states. It is a very fair offer and we think they ought
to accept it.
O'BRIEN:
They are saying that your proposal will unacceptably lower the
quality of health care, they want $5.5 billion, $3 billion of which
they say would just compensate them for the cost of public health
of the alarming decline in private health insurance.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, states always say that. They always ask for more money
and what is happening in this country is that health has become
a political football between State Governments and State Oppositions
and State and Federal Governments. Despite the criticisms of it,
this country does have a much better health system than most countries
in the world. There is some strain on private health insurance and
the main reason for that is that the former government ran it down
from a 61 per cent community coverage to a 34 per cent community
coverage when we came to office.
Now our private health incentives which Mr Lee and Mr Beazley would
presumably abolish because they are always attacking, and would
therefore make private health insurance $450 a year dearer for each
family, our private health insurance incentives have helped. But
as far as the states are concerned we have made an offer which is
a 3 per cent real increase on the existing Medicare arrangements.
The states themselves, in the early to mid 1990s cut their own
direct spending on their hospitals at the same time as the Commonwealth
was increasing its commitment to that very same area of public health.
O'BRIEN:
Are you saying that they are exaggerating the impact of the drain
from private health cover on public hospitals?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I am not only saying that, I am also saying that over the past
few years, going back to the early 1990s, the states themselves
have been collectively guilty of cutting direct public spending
on hospitals. And you have to look at the total picture. Every time
something goes wrong they blame the Federal Government, particularly
Andrew Refshauge in NSW. The reality is you look at the graph of
Commonwealth and State spending in this area you will see that in
the early 1990s there were significant cuts in public spending by
states on hospitals at the very same time that the Commonwealth
was increasing its contribution.
O'BRIEN:
But you did promise to solve that problem of declining private
health funds before the last election, do you accept, are you prepared
to acknowledge yet that your $600 million dollar subsidy for the
private health funds, via tax rebates, simply hasn't done what
you expected it to do.
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry I would like there to be more people in private health insurance.
We have tried. I think it is too early to make a final judgement
on the impact of those tax incentives. Unfortunately, Graham Richardson's
advice a few years ago to the former government that they should
have taken action to stabilise private health insurance at about
38 or 39 per cent membership, that advice wasn't taken and
of course, lower it has got the harder it has become to reverse
the trend.
O'BRIEN:
But I presume you took that into account when you made the election
promise though.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. And the advice that we had at the time was accepted in good
faith. We have certainly slowed the haemorrhaging or we have certainly
had an impact on it and I hope over the months ahead we will have
a further impact. And it is an area, of course, that always remains
under constant review but the Labor Party alternative is presumably
to abolish the tax subsidy. I mean they are always attacking it
and saying it is a waste of money, so I can only assume that Mr
Beazley's policy is if he wins the next election, to wipe out
the tax subsidy, and through that he will make private health insurance
$450 a year dearer for each Australian family that has it.
O'BRIEN:
Very briefly another issue that is bubbling away there with the
states is gun laws. Various states seem to be planning to soften
the gun laws of 1996, what will you do about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have asked that it be put on the agenda of the Premiers
Conference. The buy back has been hugely successful. We have recovered
about 600,000 - 700,000 semi-automatic and other prohibited weapons.
And by and large the uniform agreement has been observed. I think
the danger in the discussion that has occurred publicly about possible
changes at the edges is that the impression is wrongly created that
in some way the agreement hasn't worked. It has overwhelmingly
worked very effectively.
We have put on the agenda and I want to make certain that the hopes
of all Australians that that agreement be honoured in full, 100
per cent are realised and that is why I have put it on the agenda.
The Australian public wants that agreement honoured in full and
I will do all in my power to achieve that.
O'BRIEN:
Ok I am conscious of the time ticking away. Very quickly, is this
a line in the sand for you? No weakening on the gun laws.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look Kerry, I want the agreement that was made two years ago honoured.
That's my position, it has always been my position. I understand
it to still be the position of the Premiers, that's what they
say, and it is certainly the position of the overwhelming majority
of the Australian community, might I say particularly Australian
women who saw that uniform gun prohibition as a huge blow for a
safer Australia.
O'BRIEN:
John Howard thanks for talking with us.
PRIME MINISTER:
Pleasure.
[Ends]