TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
INTERVIEW WITH NEIL MITCHELL
RADIO 3AW
8 June 2001
MITCHELL:
First today in our Canberra studio the Prime Minister. Mr Howard good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney says you’re out of step with God because you won’t apologise formally to Aborigines. Whose side is God on in this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’d be a pretty brave person to presume to know the conclusive mind of God in this or indeed any other matter. It is very important on difficult issues like this that community leaders, including newly elected Archbishops not take too narrow a view. I’ve heard the Archbishop’s views, I respect his views. I presume he will extend the same charity to my views. I have a well thought out position. It’s a view I hold in goof conscience. My view is not a view that’s been forced upon the government. I do not believe that the current generations of Australians should formally apologise and accept responsibility for the deeds of an earlier generation. I am personally sorry for what happened to indigenous people in earlier days, I’ve said that on numerous occasions. I think the best and most charitable thing we can do is to move on with practical reconciliation. I believe that the making of a formal apology will prolong rather than put an end to debate about the rights and wrongs of the past. So I just say that like many other issues there are a range of views.
MITCHELL:
But are you offended having been told you’re un-Godly effectively - ‘You’re out of step with God’. Are you offended by that as a Christian person?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it’s a little presumptuous of people to be, even Archbishops, to be asserting such conviction and without any fear of contradiction that he knows the will of the creator. I think that is bit presumptuous. But anyway, he’s a person whose been elected by the Anglican church to a very important position, I respect very much the role of the Christian church within Australia, all its branches. And I always try and work with the leaders of the various denominations of the Christian church and I’ll continue to do so. Religion’s important to me personally and it’s not something I seek to fling upon others. I think it is very much a private thing and it behoves everybody who’s concerned about these things to try and has broad a view as possible.
MITCHELL:
I don’t think even Archbishops have a direct line to God.
PRIME MINISTER:
No they don’t.
MITCHELL:
Or Prime Ministers.
PRIME MINISTER:
Or Prime Ministers! I mean it would be a very interesting focus group anyway.
MITCHELL:
I noticed he also raised the issue, and this came up from Sir Ronald Wilson as well, about asylum seekers. Sir Ronald Wilson says they’re being demonised and the Archbishop was also critical of the Government’s treatment of illegal immigrants. What’s your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think he’s wrong about that. I think Philip Ruddock is struggling manfully with a very difficult issue. We are trying to balance the national interest with a humanitarian concern. And I would point out respectfully to the Archbishop and to Sir Ronald Wilson and to others, on a per capita basis Australia takes the second largest number of refugees of any country on earth, can I say that, the second largest number. We treat them decently, but we cannot run our country on the basis that people who come here illegally in defiance of the laws and queue jumping on others who patiently wait their turn, that they should then just have the right without any let or hindrance to go around the community. You and I both know, and your listeners know that if we do that then we’re going to end up with a situation where the country is seen around the world as an easy mark. Now my responsibilities and that of Mr Ruddock’s of the Australian community extent far beyond that.
MITCHELL:
I did notice that a report today that one of the state’s is going to raise the issue of the apology at your meeting with the states today. Will that be discussed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well somebody can raise it under other business if they wish, that’s their business. But we have got an item dealing with reconciliation, quite a positive item, it deals with the programmes of practical reconciliation that have been put into place. But if somebody wants to raise that they can, but I will explain patiently and courteously my position, which is a well thought out one. As the Archbishop-elect was good enough to acknowledge this morning.
MITCHELL:
Did you see that Sir Ronald Wilson also in the Bulletin this week seemed to be regretting the use of the word genocide in the ‘Bringing Them Home’ report?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he may, it was historically untrue and quite provocative to have used that word. And the use of that word has in my opinion dangerously I think compromised that whole debate. I didn’t think that report was filled with scholarship and the use of the word genocide was I guess a metaphor for the lack of scholarship in the report.
MITCHELL:
We’ll take a call, take a call on the apology issue. Frank go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yeah G’day, good morning Mr Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I’m in a unique position that my cousin was one of the so-called stolen generation. She was in a position where her mother died and he father was basically trying to bring her up, he obviously had drinking problems. My uncle basically, his family adopted the girl. So I mean I’m in a position where I can see what you’re saying in regards to that apology for what other generations have done, I think, looking back further, I think what they’ve done in Tasmania to the Aboriginals in Tasmania, I think that really the British Government is the one that should be making the apology. I don’t think it’s the Australian Government in a sense. We should look at some type of formal apology from the British Government for the Aboriginal people.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think to be historically fair, the practices about which people now complain were carried out long after the British had ceded control of affairs in Australia to Australian governments. If you look back over history the attitude of the British colonial authorities in the 19th Century to indigenous policy was not markedly more restrictive or insensitive than that of the domestic political authorities. In fact some would argue in certain areas it was less so. I don’t, with respect, believe there should be any formal apology by anybody but I would have to go a step further and say I don’t think it really is the answer to say well the British Government’s got to apologise for these practices. I mean we can’t have it both ways, we can’t assert the robustness of political independence that Australia gained at the turn of the 20th Century and then say oh but hang on it’s all the fault of the Brits.
