| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Interview: John Howard October 30, 2005 Reporter : Laurie Oakes  The Prime Minister will think all his Christmases have come at once if he can get his counter-terrorism legislation through Parliament, but he may have to wait until Christmas before it is passed. This week the Federal Solicitor-General and his State counterparts worked on ways to deal with constitutional doubts about some aspects of the radical legislation. But John Howard is confident the States will approve his new measures. He says the argument about the legislation isn't about the agreement reached recently between the Commonwealth and the States — just the details. The Federal Government's controversial Industrial Relations reforms will also be introduced into Parliament next week — reforms described by former Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, as unfair and un-Australian. The Prime Minister will discuss these and other issues with Sunday's political editor, Laurie Oakes ... JANA WENDT: Well here at home John Howard has also been having a tough week trying to get the states to sign up to his new anti-terror laws. Following growing unease among the Premiers about the radical legislation he's had to extend the deadline for agreement until Melbourne Cup Day. The push for the legislation may even be bolstered by the terrorist attacks in New Delhi overnight. The Prime Minister has also seen his public approval rating dip over his controversial changes to workplace laws, which will be introduced to Parliament this week. The Prime Minister is in our Sydney studio this morning to talk with Sunday's Political Editor, Laurie Oakes. Good morning Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: Good morning Jana. Mr Howard, welcome to the program. PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD: Thanks Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: Can you tell us firstly, the New Delhi bombings, are any Australians believed to be hurt or killed? JOHN HOWARD: I've been told that all of our high commission staff have been accounted for. There is a possibility because it's an area frequented by tourists that some Australian tourists might have been there and therefore might have been caught up, but I stress, we've not had any information. And I spoke to people a short while ago, just before coming on this program, and to date we've had no indication that Australians had been caught up. But perhaps it's a little early to totally rule out the possibility. But I can tell the viewers that none of our high commission staff have been caught up; they've all been contacted and fully accounted for. LAURIE OAKES: Are the security people telling you who might be responsible? JOHN HOWARD: Too early at this stage. There's a lot of finger pointing going on already, that inevitably happens, but it's a dreadful attack, it was in a busy area, a market area, it wasn't some kind of iconic political target the previous attacks in India have, as your news story said, tended to be against public buildings and therefore against the symbols of current political authority. But when people start throwing bombs in markets as they regularly do in Iraq and other parts of the world, it's now, in New Delhi it shows how brutal and indiscriminate and unforgivable it really is. LAURIE OAKES: Does this, in your view, strengthen the argument for tougher anti-terrorism laws here? JOHN HOWARD: Well there's a strong case for them quite separately from what's happened in India overnight. I think it is a reminder that we're living in a world of growing indiscriminate bomb attacks. Equally though, Australia has not had the same history of communal violence as India has had. You may of course recall that India and Pakistan were born in communal violence when the partition of India took place in 1947 and there's been ongoing religious violence and communal violence, and it would be quite misleading of me to suggest that the circumstances of India and of the Indian sub-continent are here in Australia; that'd be quite wrong, they're not, and I'm not going to do that. But separately, there is an argument — quite apart from these latest events there is an argument to very strongly support the type of laws that we put forward on the 27th of September and which the states have agreed in principle, and not just in principle, but in some detail to support. LAURIE OAKES: The state and territory leaders have spent the weekend studying the latest draft you sent them. Do you regard that as the final draft, and what deadline have you given the states and territories to sign off on it? JOHN HOWARD: Well I haven't ever put a deadline. When you need the support of the states, and when you know that you can't fully do it from a legal point of view without the support of the states, you don't set that line. That's the language I've ever used. I have asked them to try and give me a response tomorrow. Is it the final version? Well it depends on what they say. We are prepared to go on talking to the states about the form of the legislation, subject to two I guess limitations. Firstly, I'm not agreeable to altering the substance of what was agreed between us on the 27th of September, and that didn't just involve agreeing to introduce control orders and preventive detention, it also involved accepting a number of principles under which those two new provisions would operate. And the second consideration is that it is in everybody's interest to get the legislation through Federal Parliament this session so the laws can be in operation by Christmas, and well in advance of the Commonwealth Games. Now as for deadlines within those reasonable constraints, I mean bear in mind that I announced the substance of these new measures on the 27th of September. And the two new things are the control orders and preventive detention — we've never had them in Australia before; they are new provisions, but they're very necessary provisions in the light of the changed circumstances in which we now live. LAURIE OAKES: Well what sort of response are you getting from the Premiers? Are you confident you'll be able to introduce the legislation this week? JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, I spoke to each of the six Premiers last week from Papua New Guinea, and on each occasion, during each conversation, there was a reaffirmation of their commitment to what was agreed at our meeting on the 27th of September. Different Premiers raised different aspects of the wording of the proposed legislation — nothing strange about that. LAURIE OAKES: No. JOHN HOWARD: I find it a little odd that you can't have a sensible discussion between each other at a head of government level with them making suggestions about changes. I mean take the argument about so-called shoot to kill. All we ever wanted there was a provision that said that if force had to be used to take somebody into custody who was subject to a preventive detention order, the same rule should apply to the police officer taking the person into custody as currently apply when somebody is arrested. That's all we wanted. And that is what we put there originally. Now the states wanted ... LAURIE OAKES: You reached agreement on that now, I understand. JOHN HOWARD: Yeah I think we have. And the states have ... LAURIE OAKES: But what about the other points of disagreement Mr Howard? Have you made concessions on those? JOHN HOWARD: Well it's not a question of making concessions, it's a question of agreeing to any reasonable request. Now for example, one proposal that we have inserted in the legislation, the latest draft, is to provide that in relation to control orders you can have an interim order and then you can have a confirming hearings, at which all of the issues are ventilated. Now that's, I think, a reasonable change. It's not something that in any way violates the substance of the agreement. And if we're sensible in accepting that you have a bedrock agreement and you spend a bit of time debating how you best express it — and I've always been willing to listen to the views of the states. I don't regard all wisdom on this matter as residing in Canberra, although it's the strong view of the Commonwealth solicitor general David Bennett that the constitutionality of this legislation is in good order. Ultimately of course if it's challenged it'll be for the High Court to decide that, that's been the case for 104 years. But his advice is that there's a high probability of the legislation being regarded as constitutional. LAURIE OAKES: Why are you allowing so little parliamentary scrutiny of the bill? In the UK, Tony Blair is allowing a lot of parliamentary time and he's accepting changes. Why won't you follow the same approach? JOHN HOWARD: Well in Britain, in Britain of course the proposal is to have preventive detention of three months. The British have preventive detention of 14 days, and they've had control orders for some time, but his preventive detention proposal goes a lot further than ours does — three months. Now the issue has been out there since the 27th of September, and just as soon as we reach agreement on the wording of the legislation it will be introduced into Parliament and consistent with wanting it passed by the time the Parliament gets up in the middle of December, then there can be as much parliamentary debate as that timetable would allow. LAURIE OAKES: But isn't it the plan to have one day's debate in the House of Representatives and one day for a Senate Committee to look at it? JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, the position is consistent with getting it through by Christmas. There will be as much parliamentary debate as that requirement will allow, and Parliament sits on Monday, tomorrow, and the sooner we get the form of the legislation agreed with the states the sooner we can introduce it, and the longer ... LAURIE OAKES: When do you think that will be? JOHN HOWARD: Well that depends ultimately, not just on me, but on the six state Premiers. I mean we cannot pass this legislation credibly without the support of the states, because we do not have the constitutional power. And that's why I approached the states. I mean in this country we have a written constitution that gives particular powers to the Federal Government and the residue of the powers stay with the states; that's the way the constitution works. And in some of these areas, particularly in the area of preventive detention, there's no constitutional power for us at a Commonwealth level acting unilaterally to detain somebody effectively for more than 48 hours. So if you're going to retain them for 14 days you need the states involved. Now that's what we agreed to on the 27th of September, and we have in the past few weeks been discussing the process whereby that agreement will be implemented. Now I am a reasonable man on this. If there are sensible suggestions, consistent with the agreement on the 27th of September, I will accept them. If they violate that agreement I won't accept them. Now that's what I'm working towards and I am encouraged that every time I talk to the Premiers they say John, we want this done, we want it done right, but we're sticking to our agreement. Now as soon as we get agreement on the detail I can release the bill and introduce it. LAURIE OAKES: Okay. We've had a string of immigration scandals — the Cornelia Rau scandal, particularly Vivian Alvarez — now these came about because Immigration officers had a lot of power and very little scrutiny. Why won't the same thing happen under your new anti-terrorism laws, only more so? JOHN HOWARD: Well Laurie you can allege that, and I don't mean you personally, but that can be alleged, and I can't guarantee perfect human behaviour. But what's the alternative? The alternative is in an age where people can indiscriminately throw bombs in crowded area and in a situation where we know there are people in this country who have trained with terrorist organisations, are we to deny ourselves the capacity if our security authorities tell us that — and tell the courts that somebody is planning a terrorist attack — are we to deny ourselves the capacity to take preventive action? I mean prevention is better than cure, and in this situation when a bomb goes off there's no cure. It's absolute. And prevention is the ultimate weapon. Prevention based on good intelligence is the best