TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
INTERVIEW WITH LIAM BARTLETT
RADIO 6WF
7 June 2001
BARTLETT:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
How are you, Liam, good morning.
BARTLETT:
Good morning to you too. Prime Minister, the Ashes tour officially opens tonight, well, the first one-day clash in that triangular series, are you looking forward to it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I am, as always and I know millions of other Australians are. This is going to be a fantastically well-contested tour. I’m sure a lot of people would like to be over there watching it but other things keep them at home.
BARTLETT:
Yeah, that’s for sure. We’ve been talking about the television coverage of the Ashes series, or rather the lack of it on this side of the country for us. What do you think of networks buying up the rights and then holding it back for other programming?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I guess in the end, unless the Government takes the view that it has the right to direct by law what networks – including the ABC – will show on their programmes on given occasions, there’s not a great deal that, short of those kind of laws, that can be done by the Government about it. I mean, this is not a new occurrence. I’m very disappointed and I had this view when Channel Nine had the rights. Of course, on occasions in the past when Channel Nine has been unwilling to show some of the telecast live they have offered them to the ABC and the ABC hasn’t been willing to take them up either. So, I don’t think you can say one network is any better or worse than another in relation to this. I don’t think anybody should assume that if the rights were enjoyed exclusively, say by the ABC, then things would necessarily be any different. I think what I ought to do, and I’m not just saying this because I’m on this programme, but can I remind cricket lovers that the ABC radio coverage, of course, remains and it is always superb. Well, it is. I mean that. I’m a great fan of the ABC’s radio coverage of cricket. That’s where I learnt a lot about the game when I was a very young boy and I’ve always been very grateful for the ABC’s radio coverage. So perhaps it’s an opportunity for me to put in a real plug for the ABC coverage of cricket over radio, it is a great service.
BARTLETT:
I’m not going to argue with you about that. We get very annoyed on this side of the country and, look, not everyone’s a cricket lover, obviously, in Western Australia.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, look, I can understand it but, in the end, people have got to have their beef with the networks and, indeed, the management of the ABC. It’s pretty difficult for a government to say, well look, we will decree from Canberra that you will show this programme at this time slot whether you like it or not.
BARTLETT:
But what about the anti-siphoning laws, what about looking at that so that if somebody else does want to buy them, for instance, the PAY-TV networks obviously are the option in this case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but then a lot of people can say, well look, I can’t afford Pay, I want it free-to-air. And the whole idea of the anti-siphoning laws is to ensure that there is a reasonable level of free-to-air coverage of major sporting events. The argument is really about whether you have live coverage the whole time or whether you have delayed coverage. Now, it’s pretty unsatisfactory as a cricket lover, as I am, to have anything other than live coverage and I know I speak for a lot of Australians in saying that. What the networks say is we have to make commercial judgements, you might like cricket, Mr Howard, somebody else might like cricket but we do have other viewers and we make commercial judgements.
BARTLETT:
But, see, we’ve got the time zone against us as well.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, you have a double liability, I accept that.
BARTLETT:
Double whammy. If you’re in Canberra or sitting in Sydney you’ll be able to watch the middle session and the last session, whereas over in Perth, we will only get the last 10 minutes of the second session and then the tea break and the last session.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a very…look, I don’t have an immediate answer to it because I don’t own the networks and even in relation to the ABC, we can’t direct the ABC. But, in the end, networks have got to have a right to make their own programming decisions. I mean, if I said to the networks, look, I want you to run it, [inaudible] righto, well, you give us some compensation on behalf of the taxpayers and we’ll do it. What do I say to that?
BARTLETT:
All right. On that subject of TV, there’s been a lot written and said about the performance of ABC Managing Director, Jonathan Shier. He attends the Senate Estimates Committee later this evening. But are you worried about any aspect of the National Broadcaster’s performance?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think generally it’s…I think generally speaking it’s a great service. I, from time to time, have my disagreements with the ABC’s balance when it covers political issues, for example, last night the 7.30 Report, in the wake of some incredibly good economic figures, didn’t give those figures nearly the coverage that they had negatively given the very bad figures three months earlier, and that is something that concerned both the Treasurer and I. But…
BARTLETT:
But no sitting government’s ever happy with their coverage, are they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, but you’ve asked me the question. I mean, I didn’t initiate the issue, you asked me what I thought. I mean, I’m prepared to be very even-handed. I’m very complimentary about some aspects of the ABC but I reserve the right and I always have and I’ve always been very open about it in saying that it does require in its news and current affairs still greater balance on certain occasions. But I have confidence in Jonathan Shier. He was chosen by the board. We have confidence in the board. I have confidence in the Chairman. I think the board’s doing a good job. It’s difficult. There’s always a lot of controversy about the ABC, that’s true. There’s controversy no matter who is in office. I think it varies a bit depending on who is in office what the controversy is about. Look, I believe in having an ABC.