MITCHELL:
In another area, it seems to be things are a bit out of whack. We’ve got the directors of One.Tel and HIH selling down their shares. You’ve got Jodee Rich shuffling personal assets, there’s report today he’s given his $8 million house to his wife. You’ve got Rodney Adler complaining about being treated as a tall poppy. And meanwhile the One.Tel workers will lose their jobs though some of them, insurance premiums are going through the roof, One.Tel subscribers threatened with penalties if their mobiles are cut off. What can be done to redress the balance here? It seems to be the average Australian, the average person is getting a rough deal while the fatcats are thriving.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think we start by recognising that not everything is doom and gloom in the business world, that although there’s a lot of publicity to things like One.Tel and HIH most businesses prosper, their directors always do the right thing and so on. In relation to One.Tel, I have to be careful that I don’t say too much about individuals. I have said that I thought that both Mr Rich and Mr Keeling had a moral obligation to return those bonuses. The reason I say that is that a bonus, particularly of that magnitude, is meant to be a reward for good work. I mean, that’s what the expression ‘bonus’ means. It’s something on top of what you normally get because you’ve done a good job and the company’s booming. Now, self-evidently the company wasn’t booming because within a short period of these bonuses being paid the company got into trouble and is now going into liquidation. So that’s why I think those bonuses should be returned and I don’t think there should be any conditions attached to their return.
MITCHELL:
But do we need a tougher legislative approach?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have said that in relation to bonuses of that type the Government is looking at a mechanism where either they become refundable in the event of a company going into liquidation. Now, we’re looking at the drafting of that. It won’t be easy.
MITCHELL:
But what about other areas like the shuffling of assets?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you’ve got to be terribly careful with something like that, Neil. I mean, there are already certain provisions in the bankruptcy act and in the corporations law which give the receiver or a liquidator the power to set aside transactions that are entered into a certain time before liquidation with the intent of avoiding liability. So there are some protections in the law at the present time and you will be aware that in the HIH situation some of the parties consented to orders which effected the assets of their wives and other family members. So we shouldn’t assume there are no laws at the present time. It’s tremendously important when something like this happens that we react in a balanced way. I think there is a case for changing the law in relation to these very excessive bonuses but only in a limited case where there is a liquidation, and the change will have to be drawn very carefully so we don’t unfairly restrict the activity of honest people. But you’re tal! king here about $7 million to each of them and those bonuses were paid not on the basis of performance but they were paid on the basis of the capitalisation of the company which a lot of people in business would regard as probably not the right basis in any event on which to pitch the payment.
MITCHELL:
What about the selling down of shares, are the laws covering the declaration [inaudible] satisfactory?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are certain restrictions where you can’t use the company’s assets in relation to share acquisitions. In relation to selling down, off-hand I’m not aware of any particular restrictions on that once again.
MITCHELL:
I think they have to be declared [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, that’s right, I don’t think there are any restrictions on it. But, once again, where do you stop and where do you start in relation to the honest people. See, I find that when I talk to the community about these things, in the one breath people are saying, oh look, there’s too much paperwork, too much regulation, too much red tape, why don’t you just let us get on with making money and building up our business, employing people and paying our tax. Now, that’s fine, on the other hand…
MITCHELL:
Yeah, but you’re hearing that from the people who are getting the multi-million dollar bonuses.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you’re also hearing it from a lot of people who aren’t, who are just sort of getting on with their life and are quite honest men and women. But on the other hand when something goes wrong the community quite rightly says, well, why don’t you change the law, why don’t you stop this and you’ve got to really strike a happy medium and it’s not easy.
MITCHELL:
Can I look at a specific case – the One.Tel mobile customers, if they do nothing, if they opt not to go with Optus or Telstra could face a penalty. So that seems to me absurd, One.Tel gets turned off and they face a penalty for a breach of contract where the service isn’t there. Now, that would seem stupid, wouldn’t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven’t looked at the contractual arrangements that exist. I’m not going to give a kerbside opinion on that, I’m sorry.
