Seeing the PM make political hay out of Noel Pearson's speech makes me wonder if
Pearson thought this
through before giving his speech. Did he not expect that this government would use his
words as weapons to
attack Aboriginal people?
I can understand how he sees it, but wonder about his emphasis on the symptoms instead
of the cause.
How do you turn a person in despair away from alcohol if you do nothing about his
despair?
How does a person without self-esteem run a small business?
One does not change a people's dependency on welfare and alcohol by attacking their
dependency but by
changing the underlying need for the dependency.
I think Irene's article described it most succinctly as 'self-colonisation' (not
negating the reality of
outside colonisation, of course). Until a sense of pride and self-worth is formed, the
dependency will
remain and the government will continue to use it as a form of attack.
Trudy
Jim & Yvonne Duffield wrote:
> Within this and many government documents, there is a fundemental
> flaw in the conjunction of Primeministership and Australian identity,
> and therefore the given of a depth of knowledge of Australia and
> some of its aspects of the English language.
>
> An Aboriginal person is an indigenous Australian, aboriginal peoples
> are the indigenous peoples of the world. Is greek or english good
> English?
>
> Please get it right PM's putsch.
>
> ==========================================
>
> On 12 May 99, at 12:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about Prime Minister's Media Centre -
>RADIO INTERVIEW W:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 12 May 1999
> >
> > TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
> > THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
> > RADIO INTERVIEW WITH ALAN JONES 2UE
> >
> >
> > SUBJECTS: Federal Budget 1999 - economy, work-for-the-dole, private
> > health insurance, Medicare levy, 1997 & 1998 Budget, tax reform package,
> > visa application charge, veterans' affairs, war widows pension, Gold Card,
> > unemployment, interest rates, four pillars policy, foreign debt, foreign
> > ownership, manufacturing.
> >
> > E&OE********************************..
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Let's go straight to the Prime Minister on the line in Canberra. Prime
> > Minister, good morning.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Good morning, Alan, good to be with you.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Thank you. Congratulations on, I must say, on a raft of fronts. There
> > have been some outstanding statistics to support your management of the
> > economy. But could I just say that yesterday seemed to be proof of the
> > fact that Australians have been fed a lot of fraud over the last 20 odd
> > years. Now, we have got Noel Pearson telling us that welfare is poison
> > for Aborigines. We have now got Tony Abbott telling us that you can
> > actually work for your welfare and now you're saying, well, it's not free
> > and universal in health care. Perhaps the most important initiative
> > yesterday you are saying virtually, listen, people should be providing for
> > themselves.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, certainly in health we are providing a massive new reason why
> > younger, fitter people should take out private health insurance against a
> > day when they won't be so young and they may not be so fit. A combination
> > of that with a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate that came in at
> > the beginning of this year. Those two measures will provide powerful
> > incentives which most people will see as attractive to take out private
> > health insurance. We believe in private provision, we believe in a strong
> > public system as well. You need both of them to have an effective health
> > system.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Well, see, that's the spin you're putting on it. But basically if you
> > can't get people into private health insurance one way or the other, the
> > system, Medicare system, will collapse.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, certainly the more people there are in private health insurance the
> > better it is for Medicare. I don't think it's a spin, Alan, I think it is
> > the truth that if you have a rebate that makes private health insurance 30
> > per cent cheaper and you provide an incentive for people, say in their
> > late 20s, to join private health insurance otherwise they face the
> > possibility of paying a higher premium. If they decide for family reasons
> > that they need to join when they are aged 45, I don't think it's putting a
> > spin on that*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > But we can tell [inaudible]*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, that will provide an incentive. I beg your pardon.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > We were told that this scheme, and I am not criticising anybody, I am just
> > saying people have been force fed rubbish in public policy for 25 years.
> > That health care would be free and universal, we are now saying, are we
> > not, listen it isn't either and it can't be?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, I have never argued myself that Medicare is free in the sense that
> > everybody is forced to pay a Medicare levy. Now, that doesn't pay
> > anywhere near the total cost of providing Medicare but nothing is
> > completely free and it oughtn't to be and I am not arguing that it is and
> > we now have*.we have a mixed system. The difference between this
> > Government and the former government is that we are doing a lot more to
> > help the private system. The former Government let the private system run
> > down, it really didn't like the private system, it discouraged private
> > health insurance, it didn't provide a tax incentive even though one of its
> > Health Ministers, Graham Richardson, recommended that it should.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Right. Now, I had a letter last night from a lady, obviously a pensioner.
> > I have just heard the news, she said, about encouraging young people to
> > join private health insurance early so they will be able to enjoy the
> > benefits and escape penalties for late entry. That's great but what about
> > some benefits for people like me? I have been in it for over 30 years and
> > as a pensioner I can tell you it's a struggle. I wouldn't mind a few
> > incentives. What does the Prime Minister say to her?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, the Prime Minister says to her two things. That the more younger
> > people and fitter people you can get into private health insurance the
> > less strain there will be and pressure there will be to increase premiums.