BARTLETT:
Do you still have confidence, Prime Minister, in Jonathan Shier given that…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I do.
BARTLETT:
…ratings situation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course I have confidence in him.
BARTLETT:
A suggestion today that he may be given a $20,000 performance bonus, does he deserve that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven’t seen that suggestion and really I’m not in a position to comment. I don’t employ him. I don’t have the opportunity of monitoring his performance from day to day. I’ve only met him on three or four occasions since he’s been managing director. It’s not for me to make a judgement. That’s what you’ve got a board for. People can’t have it both ways. They can’t say the Government’s got to stay at arms length from the ABC when it comes to content and programming but when you get into the minutiae of complaints, oh you know, what does the Prime Minister think of the day-to-day performance of the managing director? Look, that is for the board. We have a charter, we have a board, the board recruits the managing director. I have general confidence, strong, general confidence in the board and in Jonathan Shier, beyond that you really have to talk to the Chairman about his performance. I’m not going to get into it.
BARTLETT:
Okay. Suffice to say you still have confidence in his role.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I do, very strongly.
BARTLETT:
All right, the WA Premier, Geoff Gallop meeting with you today…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I’ll look forward to that.
BARTLETT:
He tells us that he’ll be pressing the case for this State to be chosen as the support base for Australia’s submarine fleet. Are you open to that argument?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, all State Premiers naturally argue the case for the yards and the capacities in their own State and I understand that. Richard Court, when he was Premier of Western Australia, mounted the same sort of arguments and I respect that and I’ll listen to what he’s got to say. I get arguments from Mr Olsen about South Australia, I get arguments from Bob Carr about New South Wales and Steve Bracks about Victoria and that’s their job, I understand that, and I’ll try, as Prime Minister, who’s got to represent all Australians, no matter where they live, to take the right decision.
BARTLETT:
It makes sense, though, doesn’t it, with the Stirling Base over here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I understand the argument. There are also other arguments in relation to locations in other States and, in the end, you’ve got to assess them all and, of course, the submarine corporation is going to make a judgement about that. But anyway, let’s just have a look at that.
BARTLETT:
All right. Prime Minister, on the superannuation issue, parliamentary super, why would a new, more realistic scheme only be available to incoming MPs after the next election?
PRIME MINISTER:
I guess it’s based on the principle of generally not making changes of this kind retrospective. That people who are now in Parliament entered on a certain basis. And you’ve got to also remember that the turnover of members of Parliament is very rapid. The average member of Parliament I think serves about six or seven years, maybe a bit longer, it’s in that order. It’s quite unusual for a person to serve more than 10 or 12 years in Parliament. There is quite a rapid turnover. I think of the turnover of members that’s occurred in the last 10 years. There are a few people who are in for a long time. I mean, I’ve been in Parliament a long time. So, indeed, has my opposite number. But we are the exception rather than the rule. So if you make a change to bring members of Parliament into line with the community standard in relation to the age of access then you are really developing a situation where you’ll have pretty rapid change pretty soon.
BARTLETT:
Why not give the current MPs a choice? If they want to opt out of the current obscenely lucrative scheme they can if they want to.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, can I just say, they’re your words. I don’t accept that description. There are aspects of the scheme that are more generous than private sector schemes. There are other aspects that are less generous. The contributions are much greater – 11% of your after tax salary dropping to 5% after, I think, 18 years and then a change again at 20. There aren’t many private sector schemes I know of, I don’t know any in fact that require an 11% contribution. So I don’t accept that description.
BARTLETT:
I don’t know any that give you back almost 70% rather than 8.