MITCHELL:
What about the insurance situation, do you believe the insurance, well, the insurance premiums are going up, there’s no question, is that profiteering?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there’s a suggestion this morning that the ACCC is going to have a look at that. The ACCC’s pretty good at checking those things out and if it is disposed to do that I would encourage it to do so.
MITCHELL:
Is there a sniff of the 80s in the air?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, there’s not a sniff of the 80s in the air. I think to start with our banks are a lot more responsible and prudent than they were in 1980s. Part of the difficulty in the 1980s was that the banks were too accommodating to some of the high fliers. That was one of the great errors of the 1980s. The other great error of the 1980s, of course, is we were living in, there were differences, we were living in a far less stable economic climate - our inflation rate was much higher then, our government debt levels were much higher, our interest rates were much higher and, therefore, the margin for error, if you had a large number of collapses, was much smaller. And there’s no possibility of things like HIH or One.Tel effecting the overall economy. I mean, you only had to see those March quarter national accounts figures which showed the economy roaring back after the temporary setback in December. No, there’s no real comparison to the 1980s.
MITCHELL:
When will we get details of the HIH inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
As soon as we have got the right person for the Royal Commission. The Attorney-General and I are discussing that. It’s not an easy matter but we want to get the right person and then we’ll announce the identity of the Royal Commissioner and the terms of reference.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
MITCHELL:
We’ll just confirm, we’ll be talking to Professor Fels from the ACCC about the insurance premiums the Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago. We’ll be talking to him in about an hour’s time about that, a little bit less. We’ll take another call for the Prime Minister, John go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yes. Hello there. Hello to the both of you. You know Australia’s been good for so many people. John will you please tell Phil Ruddock to send those boat people back home.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we would like illegal immigrants to go back to where they came from if the country where they came from will have them back. But we can’t in the name of common humanity commit people to possible death in the sea without…..we just can’t do that. And the problem we have is that the countries they come from won’t take them back and we’re caught betwixt and between what, you saying that, and we have others saying we’re being harsh and insensitive just because we detain them. I think Phil is doing the only thing that can be done. He’s running a decent humane detention system for people who are deemed illegal immigrants. We’re trying to process people’s refugee claims as quickly as possible and when people are refused refugee status we try and arrange for their return.
MITCHELL:
What is it costing us, do you know?
PRIME MINISTER:
Quite a lot. I’d have to check the figure but it’s costing us some millions of dollars a year. But I mean what….. I mean some people say well look just turn them back and forget about them. We can’t do that. I mean we’re a humane society and what I guess angers me when people criticise our refusal to do that as being inhumane. I mean we are doing the right thing by not turning them back and forgetting about their fate and yet by doing that we are apparently in the eyes of some behaving in an inhumane fashion. I think those critics are indeed on both sides of this debate are being unreasonable.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, Senator Richard Alston and Senator Faulkner from the Labor Party nearly came to fisty cuffs last night. What’s going on? They were chesting each other.
PRIME MINISTER:
They have some vigorous exchanges but I mean the Labor Party tries to use these Senate Estimate Committees to abuse public servants and carry on and get headlines. And don’t shed any tears over Senator Faulkner or Senator Ray Neil.
MITCHELL:
Jonathan Shier, do you support him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do, very strongly. I am of the view that he is trying to bring about genuine change in the ABC. I’ve probably only met him three or four times since he’s been Managing Director. He was appointed by the board, not by the government and I think he’s doing a good job. Now some people may not like his management style but look, I mean the ABC can’t have it both ways. It can’t say it wants to be free of government intervention but every time there’s a difference of opinion between the Managing Director and some people within the organisation they sort of run up to the government and say this terrible, what are you going to do about Jonathan Shier.
MITCHELL:
The suggestion from the hearing yesterday was that your biographer, Pru Goward, could be appearing on the ABC on a Sunday morning program. I think that’ll be seen as a conspiracy.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s very interesting that she’s identified, and I don’t know whether this report is true, as my biographer. I suppose every time Kerry O’Brien interviews somebody he says I remind you that I was Gough Whitlam’s Press Secretary, that Barry Cassidy when he does programs from Europe says I was Bob Hawke’s Press Secretary. So the list goes on. I mean….
MITCHELL:
Did you know Pru Goward was in the running for a job?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t know. I haven’t discussed that job with her. I have no idea. I mean I think she’s a talented person but I just bring you back though to the point I make, I mean, she’s my biographer, that other people are apparently no longer former press secretaries. I mean I don’t object, let me make it clear, I have no objection at all to Mr O’Brien or Mr Cassidy being employed by the ABC. They both have a lot of talent. I enjoy my jousts with Kerry O’Brien very much. But I’m just making the point it was very interesting that the footnotes are always put on the identification of people on the conservative side of politics than sometimes not on the other side. Do I make the point?