> > See one of the problems with private health insurance, indeed, the major
> > problem over the last few years is that as people have dropped out and
> > more crucially as younger people have not joined, an increasing proportion
> > of members and the people making the claims are the older people whose
> > health is more precarious and they've had to make more claims. And the
> > more of those people proportionately you have the greater upward pressure
> > there is on the premiums.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > So can this pensioner expect a premium reduction if young people join the
> > health funds?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > I couldn't promise a reduction. I could say to her that premiums are less
> > likely to rise in the future.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Right. Prime Minister, we were told also 20 odd years ago, and you were
> > ridiculed if you said that people had to work for welfare, there were any
> > number of United Nations resolutions which we had to abide by and we were
> > going to be unyielding in our adherence to them. Now we are working for
> > the dole. Were we told lies 20 years ago?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, when the Government decided to bring in work-for-the-dole we
> > completely ignored all that nonsense about United Nations resolutions. I
> > think that was nonsense and I just want to say, Alan, it was the
> > Government I lead that brought in work-for-the-dole. We brought it in
> > against the opposition of the Labor Party. We brought it in against the
> > opposition of many political commentators in Australia but now only two
> > years after we have brought it in the Labor Party has now formally
> > abandoned, so it says, its opposition to work-for-the-dole. You now have
> > respected aboriginal leaders like Noel Pearson saying that welfarism has
> > destroyed parts of aboriginal culture*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > If you had have said that or I'd said that, we would have been called
> > racist.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > We certainly would have been very heavily criticised, absolutely. There
> > has been a very big shift in thinking on this subject. I think it is
> > absolutely fair in a country like Australia to say to unemployed people:
> > we will look after you if you can't get a job but in return you should be
> > willing to give something back to the community. I call that mutual
> > obligation and work-for-the-dole is a classic example of that principle.
> > You look after those who are in need but you say to them: if you can do
> > so, you should give something back to society. Now, most Australians
> > agree with that. I could never understand why people opposed
> > work-for-the-dole. I could never understand why anybody seriously thought
> > that United Nations' resolutions on things like that mattered because they
> > didn't and they don't.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > They have no right surely to interfere with the way we run our country.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, we will decide that but in any event other countries have
> > work-for-the-dole. The Americans have it, the British have it, but
> > whether the Americans or the British have it matters not to me. It is
> > fair, it is consistent with Australian principles of helping each other in
> > need but asking you to put something back. Now,*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > And not really working for the dole, we have got to be unemployed and
> > getting a benefit for over 12 months before someone*..
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, that is for somebody who is over the age of 24. For somebody who
> > leaves school it is only three months and between 18 and 24 it is six.
> > Now, what we have done is progressively extended it. We will now have
> > 50,000 people on work-for-the-dole. That is more than doubled. Now, I
> > remind you that when it was brought in Mr Beazley and Mr Ferguson said it
> > was a Mickey Mouse stupid scheme. Now, it is not a Mickey Mouse stupid
> > scheme it is a very sensible approach to a social challenge and it is
> > fair. We're helping the people who need help but they in return are
> > putting something back.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Now, how seriously can people take all this fanfare of last night? I read
> > yesterday, and it surely can't be right, that many of the tax measures
> > from the 1998 Budget are not law and five of the 12 tax measures announced
> > in the 1997 Budget haven't yet been enacted. That can't be right.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, Alan, there could be some technical changes that were announced in
> > the Budget that may not have passed through the Senate yet. We have*
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Of major measures announced last year only three have passed through both
> > Houses of Parliament.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, I announced a whole lot of major measures in September of last year
> > to do with reforming a tax system and they haven't passed through the
> > Senate yet. We are not the masters of that other place. It is not
> > unusual for it to take particularly when the Government doesn't control
> > the upper House, it's not unusual for it to take quite a while for
> > measures to pass through the Parliament.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > The 1997/1998*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, Alan, I mean, I am not certifying it, I am not saying you're wrong
> > but I am not certifying to those figures. But as a general principle it
> > will often take some time for some measures to go through the Parliament
> > simply because the Parliament, the Senate in particular, spends an
> > enormous amount of time debating certain very controversial pieces of
> > legislation.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Well, they have got 20 new GST Bills before them, I hope that they can get
> > the 1997 Budget measures through the Senate and*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, we certainly hope that's true but we also hope that they will pass
> > the tax reform package because we need tax reform. And what last night
> > demonstrated was that if you undertake reform, if you do the hard yards,
> > if you take the tough decisions when you have to, in a few years time you
> > get a benefit. Last night's Budget was the pay-off, if you like, for the
> > hard decisions taken a few years ago. If we take sensible decisions now
> > to reform our tax system we will be even stronger in a few years time.
