TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY CORDEAUX
RADIO 5DN

27 June 2001

CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, the visit to Australia by President Wahid was a long time in coming but it looks like it has been amazingly successful.

PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it has been successful. We have ruled the line under our differences over East Timor. Nobody, certainly not Australia, has in any way pulled back from what we did there, but we’ve moved on and we don’t intend to allow our differences over that issue to contaminate the relationship in the future and I think it’s very welcome. The President showed a great deal of political courage in coming here. He was very upfront. He wants to focus on the future. He’s realistic. And it does mark a new phase in Australia’s relations with Indonesia. I believe that our relations with Indonesia are now on a more realistic footing than they have probably been for the last 25 or 30 years. We don’t pretend any more about the relationship. We both know it is important. We both know that it’s significant for both of us but we have realistic expectations. We recognise differences. We have been able to live through a major political difference but the relationship has remained intact. So, in every way the visit has put the relationship on a stronger footing but also a new and more realistic footing and that’s very welcome. It’s always a good idea to have a relationship that is based on reality and not some kind of myth-making about a speciality which has never been there.

CORDEAUX:
Did you discuss at all the problem of the asylum seekers using Indonesia as a jumping off spot to Australia?

PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, we did. I thanked him for the cooperation that Indonesia’s already given and asked that there be more in the future. And they, without making extravagant commitments, which is understandable, they indicated that they wanted to continue that cooperation, and Indonesia has been very successful. And your question does underline a very important point and that is that the best way to handle this illegal immigrant problem is to dissuade people from coming here in the first place either through having effective arrangements with stepping off ports like Indonesia or having laws which send a signal to the rest of the world that we are not a soft touch. It’s much better to stop the problem coming here in the first place, or reduce the impact of it in the first place, than having to deal with it once people are here. That is the hardest way of coping with a problem like this and that is why we have tried, on a number of occasions, to strengthen the law to send that signal and we’re still unhappy that the opposition parties in the Senate block legislation to make it even less attractive for people to come to this country. And we again call on them to recognise that persuading people not to come here in the first place is much better than dealing with the problem after it arises.

CORDEAUX:
Well, after the discord and bitterness of East Timor, what chance do you feel there is of bringing some of these war criminals, some of these people, to justice and doing it swiftly?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that is a matter for the legal processes of Indonesia. They have established ad hoc tribunals and, importantly, we were told yesterday that those tribunals would deal with atrocities allegedly committed both before and after the United Nations supervised independence ballot in 1999. Now, that’s an important move forward. Previously it related only to events at one particular point, now it’s both and that’s very good. But that is a matter for the processes of justice inside Indonesia. We’ll obviously be watching that very carefully but we should allow those processes to work and see how they play out. But there is now quite an international focus on these matters but I, at this stage, want to see how that pans out. And we, naturally, will expect justice to be delivered and those people who are guilty, the culprits, as President Wahid calls them, to be punished.

CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, I understand that you’ve just met with Gary Toomey from Ansett and those talks were about, I guess, the aviation…the future of the aviation industry in Australia. Can you touch upon what was said or what was decided?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not in total detail because some of it has a commercial in confidence character about it. But Ansett is obviously interested in remaining as a strong competitor of Qantas in the domestic scene here in Australia. And from the Government’s point of view there are a number of things we want in aviation. We want a very competitive aviation market and that, of course, basically means a strong Ansett as well as a strong Qantas, and also the opportunity for new entrants, such as Virgin Blue and others, to get a share of the market, recognising that in the end the amount they do get will be determined by commercial factors. We certainly want a strong Ansett as well as a strong Qantas. We also want a proper level to the extent that’s commercially feasible, of Australian ownership. I mean, we have to be realistic in the airline industry that we can’t have a total 100% ownership of every airline that has any sort of original connection with this country but, by the same token, we don’t want it to disappear or be so watered down that it’s completely insignificant. Aviation’s a very competitive business, very competitive indeed and it’s very expensive. Now, Ansett has obviously been going through some difficulty but it’s got a great history and it’s a great airline. I have a lot of respect for the contribution that Ansett’s made to aviation in this country.

CORDEAUX:
Do you have any problems with Singapore Airlines and the amount of control that that would have over Ansett and putting that with also the government owned, or 70% government owned Singapore Telco getting control of Optus and also certain strategic satellites?

PRIME MINISTER:
Let me put it this way, Jeremy, we are always concerned to ensure that there is as much Australian ownership of big business undertakings in this country as economic circumstances allow. Sometimes in order for a company to survive you have to accept a higher level of foreign ownership or if you insist that the current level of Australian… I’m talking generically here, I’m not talking particularly about Ansett or any other company, I’m just making the principle that if the choice is between the company going out of business or an increase in foreign ownership and saving jobs then I’d obviously want to keep the company in business and save jobs. I don’t think anybody seriously argues that it’s better that a company go to the wall and people be sacked than it is to…. than allow an increase in foreign ownership in a particular company. That really is shortsighted. I don’t think anybody, in their right mind, could argue that. And I think what people are arguing is that if all things are equal it’s far better that something be Australian owned than foreign owned. Well, I agree with that completely.