PRIME MINISTER:
But that’s one aspect of it but another aspect of it, you name me a private sector scheme that requires you to make an 11% contribution.
BARTLETT:
Well, I’d gladly grab it with both hands. If I could make the contribution and get back what you get back I’d love it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there isn’t a scheme that has that. But look, I acknowledge that there are aspects of this which are generous and I’m the first Prime Minister that has actually initiated a move to meet the legitimate criticism of aspects of the scheme. I mean, it was never done by Mr Keating or Mr Hawke.
BARTLETT:
Yes, but what’s wrong with choice, Prime Minister? It’s an opportunity…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven’t…I mean, the question of whether there’s choice is something that people can examine. We haven’t finalised all the details of it. I haven’t actually had people advocating choice in relation to current members of Parliament. Some have raised it in relation to future arrangements but I’ve got a committee of backbenchers examining the whole thing. But the main change I would like to see made is to make the access age 55 along with everybody else.
BARTLETT:
Would you agree it would be an opportunity for current MPs, if they so desire, to prove their accountability bona fides to their constituents?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think current MPs prove their accountability bona fides every day in the job they do for the people who elect them. And I say that in relation to Members of Parliament from both sides who I think work, in the main, very hard. I know it’s easy to take pot shots at them but my experience has been that Members of Parliament on both sides of politics do work hard. It’s easy to criticise them and they mainly get criticised and that’s part of the job, it goes with the territory. But I regard them as a group of men and women in the Federal Parliament as being quite dedicated. I disagree, obviously, with a lot of them who don’t share my political philosophy but that doesn’t blind me to the fact that they can work very conscientiously for their constituents. But look, we’re having a look at this. I’m the first Prime Minister to have decided to do something about it and there will be change and we’ll see what comes out of the committee’s deliberations.
BARTLETT:
Nick’s the first caller. Nick, good morning.
CALLER:
G’day mate. Is that Liam?
BARTLETT:
Yeah, go ahead.
CALLER:
Yeah, not bad. Look, I’ve got a question for the old Prime Minister there. I was listening to the radio last night at work. I do 11 hours a day. I’ve done four weeks away from me home. I hear the politicians cry, they don’t see much of their family, I see bugger all of mine. But I was a bit browned off last night with Mr Costello, with his talk in Parliament yesterday. Does he think we’re a pack of hillbillies out here? He was talking about Ashbourke or Ashton or wherever it is in Victoria with a by-election and he turned around he said, we’re a singing, we’re a praying, we’re a doing all this to Mr Beazley. I’m a fence sitter, I don’t go either way but don’t treat us like bloody hillbillies, that’s ridiculous. Does he talk to him much and try to put his point of view through to him that we are people? That’s a question for Mr Howard please.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I know what you’re referring to. Peter was, I think, making quite a humorous and entertaining play on, what, a Dusty Springfield song.
BARTLETT:
Yeah, that’s right.
PRIME MINISTER:
About a thinkin’ and a prayin’ and a hopin’. I thought it was quite humorous. In Parliament occasionally you do need a bit of humour. I didn’t think it was offensive to the general viewer. I’m sorry you found it that way. I thought it was quite entertaining, I thought it was quite effective. The reality is that Mr Beazley has been talking down the Australian economy. They were pretty upset yesterday when we got those good numbers and it was written all over their faces and it was very strong in their body language. And I thought Peter made a very powerful point. I mean those growth figures yesterday are really quite fantastic and they demonstrate very clearly that the GST has not, as Mr Beazley has claimed, mugged the economy…..
CALLER:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No look, I listened to your…..I’m sorry I listened very carefully. I have listened very carefully and I didn’t interrupt you and I would now like the opportunity to reply without interruption. No, it’s the rules of the road with talkback. I listen to you then you listen to me. And I thought Peter was making the point that Mr Beazley had spent the last three months talking down the economy which he has and was rather hoping that yesterday’s figures would be a lot flatter than they were which he was. And I thought he made the point rather effectively and I don’t think he regards people anywhere in Australia as hillbillies. He has a great respect for the Australian people as I do. I mean occasionally in Parliament you’ve got to inject a little bit of vernacular and a little bit of humour into what could be an incredibly boring and dull situation if you didn’t do so occasionally.
BARTLETT:
All right. Thanks for your call this morning. Hello Ben
CALLER:
G’day.
