Subjects: Indigenous affairs; Charles Perkins; Japanese
Prime Minister.
E&OE ...................................................................
JONES:
Prime Minister Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Alan.
JONES:
You were angry yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, angry at the suggestion that the Government has used this submission to the Senate as some kind of political wedge to score a political point by endeavouring to exploit some negative elements in the Australian community about aboriginal people. That is a complete distortion of the truth. It's got no foundation. That submission, the existence of which I frankly didn't know anything about until the weekend, was put in in the normal course of events by the Minister, it having been prepared at a bureaucratic level, approved by him and cleared at a ministerial office level in the normal fashion. The idea that we've set out to create some kind of debate and fury and firestorm over this issue, I mean those allegations are coming from our political opponents. They have no substance and the point I was making in the Parliament yesterday is that although we may differ from the Labor Party about how you achieve goals in this area, there's no lack of concern and compassion.
We are very committed to what I call practical reconciliation, helping the disadvantaged. We can argue about what happened in the past, but in the end you can't alter that. What you can do is something about the present and the future. And I would have thought most sensible Australians agree that aborigines were treated badly in the past and they want them to be part of the community and to have the same opportunities as the rest of us. But they don't like being called racist and they don't like extravagant language like Mr Perkins used yesterday to be part of the debate. And I think I was expressing in a sense, a collective public anger over those who would attempt to brand us in that way.
JONES:
How do you feel about Charles Perkins' statements, going to millions of people around the world arguing that the place is going to burn, burn, burn? If you want to see burning cars and burning buildings then come over enjoy yourself. This is to people worldwide.
PRIME MINISTER:
What I would say to those same people, he does not speak for Australia. He does not speak for indigenous Australians. I'm quite certain that many aboriginal people I know and may disagree with me on a lot of issues will be ashamed of those remarks and will disassociate themselves from it. And what I would say to your listeners and to people around the world is not only does he not speak for Australia, but he doesn't speak for the indigenous community on this issue.
JONES:
The issue that seems to have inflamed public opinion is the notion that to talk about generations is a myth - a notion of a generation of Australians when arguably it's somewhere between one in three and one in ten who were removed. Was it, given that that kind of comment was going to be made a) would it have been better for such a sensitive matter have been cleared with you in the first place and; b) is the Government nit-picking at some cost by using that terminology?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's what our critics have said and people will have different views. To start with the word myth was not used. And if you read the document you will see that it is a very flat, and I don't say this critically, bureaucratic type of document which just seeks out to put down some facts. I mean one of the facts [inaudible] about the original Human Rights' Commission Report which talked about the children that were taken away is that I don't think anybody who was involved in the taking away, that is, people on the other side of it, were in fact involved in giving evidence. Now, I am not quite certain as to the reason for that and there was, and there still continues to be, debate in the community amongst those who have a recollection and those who've spoken to people who have a recollection about the circumstances of each child being taken away. It is true, as the submission points out that some of the children that were taken away they would still be taken away under today's laws.
JONES:
If I could just interrupt there for the benefit of my listeners. The Human Rights' and Equal Opportunity Commission, if we're going to talk about figures, took a stab at the national figure and then said this - that it could conclude and I'll quote its exact words - quote it could conclude quote, with confidence that between one in three and one in ten indigenous children had been forcibly removed between 1910 and 1970. One in three and one in ten. It hen defined forcibly Prime Minister, by saying 'compulsion' means, force or coercion. It encompasses both officially authorised use of force or coercion and illegally exercised force or coercion. It clearly extends to the removal of a child by a government delegate such as a protector or a public police officer to legislative powers. These officers exerted compulsion by virtue of their office and the power of the legislation under which they acted. The term clearly extends to the removal of a child on a court order. So, does that mean today, for example, in the debate over DOCS in New South Wales that if we apply that standard then children taken away from drug-addicted families would under these criteria be stolen children?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Alan, given the emotive character of this debate, can I not answer that question, but quite indirectly but can I answer, comment in this way, that there are many children who are taken away today under the laws of today who would in equivalent circumstances have been taken away years ago. And that applies to both indigenous and non-indigenous children. Now, but over and above that there were clearly children taken away from their families who according to today's standards should not have been. They clearly were very badly traumatised by that. And it clearly continues to have an impact on them. Now, what I'm endeavouring to do in this debate is to find a point of moderation to recognise there were things done in the past that shouldn't have happened. And none of us are proud of that. But also to recognise that many of the things were done then with a positive intent. Although with the attitude and the values we have today we don't see it in that light. Now, we can go on as a nation debating this forever, I don't think that is productive. You can't alter the past. You can learn from it. You can regret aspects of it. You can feel sorry for aspects of it. But what we really do need to do in this community now is to focus on the challenges of today.