CORDEAUX:
Sure, sure. But you don’t see any security problems with the Singapore Government?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are…I mean, having sort of stated the generic problem, clearly there are, generic principle, clearly there are, there can be strategic considerations but there are laws and so forth that can cover that off in any event. But they are all things that are taken into the mix in making decisions on foreign investment. We will never be taking decisions on foreign investment that neglect such matters as security. Realistically we should not, you know look with any degree of hostility to a country like Singapore, Singapore is close to Australia, we have good relations with the government.

CORDEAUX:
Sure.

PRIME MINISTER:
We have good commercial relationship and we’re trying at the moment to negotiate a free trade understanding with Singapore. So Singapore is a good friend of Australia.

CORDEAUX:
But the Americans…

PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t think that we should look at Singapore with any degree of aggression or difficulty.

CORDEAUX:
Sure but the Americans might not quite see it that way with regard to those satellites…

PRIME MINISTER:
No, no but equally we have to take decisions that suit Australia, even sometimes if that involves a slight difference with the Americans I mean so be it. But I don’t think there is a problem, I mean we obviously have a very close security relationship with the United States and we’re not going to do anything to compromise that but in the end we have to call these things for Australia and for nobody else.

CORDEAUX:
Sounds good to me. Prime Minister would you mind taking some calls.

PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.

CORDEAUX:
Hello Trent.

CALLER:
Hi.

CORDEAUX:
Go right ahead.

CALLER:
Okay thanks. I’m a year 12 student at Immanuel College currently and I’m doing a study on what makes a good leader and my question for you is what do you believe is the most important leadership quality you have had to show in your last two terms in office?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the most, I’ve got a bit of feedback again, I think the most important quality of leadership either for an Australian leader or anybody else is really to have a combination of what I might call listening and leading. There are some occasions where a leader has got to say to the people for whom he has responsibility this is the way to go, it might not be popular, you may not like it but in the end it will be good for the country. We did that in relation to taxation reform for example. If we’d have been just worried about our political popularity in the short term we would never have embraced taxation reform. We knew that our opponents would take pot shots at it and so forth. I think that’s part of it but you also have to understand the mood and temper of the people who you have the privilege of being elected to lead. And that combination if I may phrase it that way of listening and leading, of occasionally saying this is in the long term good of the country, we must do it, we will endure the criticism and the pain and so forth involved but in the end community will be the stronger, that’s part of it. But it’s also part of it to understand that you’ve got to take people with you, you’ve got to listen to their concerns and I think you’ve got to get the balance of those two things right to be an effective leader.

CALLER:
Thank you.

CORDEAUX:
Okay Trent thank you. John good morning.

CALLER:
Yeah good morning Jeremy.

CORDEAUX:
Go right ahead John.

CALLER:
Yeah g’day Mr Howard, this is just totally right off the track, you might not want to answer I’m not quite sure. South Australia if you’re molested by a paedophile before 1984 you cannot take them before court, I’d like for you as the leader of Australia to see if you could do something about bringing in a federal law so these people can be brought before justice.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not quite sure how you define molested by paedophiles, not quite sure what ages and so forth but my understanding is that something that was a criminal offence no matter when committed is not subject to a statue of limitations.

CALLER:
…South Australia it is.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not aware of that, I mean but in any event it would be a matter for the South Australia Government…

CALLER:
Sorry Mr Prime Minister but I am aware of it (inaudible) only state or territory inside this Commonwealth…

PRIME MINISTER:
Are you telling me that, are you saying that under South Australian law any criminal offence…

CALLER:
No, no paedophile …

CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, what happened was, I mean this has come up on the programme before, we’ve checked it through with the Attorney General’s department and for some reason I suppose based on faulty memory or some other thinking of the Attorney General it was decided that it was risky going back in people’s memory earlier than 1983 or ’84. So anyone who committed a crime of that nature…

PRIME MINISTER:
Can I say, I’m not trying to avoid the question, I was not aware that there was such a specific provision, it was always my understanding that something that was a criminal offence at the time it was committed remained liable for prosecution, irrespective of when that prosecution occurred. In other words the doctrine was that you had no statue of limitations with a crime whereas you have a statute of limitations, normally six years, in relation to civil obligations. I was not aware of that in relation to South Australia. I’ll have a look it, I’m not saying that it’s something that…the Federal Government would have no constitutional power to do anything about that but I’ll certainly, as a matter of interest I’ll certainly have a look at it but I was frankly unaware and I thought that principle obtained throughout the country and indeed throughout the common law world.