MITCHELL:
The BRW survey on business today says you can’t win the election. Is that going to influence your thinking on a date?
PRIME MINISTER:
No my date is still towards the end of the year. I read that survey just before I came up for this interview. That would just be bouncing off the most recent opinion polls. My experience is that chief executives views about whether you can win or lose are really conditioned by the opinion polls.
MITCHELL:
Were you aware Peter Reith had named December 1 in an interview with a country paper?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah I was.
MITCHELL:
Was he right?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t know.
MITCHELL:
You don’t know?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven’t made up my…..Neil how can I tell you when I haven’t made up my mind when I’m going to have it except to have a disposition that it be at the end of the year. Look we had some very….the country had some very good economic figures earlier this week.
MITCHELL:
No recession.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no recession. And all of that doomsday talk three months ago from, I mean I know Kim Beazley and Simon Crean were hoping there would be a recession. Their game plan was we had two quarters of negative growth, they scream recession, for six months they blame it on the GST and then hope off the back of that negative campaign to win.
MITCHELL:
It’s still pretty tough out there though isn’t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It’s tough in certain areas yes. It always is, no matter….when everything’s booming. It’s always tough. It’s always tough if you’re on a low income, it’s tough if you don’t have a job. But there are some good signs. It’s a little bit better in the bush now than it’s been for a long time. The rains plus the better prices, the low dollar, that’s all helping.
MITCHELL:
I was going to ask you about prices because the foot and mouth situation is really putting up meat prices. Now I read that you’re going to raise the foot and mouth issue….
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I am.
MITCHELL:
….with the states today. What’s happening there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I just want to make sure that we assemble every resource we have to fight any entry of this disease into Australia. Now we look after the customs and all the border controls but the states have got the veterinary inspection systems and the like. We’re putting another $600 million over four years. It’s really an enormous amount of money into keeping this disease out. We haven’t had an outbreak of it for 130 years in Australia and it would be catastrophic if it got here. And I’m certain that the states will support me on this. I can’t imagine there’d be any premier who wouldn’t want to really throw in his lot completely with the Commonwealth to fight this disease as a united Australian effort.
MITCHELL:
Now Bruce Scott, the Veterans’ Affairs Minister, has described as humbug complaints from 53,000 defence pensioners that they won’t get the indexing of pensions.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well thought what he described as humbug was the claim by the Labor Party that we’d misled the Parliament.
MITCHELL:
Okay. They have a claim haven’t they? 53,000…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah well what’s happening is we are looking at all the defence force remuneration and we expect to have the report of the inquirer General, or Brigadier Nunn in September. And meanwhile there’s an increase in the benefit of 6% on the 1st of July.
MITCHELL:
Just back to the economy, as you say no recession. What is the future do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think continued growth, low interest rates, continued low inflation. I would not think too much of a variation in the employment level. Unemployment may jump a little and I’m not sure how much and I’m not even certain that it will be all that much at all, and reviving business confidence and a belief that we have tackled and implemented a major taxation change and people will be wanting to put that behind them. That’s my assessment of the outlook for the year. I’m very positive. I mean there was a real attempt by the Labor Party to talk the economy down three months ago and they were aided and abetted by some pretty dramatic headlines such as the Melbourne Age - “Recession Looms”, Sydney Morning Herald – “Australia Hits the Wall”. I mean that’s pretty dramatic stuff just based on one quarter. And the explanation we gave has turned out to have been vindicated by the statistics we got earlier this week and it was a bigger than expected downturn in housing. That is now recovering because of our doubling of the home savings grant for first homebuyers. I’m pretty positive.
MITCHELL:
I’ve also read this week that you were looking at a sort of redundancy deal for politicians who only serve one or two terms.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that was one of the things that was going to be in the examination. The view had been taken that just as other people if they have some kind of very modest redundancy….I’m not talking about anything very lavish here. I’m just talking about something that’s fairly nominal.
MITCHELL:
A lot of people don’t get any redundancy.
PRIME MINISTER:
No that is true and we made….it’s just one of the things that’s on the list. I mean a lot of people do have redundancy payments. It’s not something that’s completely uncommon. But I am very committed to changing the entitlement date and pushing it up to 55 for new entrants because that’s the community norm.
MITCHELL:
Just finally, because it’s on a different channel I think, did you watch the cricket last night?
PRIME MINISTER:
I did.
MITCHELL:
How did it go? How was the commentary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it was Ian Botham and Jeff Thompson. I watched it for about an hour at about half-past-twelve last night. Not bad. I don’t have a settled view. I wish them luck.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
END