BARTLETT:
Good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning. A question for the Prime Minister. First of all this is not like a tricky question to try and catch him out or anything. I’d just honestly like to know his opinion. Does the Prime Minister believe that it’s a realistic aim to be completely free of foreign debt to the point where our books are totally clean and we have no foreign debt at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t think it’s a realistic aim and it’s not necessarily desirable to be completely free of foreign debt. There’s a big misunderstanding in the community about debt. There are two categories of debt. There’s foreign debt which is the aggregate of all of the borrowings by both governments and companies and individuals within Australia from foreign sources, and then there’s the national debt which is the aggregate borrowings of the governments of Australia to finance their deficits when they spend more than they raise through revenue. Now in relation to the national debt I think it is a good objective to try and have that as low as possible and we have really got that very low now. When we came to government that was about $96 billion and when the new budget works its way through we will have repaid about $58 billion of that $96 billion and it will be probably….we’ll have the lowest or very nearly the lowest national debt of any government in the world. And that’s great. Now foreign debt will go up and down according to exchange rate variations. You’ll never get rid of it entirely and it’s a not a good thing to believe you should get rid of it entirely because what you’d really be then saying is that you want to create a situation where this country finances from domestic sources all the things it wants to do. Well that is an unrealistic goal for a country our size. We’ll always have to borrow, our companies will always have to borrow from time to time from overseas sources. Often it’s better to do so because the interest rate might be better and there are exchange rate advantages sometimes in doing that. So from an economic point of view it is not a worthy goal to try and get rid of that all together.
BARTLETT:
All right.
CALLER:
Yeah I just would like to quickly add to that. Do you believe if Labor will get back in power we would have another scene that would be reminiscent of the ‘80s when they run up too much debt?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m sure if they got back into government they would do what they did when they were in before and that is they will run budget deficits. I mean you have pay on performance. I mean the last five budgets which Mr Beazley was the Finance Minister racked up $80 billion of that $96 billion of government debt through successive budget deficits. I mean we’ve had five surplus budgets. We’ve paid back $58 billion, or we will have at the end of this budget cycle paid back $58 billion of that $96 billion. Now that’s one of the great achievements of this government. I mean I have no doubt that if we lost the election they went back over time they’d go back to those habits and we’d get higher interest rates. They went to 17% when they were last in government. So you know, I mean it’s a fair question to raise.
BARTLETT:
Thanks Ben for your call. Hello June.
CALLER:
Yes. Mr Howard, I’ve heard you say several times how hard politicians work. I’m getting a bit tired of it because other people in the community work very hard and some much harder than politicians, or some of them. And you know they don’t go around saying how hard they work, you know. You get paid a salary, you accepted it, and you know, if they can’t perform well they need to get out of the kitchen as simple as that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t suggest for a moment that politicians work harder than this or that…..
CALLER:
Well it [inaudible] that way.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m sorry. The only occasion which I raise that issue is when people make the broad sweeping allegation that most politicians are lazy and greedy which some people do and I think that is unfair. And I will…..could I just, please. I respect the fact that there are other people who work incredibly hard. I personally have no complaints and I never have had any complaint about the remuneration that I receive. If you go back through transcripts of interviews I’ve done on this subject I don’t complain. I don’t want a pay rise, I never have asked for one. But when I’m asked questions I have to try and give what I regard as an objective answer and I’ve made the comment in the past that you’ve got somebody like the Federal Treasurer who’s principally responsible for economic management in this country. His salary is less than $200,000 a year. The managing directors of most companies with which he must deal and whose fortunes are influenced by his decisions are paid many times that. Now he’s not complaining about that, I’m not complaining about that but I think…..
CALLER:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not but I think when you have a discussion about these things if you’re fair and balanced you’ve got to take those factors into account. That’s what I’m saying.
BARTLETT:
Okay June. Thanks for your call this morning. Hello Tony.
CALLER:
Hello, yes. I have a question for the Prime Minister Liam.
BARTLETT:
Yes go head.