weapon against terrorism, and that's why we need these laws. LAURIE OAKES: Prime Minister, we'll take a break, be back in a moment. JOHN HOWARD: Thank you. [Advertisement break] LAURIE OAKES: Welcome back. We're talking to the Prime Minister, John Howard. Mr Howard, still on the anti-terror legislation, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley seems to think you're not being tough enough in some areas. He wants you to introduce national laws to make exciting religious violence a criminal offence. Will you do that? JOHN HOWARD: Well I'm a bit confused by Mr Beazley. Last week I thought the problem with these laws was that they trampled on people's rights; that's what some of his spokesmen were saying. Now he's saying they're not tough enough. I'm confused, and I think the public will be confused. I don't think racial vilification laws work, and in that same speech that Mr Beazley made the suggestion you've just referred to, he said the Victorian laws should be scrapped. Now the Victorian laws apparently impose some civil penalties, but you can't graft racial vilification laws into the law relating to sedition, and that's the section of my bill that he's presumably referring to. Sedition is about doing things that undermine the nation. You should never identify the nation in any way with a particular religion. The nation ... LAURIE OAKES: Well while we're on the subject ... JOHN HOWARD: ... stands separate and apart, and I think it's a confusion of concepts. But quite apart from that, I do not think religious and racial vilification laws work, and we as a party have opposed them in the past, and I'd be surprised if our attitude changed. LAURIE OAKES: Well on the subject of your sedition laws, Labor's Spokesman on the Arts, Peter Garrett, says that those measures under the sedition power would catch writers and performers. He said he's got a legal opinion to the effect that people in the creative arts would be particularly vulnerable to the risk of prosecution. Can you respond? JOHN HOWARD: Well I don't accept that, I don't — I think it's a very poor legal opinion; he'll no doubt publish it. There was a whole range of views. But the sedition laws clearly do not cover criticism, political criticism. People will still be able to lampoon me in cartoons, we'll still be able to have plays attacking the Government, they'll still be able to attack the Government's policies on anything, and there's no way that these sedition laws in any way will curtail the legitimate free speech. There is in fact a real danger, and this is the reason why I oppose a bill of rights, that if you try and enumerate in too hard and fast a fashion, the rights that people have to free speech you can end up limiting them. LAURIE OAKES: Okay. We'll move onto the other big piece of legislation coming up this week; it's going to be a huge parliamentary week — the industrial relations changes. Kim Beazley has challenged you to a face-to-face televised debate on this. He says it's a ticker test. Are you going to accept the challenge? JOHN HOWARD: Well he can question me every day in Parliament. Unlike my Labor predecessor I turn up for every question time, and unlike my two Labor predecessors as Prime Minister, I allow about 20 questions a day with a question time that often extends for about an hour and a quarter. I am very happy to face Mr Beazley every day in Parliament. LAURIE OAKES: Well this is another complex piece of legislation, important legislation that the Government, again, is going to ram through Parliament before Christmas. Why the urgency on this one? I mean there's no need to get this through before the Commonwealth Games. Why rush it? JOHN HOWARD: Well Laurie, I think this is an issue that has been debated a great deal. I made a Parliamentary statement in May ... LAURIE OAKES: The issue's been debated Prime Minister, but we haven't seen the details of the legislation, and it's going to be complex legislation, could be unintended consequences. Why won't you let Parliament look at it properly? JOHN HOWARD: Well Parliament will have several weeks to look at the legislation. As soon as it's been introduced, and my advice is that it will be introduced on Wednesday, it will be referred to a Senate Committee as soon as it's introduced. You won't have to wait until it is actually passed through the House and go to the Senate. So there'll be quite a number of opportunities through that Senate Committee over a period of time, several weeks, for that to be debated. And Laurie, we started talking about these changes in May. I put out a 68-page document in, some weeks ago, and this legislation, which is now being signed off by Parliamentary Council and other legal advisors, gives effect, so I'm told, to all of those announcements. But it will be revealed on Wednesday and it will go to a Senate Committee. LAURIE OAKES: Do you accept that at the moment anyway, these measures are not popular? JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, I accept at the moment that the fear campaign against them has had some success, but that always happens when you have a big change. It's easier to establish a negative than it is to assert a positive. It's much easier to do that. But I equally believe very strongly that once the laws have been passed, six months into their operation people will look back on the fear campaign and say what on earth was that all about. LAURIE OAKES: Well you talk about a fear campaign, you've been running a taxpayer-funded campaign of your own; you can't turn on a television without being driven mad by it. And yet even Peter Slipper, one of your backbenchers, agrees that the ads have not been effective and says they should be pulled. Was it money down the drain? JOHN HOWARD: No, I don't think it was money down the drain. I think it was legitimate, given the importance of these measures and given their importance to the future of the economy. I don't think the campaign has been money down the drain at all. Laurie, it's always the case that if you believe in reform and long-term change for the benefit of the economy, that you'll go through a period of unpopularity. If I'd been turned off and intimidated by short-term negative reaction