CORDEAUX:
Well when it was first brought up Prime Minister I didn’t believe it either and it was only when the Attorney General’s department confirmed it that we had to accept it as…

PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s a very… I am interested to be told about it and I thank your caller for raising it with me.

CORDEAUX:
And on a similar matter what did you think of Senator Bill Heffernan telling Parliament on Monday night that Mr O’Shane, Terry O’Shane, was the alleged offender against Mrs Scott, Mrs Evelyn Scott’s children. What did you make of that?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well he made that speech off his own bat. Senator Heffernan is a person who holds strong views about a lot of things and people respect him for that and he holds them conscientiously. I'm not going to comment on the particular… the claim that he made…

CORDEAUX:
But is it the proper use of privilege?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well privilege is always to be used very carefully and people should never use privilege in a capricious or careless fashion and I can only assume that anybody who uses privilege in this fashion believes that there are reasons for doing it. But I repeat I’m not going to in any way comment on the particular allegations he made, I’m not personally in a position to do so. And it really is a matter that if you want more information about you should pursue with the Senator.

CORDEAUX:
Frances, here’s the Prime Minister.

CALLER:
Oh good morning Mr Howard and Jeremy. Mr Howard, my husband and I are both pensioners and I wondered instead of giving us the $300 which was very nice, thank you very much, how about raising the ceiling on savings interest before taking out the 40 per cent. Most people of our age didn’t get the opportunity to accumulate vast sums of money and how about letting us keep a little bit more of the little bit that we have got?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s a possible…. there were some changes, there was some liberalisation made of that at the time the tax package was introduced a year ago. I guess it’s something that we keep on the agenda, we thought the best way of providing a bit of immediate assistance for people in your situation was the $300 payment and….

CALLER:
You have no idea what it’s like to live on pension week after week and try and save something for a little bit of extra. You know I mean so they keep saying oh they’ll let a Member of Parliament spend one day, one day’s no good you need 12 months to accumulate all these bills and to keep paying it out of this pension. I mean we try to help ourselves. But I mean when my husband I were both at work there weren’t such things as superannuation or if there were you had to be on a certain level and be invited to join it and all these sorts of things. I mean we didn’t have big jobs where we could accumulate vast sums of money. But you know, I just feel if you didn’t take off that 40% on the little bit what we have got at least we’d have something ongoing instead of keep on thinking perhaps they might give us something now and again.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t pretend for a moment that it’s easy. I’ve never asserted that. It’s a question I suppose of having a balance between what provision is made for people on the pension and the provisions that are made for all the other things for which the government is responsible. As I say we did make some change to the earnings limit when the tax plan was introduced just under a year ago. It’s open to governments in the future to make further changes in that area. We thought at the moment the best way we could help was with the $300 bonus. Now it’s a question really of judgement and degree. It’s not in any way to say to you we don’t understand your position.

CORDEAUX:
And the $300 is tax free isn’t it?

PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely, absolutely. And income test free as well.

CALLER:
Good morning Mr Prime Minister and Jeremy. The question that I have to ask is that there are certain groups in the community who are financially disadvantaged and they usually are the disabled pensioners. And there’s been a lot of phone calls to various radio stations from these pension people regarding this $300 give away and they are not to receive it and they’re wondering why.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well the decision was taken that this payment would be for people of age pension age. There have been other changes not involving the $300 payment and I have to acknowledge there have been other changes which have been a benefit to people who receive disability pensions. But we took a decision that anybody of age pension age, and obviously a disabled person of that age would be entitled to receive the benefit, the decision was taken to limit it to people of age pension age. Now I understand that a lot of people are unhappy with that. They think it should have gone to everybody who’s receiving any kind of government payment. We were not able for budget reasons to do that and we took the decision to limit it to people who are age pension age because it was clearly a very identifiable group who’d made a contribution to the workforce during their working lives and we thought that was an appropriate cut off. There is always with these things I guess a point at which you say well we go this far but no further. But as I say there are other things that have been done in the not too distant past that have been of particular assistance to people on disability support payments, increases in allocations to certain programs. So I acknowledge that they’ve been critical of this but it was decided that we would limit this payment to people of a particular age and that was the consistent cut off point.

CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, on Monday’s program we had a caller who rang while I was talking to Larry Anthony and she wanted to ask Larry why she couldn’t contribute to her super fund at age 70. [inaudible] about encouraging people to work through until they’re 70. And he wasn’t sure why. He thought she should be able to do that. I take it that you’re going to have a good look at superannuation.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well we’re always looking at ways of making superannuation fairer. But in relation to this cut off point, only four years ago in July ’97 we increased the age from 65 to 70. It was 65 for a long time. We increased it to 70. Now the reason why you have a limit is that there is a concessional tax treatment of superannuation contributions and the reason for that is that we want to encourage people to provide for their retirement. Now I hope you will understand me as I put it this way that the older you are allowed to make the contribution, statistically the less likely it can be a contribution towards your retirement income. We don’t want superannuation concessions to really be turned into a method of encouraging different forms of estate planning. So the great bulk of people will have left the workforce by the time of 70, clearly a lot of people haven’t left the workforce at 65, and many people, many many people have no idea of or intention of leaving the workforce in their early 60s. So we think 70 is a pretty realistic level. The rationale is that if you had no limit at all you would in effect be encouraging people to make superannuation contributions well into their 80s perhaps and by no reasonable argument could you say that’s a provision for retirement. I mean if somebody continued to work into their 80s then they’re obviously going to work until they die and good luck to them. I mean it’s an ideal that a lot of people have and if we could have that situation I think it would be fantastic. I don’t think everybody should be encouraged to retire. I think people should be able to work as long as they want to but you’ve got to have some kind of realistic limit because we have a concessional tax treatment. See people sometimes overlook the fact that if you make a contribution to superannuation it is, for all that the superannuation industry says it’s taxed here there and everywhere, when the contributions are made there are concessional tax arrangements.

CORDEAUX:
This fairly racist regime in Malaysia, Dr Mahathir’s outburst and attempt at humour the other day. You wouldn’t like to perhaps in a Malaysian accent send him a greeting on this program would you?

PRIME MINISTER:
No. I think there are occasions in public life particularly when you’re dealing with other nations where you lift the bat well over your shoulder and then let the ball go through to the keeper.

CORDEAUX:
But what did you think when you heard it? Did you have any….?

PRIME MINISTER:
I lifted my bat very high in the air and I watched the ball go through to Adam Gilchrist.

CORDEAUX:
How are you Bill.

CALLER:
Fine Jeremy, fine. Mr Howard,

PRIME MINISTER:
Yes Bill.

CALLER:
I just want you to answer this question honestly. The [inaudible] around this country are stretched to the limit isn’t it?

PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon ?

CALLER:
The health budget is stretched to the limit throughout the country.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t entirely agree with that. If you mean thereby that you think we have a very bad health system I don’t agree with you.

CALLER:
It’s fairly good compared to most but…..

PRIME MINISTER:
It is better than most.

CALLER:
….stretched with the budget right. I’d like to ask you one question. Do you really believe that it was necessary to lift to $80,000 for retired couples to get subsidised prescriptions?

PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I think there is an argument with a lot of those payments to remove the, I guess, the sense of inequity a lot of people feel in relation to their availability. You see whenever you have limits and cut off points you get argument. I mean we just had a question a moment ago about the 70 cut off point. You have somebody who’s just over 70 and who’s still working strong and thinks they will live to a hundred saying why can’t I contribute to my superannuation. And I try and explain what the reason is. Previously we had a limit of I think $67,000.

CALLER:
That’s correct.

PRIME MINISTER:
And we lifted it to $80,000 and people say they were getting $68,000 and they say the bloke next door he’s on $65,000. He gets it I don’t. I mean you’ve got a point but I think I’ve also got a stronger point in saying that once you make a card of that type fairly widely available then inevitably it’s a question of degree how far you extend it. I don’t think you can say it’s absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

CORDEAUX:
A quick call from Mary.

CALLER:
Hello. Prime Minister is there any help available for public high schools, any programs or funds especially from the lower economic areas where there may be more peer pressure to not do as well academically or to drop out?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well the great bulk of the funding of government schools has always been the responsibility of the states. We provide a bit of extra help on the top. But something like 88% of the cost of funding government schools has always been borne by the states. We have additional programs for literacy and numeracy and we certainly believe that they are quite effectively concentrated in some of the lower socioeconomic groups. We think it’s very important that children at school who are having trouble with reading and writing and those who’ve left who’ve got trouble with those basic skills be helped. And you find sadly a disproportionate number of these often in the lower socioeconomic groups and we must try very hard to motivate them and to keep them within the school system. And the whole approach of our labour market programs over the last few years has been to help people in lower socioeconomic groups to keep contact with the workforce and we’re very pleased at a lot of the progress that we’ve made in this area. But in the end we don’t run the schools, we don’t run any schools. The only schools that are run by governments in this country, government schools, are run by state governments and they’re great institutions and they provide a very good education for something like 70% of Australia’s school children. We support independent schools as did the previous federal government because we believe in freedom of choice.

CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister we’re going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much for your valuable time. I appreciate it once again.

PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.

END