CALLER:
I’d like to know why the taxpayers have to foot the bill for these boat people coming in, these refugees. Basically they are not refugees in the true sense. They economically produce that anyone that can pay $17,000 plus to get a boat to come here and when they get their status denied, they start rioting and wrecking the place and the poor old taxpayer has to put up the bill. Now why shouldn’t we have, as soon as they hit Ashmore Reef, there’s a sign which says, oh you’ve made it to Australia, welcome, that’s it, okay?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I understand your concern and it’s something the Government shares about the riots and that’s why were are going to completely resist all of the criticism of the detention centres that’s why we’re going to maintain detention centres, that’s why we condemn the opportunistic responses on occasions of Labor Party and trade union figures on these issues. I mean the President of the ACTU has condemned the detention centres holus bolus and if the Labor Party could be more accommodating in the Senate we may have even, we may now have tighter laws which would have more significantly discouraged people from thinking they could come to Australia. But we are a humane country and the sad fact is that many of the people who come here illegally, the countries from which they came will not have them back and to just literally turn people back into the sea without any regard as to what will happen to them is not something that decent Australians would support. What we have to try and do is to have their status assessed, if they are genuine refugees then they can enter the community, if they’re not then we have to keep them detained and we have to negotiate arrangements for their return to the countries from which they came.
BARTLETT:
All right.
PRIME MINISTER:
Now that is the only way we can do it. We will continue to keep them in detention. We will not succumb to the sort of noisy agitation of some in the community. We will not be intimidated by riots and damage being inflicted upon detention centres. But equally we do have to behave in a humane fashion and I think that’s what most Australians want us to do.
BARTLETT:
All right Tony, thanks for your call. Right Prime Minister I just wanted to get your comments on a drugs issue. As you know we have a drug summit, our first drug summit coming up in about nine weeks here in WA. But following on from the National Drug Strategy, the delivering of those drug education brochures in post boxes around the country. There was a lot said on this programme and many others around Australia in the last couple of weeks about these drug testing kits that parents can now purchase to see if their kids are using or have been around illicit drugs.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
BARTLETT:
From a prime ministerial point of view and a parental point of view – would you ever have contemplated purchasing one or using one for your children?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can only speak as a parent with three now adult children, no I wouldn’t have. But I don’t want to sort of presume to tell parents how they should behave in relation to their own children, that’s a matter for them. But I certainly would never have contemplated it.
BARTLETT:
Why [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
… everybody …. Why?
BARTLETT:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I had no, well because I had no, well because I didn’t have any grounds through my other observations of my children and the sort of relationship we have with our children to believe that there was any need to or that there was any drug problem. And our …it’s just a difficult issue this and I sympathise with parents and I think one of the great advantages that came out of the literature that we distributed is that it did get people talking about the need for parents to talk more openly with their children about drug issues. Now the feedback that we’ve had is that parents appreciated this literature. I have seen some stories that the proposals were ridiculed by some young people, they may well have been. But this campaign was directed to parents, it wasn’t directed at young people and it was designed to get them thinking about greater communication with their children.
BARTLETT:
So do you think …
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we are making some progress on that front. But whatever you do in this area it’s an incremental thing, there’s no one big bang solution to the drug problem, it would have been tried and we would have declared victory years ago if there had have been.
BARTLETT:
Sure. Do you think those drug testing kits are of benefit to parents or potentially more trouble then they are worth?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well I think it depends entirely on the circumstances. I mean parents have got to make their own judgements and if parents in their wisdom and out of their concern for their children think they’re a desirable thing well that is a matter for them. I don’t think I have, it’s my place to say yes or no, I think parents have got to make individual choices. The one thing I would say to them is communicating and talking to your children about these issues in the language which best enables you to talk frankly to each other is the way for all parents to go and every parent, every family has its own method of communicating with each other. And all I ask and exhort people to do is to lift the level of communication and to understand that in the end no matter how self-confident children or young people may seem, in the end the thing they still desire most is a stable, close relationship with their parents and their brothers and sisters. It’s still the rock in the lives of most people and the more you can enhance and improve that in your own family the better, and the more likely you are to be able to help your children through difficult personal and social challenges.
BARTLETT:
All right. Look thanks very much for your time this morning. We appreciate our monthly get together, especially for a state-wide audience here in WA. How many more times do you think we’ll get to speak prior to the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, quite a number. My current intention is to have the election at the end of the year.
BARTLETT:
Terrific. Well we have more dates to look forward to.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
END