we would never have had tax reform, we'd never have had many of the other reforms that have given us such a strong economy and such standing at the present time. And once a Prime Minister reaches the stage where he's not willing to push something he believes in because of short-term criticism or unpopularity, then he has reached his use-by date. LAURIE OAKES: The Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, in today's Melbourne newspapers claims that the future of Melbourne Cup Day is under threat because of your IR laws; he says they target public holidays. What's your response to that? JOHN HOWARD: Well he's wrong. And can I make this statement to the people of Australia who love the Melbourne Cup, that Melbourne Cup Day in a year's time will be just as sacrosanct and just as available and just as likely to be enjoyed, as this coming Melbourne Cup Day. That's the sort of over the top, ridiculous criticism that in six months time will be seen for the absurdity that it is. LAURIE OAKES: How important is this radical reshaping of IR laws to the Howard legacy? It's something you've campaigned for all along. Do you see this as the sort of major achievement that'll show that you haven't wasted your Senate majority the way Malcolm Fraser did in your view? JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, legacies are about the past. There are a lot of things that this Government is doing and this is a very important part of it. I think industrial relations reform is big, it's important. I wouldn't use the word radical; I would say the changes are big but fair. I think it is important to buy for this country, years of additional productivity. The great mistake we can make is that we think because we're doing so well the time has come to stop trying, and that would be a huge mistake for this country. We've got to keep trying, we've got to keep reforming, otherwise we'll start going backwards. LAURIE OAKES: Well tax is another issue that you would claim as a Howard issue I think. Is Labor stealing a march on you with their announcement that they want to reduce the tax burden for high income earners, and also give incentives to lower and middle income earners? JOHN HOWARD: Well I haven't seen anything specific. All I do know by way of specifics Laurie is that the last time the Coalition Government proposed tax relief for high and middle income earners the Labor Party voted against it, and that was their reaction to the last budget. So when it really comes to the crunch they tend to oppose tax reductions rather than support them. LAURIE OAKES: What about your Government? Can we expect in the budget next May that you will perhaps do what Kim Beazley says should be done? JOHN HOWARD: Oh it's a little early to be talking about the budget, but I'm sure in the weeks ahead Peter Costello and I will be discussing these matters. LAURIE OAKES: Will Mr Costello be bringing down that budget? JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, another one of your trick questions. The Treasurer will be bringing down the budget, and I think Peter Costello's been the best Treasurer this country's ever had. LAURIE OAKES: There are rumours of course that a reshuffle is in the wind, and that Robert Hill will be stepping down to go overseas. Is that true? JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, there are always rumours and I never respond, as you know, to those sorts of rumours. I'd spend a lot of time doing so, so I decided a long time ago not to respond to them. LAURIE OAKES: Okay. Well final issue, we're coming up to the 30th anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. You're one of the few parliamentarians who was around back then. Do you now think, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Coalition made a mistake in blocking the budget and bringing that about? JOHN HOWARD: You can only look at that in the context of how you felt at the time. And I supported that decision, and I think people who 30 years later turn around and say oh, well that was all wrong — we didn't think so at the time, and when you take an action like that I think you have to be prepared to defend your actions in the context of the time. It's like people who keep revising their views. I think some on my side did develop that view, and it may have affected their attitude when they were in Government, but we all supported it at the time, and my only regret is that too much of the criticism for the division in the community descended upon the head of the then Governor-General John Kerr. I think if the public were cranky about what happened 30 years ago they should have vented their spleen on Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser and we, the people who caused the constitutional deadlock, not the man whose fate it was to resolve it. LAURIE OAKES: You've developed a newfound affection for the Senate. Would you like to see the Senate deprived of the power to block a budget? JOHN HOWARD: No, I don't think so, and the reason is that the Senate is a full franchise house, and this argument that the Upper House should not have the power to block a budget is valid if it's not fully and democratically elected. But the Senate, the Australian Senate is the most democratic Upper House in the world. It is rejected — it is elected rather — with proportional representation, and everybody votes. LAURIE OAKES: So you'd be happy to see 75 happen again? JOHN HOWARD: I don't think it will. LAURIE OAKES: Why? JOHN HOWARD: Because I think the people who saw it, who look back in retrospect, people who will be charged with power in the future, I think they will probably in one way or another avoid it happening. The best safeguards Laurie are not written down in constitutions or bills of rights. The best safeguards we have for our democracy are a robust parliamentary process a free press, and in incorruptible judiciary. If you've got those three things, you've got a free country. If you don't have all of those three things you don't have a fully free country. LAURIE OAKES: Prime Minister, we thank you. JOHN HOWARD: Pleasure. Transcript produced by Media Monitors target-monitor-analyse |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