JONES:
Would it all end, do you think if the Prime Minister, given that many of these decisions were made by governments, whether they were well intentioned or otherwise, were made by government, would the Prime Minister of the day then apologise? I mean you have said you're sorry. What is the difference between that and saying well, look yeah we do apologise for those things of the past now let's get on with it. Or does that leave the Government open to some kind of significant compensation package? What is the problem here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, let's put compensation aside. We have all of us, through the Parliament, expressed our sincere regret. I have opposed a formal national apology because I don't believe, and it remains my view and that of the Government, that it is not appropriate to have a formal national apology for things for which you were not directly responsible. Now, some people say I'm being stubborn on that. It's a deeply held view and conviction of mine. And indeed what would be the point of a formal apology that would then be condemned as not sincere by many of those who've been calling for it?? I mean this idea that you fix it all by having a formal apology after all the debate that's gone on, I don't think it does fix it. I mean, you had a formal apology in Canada, that hasn't resolved the situation.
JONES:
Is the well-being of aborigines in Australia today, you think, significantly advanced from the collective well-being of that group of people, say twenty years ago?
PRIME MINISTER:
I find that very hard to answer. I do know that contrary to what is said almost every day we have made progress on education standards. There are now more aboriginal children staying to complete their schooling. There are more aboriginal children in training. There are more aboriginal children going into tertiary education. Their standards of literacy and numeracy, although they're way below the national average, are better than what they were a few years ago. There have been advances in health. I mean there should have been. Of course, as a community we're putting hundreds of millions of dollars to address the disadvantage. But we still have a long way to go. But you never hear the good news stories. You never hear that there may be thousands of people, of aboriginal people in training now compared with hundreds a few years ago.
You don't hear those stories because it is not in the interests of some people to acknowledge that we are in fact making some progress. It is slow. We still have a long way to go. But people who play down the extent of aboriginal achievement do their community a great deal of disservice because there has been a great improvement. There are many success stories in the aboriginal community and we rarely hear about them. And I think that's quite tragic.
JONES:
On the best available evidence, coming back to the problem that stirred up the debate, gathered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics it would seem, though that the number of Aboriginal children stolen from their families was at the very most 10%. Are you concerned that the international community may be developing a totally different view of Australia as a result of the way in which this has been presented internationally?
PRIME MINISTER:
Certainly the international community if it believed what UN Committees said about us would be developing the wrong view. All I can do is to say that that submission was compiled in good faith. Nobody has been able to seriously dispute the factual accuracy. It was not a politically prepared document. It was drafted initially at a departmental level in good faith to respond to a Senate inquiry. Now it is not- the figures are not political figures. If people think they are wrong well they should point out where they're wrong but in a sense that's not the main issue. The main issue is what we do now. And what we do about the future.
JONES:
Well, the future is next May, which is next month and there will be a Council for Reconciliation is going to deliver its report. Do you think it will be in the capacity of the Government to sign off on that report and have the Government give its authority to the nature and substance of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I hope that it is. It's not going to be easy because trying to reach agreement on a document in this area which expresses views of the spirit as well as making specific commitments in pragmatic areas is always difficult but there's goodwill on our part. I don't want to raise expectations that we can reach an agreement but I'm certainly going to try. And nothing that's happened over the past few weeks or few days alters my personal resolve to try and achieve agreement on a document.
JONES:
So in the short.
PRIME MINISTER:
If I could just say, if we fail to reach agreement on a document that should not be seen as complete failure of the reconciliation process. I think everybody agrees that. about two things about reconciliation. It means different things to different people. And secondly, you won't achieve it by a particular time however well intentioned that goal might have been but it will be something that's achieved over a considerable number of years and I think we've come a long way.
JONES:
How do you take the heat out of today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think everybody should think and talk in a moderate and understanding way. We reject extreme language. We reject the language of Perkins. We reject the language of people who pretend that nothing bad happened in the past. I mean of course the Aboriginal people of Australia were treated very badly. And it's the most blemished chapter in our history and I've acknowledged that in every year I've been Prime Minister of this country but I also am not willing to cop- and no decent Australian will cop- the proposition that this is a racist nation. This is one of the most tolerant, cohesive, decent nations on earth and the idea that people should be internationally calling us racist just because we disagree on something..just because I disagree on a particular issue doesn't automatically support the proposition that the government has a racist stance. I know there is heat at the moment. That disturbs me, but I think there is also a great reservoir of decency and commonsense and moderation in the Australian community that will take this whole thing over and see that we get a decent outcome.
JONES:
Just before you go Prime Minister, on another subject entirely, the Japanese Prime Minister Mr Obuchi, is in a coma on life support, he suffered a stroke, you are aware of that. Do you just have a comment on behalf of Australia for the Japanese community?
PRIME MINISTER:
I said in the Parliament yesterday that I do send to him and his family our thoughts and good wishes, he has been a good friend of Australia. I have met him on a number of occasions. We have got on very well. Japan is important to us and the Prime Minister of that country is important to us and we wish him well and we wish him a very speedy recovery.
JONES:
It looks as though that is unlikely.
PRIME MINISTER:
The news in not good but we can but hope and can I also on the good wish front going to somebody else as a long time supporter of the dragons can I send my thoughts and good wishes to Brian Johnston.
JONES:
Certainly Prime Minister. Thank you Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hope that he recovers well.
JONES:
Thank you very much indeed. I will have something more to say about that later. Thank you for your time Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.