> > And I just say one other thing about taxes that there are $13 billion of
> > personal tax cuts held up in the Senate at the present time and you'll
> > have 80 per cent of the Australian tax paying community on no more than 30
> > cents in the dollar. We're losing sight of the fact that this tax package
> > contains huge benefits to middle Australia through income tax reductions.
> > I mean, if you want to give Australians an incentive you'll have 80 per
> > cent of Australian taxpayers paying no ! more than 30 cents in the dollar.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Right. Well, that raises this big question which has to be addressed. I
> > mean, who is going to get all of this? Now, as I understand it the top 20
> > per cent of households, if you are talking about the tax benefit, with
> > annual incomes of $60,000 and above will get $70, $80 and $90 a week in
> > tax cuts, much more than they will need to offset the cost of a GST. So
> > this group above $60,000 are going to get about $7 billion of the tax
> > cuts. But the bottom 20 per cent, most in need, will only get $2 - $3
> > billion in compensation, about half of which will be taken in higher food
> > bills. Are Australians in genuine need getting the benefit that they are
> > entitled to from economic growth?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes. In relation to the top 20 per cent of taxpayers - at the moment the
> > top 20 per cent of taxpayers, as I understand, pays about 57.2 per cent,
> > contributes about 57.2 per cent of total tax collections. Under the new
> > scheme that will rise to 58. Now, that's not a big rise but it does
> > rather repudiate the argument that this is a pay-off and a bonanza to the
> > rich. Of course in dollar terms if you are a high-income earner your
> > dollar tax cut is always higher than it is of a low-income earner because
> > you're paying more tax.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > In terms of equity, you have less need. My point is, if the bottom 20 per
> > cent are going to have half of what is a tax cut taken in higher food
> > bills shouldn't we be redistributing more to those in need? I am talking
> > about families.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes, but there are other benefits apart from the tax cuts that only go to
> > low income earners. We have family allowance supplements at the moment
> > which start to cut out at about $24,000. The point at which they cut off
> > will be significantly increased so more families will keep those
> > supplements for longer. There will be increased payments according to the
> > number of children you have. A $2,000 amount on your tax threshold for
> > each child and almost a doubling of the tax threshold if you are a single
> > income family.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > But even after you have got all of that*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, when you say, even after you have got all that, you have to set that
> > off against the comparisons of dollar reductions in taxation. And what we
> > have done is really approach this in two ways. We have had a general
> > reduction in tax, we have not cut the top marginal rate, we have a higher
> > top marginal rate in this country than nations like Britain, New Zealand
> > and the United States. It's at 47 cents in the dollar. What we have done
> > is we have increased the point at which that cuts in but it's still is at
> > a higher level and cuts in at a lower point than in many comparable
> > countries. We haven't cut that top rate but what we have tried to do is
> > to get some incentive in the middle*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > [Inaudible]*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, I think for the future of this country getting*
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Can I just say*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > *an incentive in the middle is absolutely crucial.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > But see I am worried. People like to be, you know, two income families,
> > if I just say this slowly, two income family with an income of $60,000 and
> > two children in childcare receives twice as much in Government assistance
> > as a family on $30,000 which cares for its own kids. One gets $8,000 a
> > year the other gets $4,000. Now, no-one out there listening to you would
> > argue that the one on $30,000 with one of the parents at home looking
> > after the kids is in greater need than the one with $60,000 and the kids
> > are in childcare. And yet they are getting from the Government $8,000 a
> > year and the one on $30,000 gets $4,000.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > I have listened, I did listen carefully to that and I don't have all of
> > the tables in front of me but a single income family on $30,000 or $35,000
> > a year is a significant winner from our tax package. Because the working
> > husband or wife in that family gets a $5,000 tax-free threshold over and
> > above the tax-free threshold available to any taxpayer. And that person,
> > if they have a couple of children, is not paying any tax, and if one of
> > those children is under five, is not paying any tax on about the first
> > $13,000 - $13,000 - of his or her income. So that in proportionate terms
> > that particular family is a significant winner. Now, as to the precise
> > dollar comparisons between two families I would have to have all of the
> > details, the numbers*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier if you were fair dinkum about the family to scrap
> > all the benefits that are provided to a family and provide tax rebates on
> > a per child basis to every child in a family? And then suddenly you'd
> > find say if you provided a rebate of $60 a week for a child 0-13 or $80 a
> > week for 14-17 or $100 a week, scrap everything else and then people might
> > find themselves on average weekly earnings before they started paying any
> > tax at all if they had three children?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, Alan, we have gone part of the way towards that but I don't believe
> > that very affluent families are in need of as much help as less affluent
> > ones. And that has been to some degree the point you have been making
> > quite legitimately over the last few minutes. I mean, somebody on my
> > income, and my children are now adults, obviously wasn't in the same need
> > of assistance as somebody on an income of $40,000 a year. So if you have
> > a completely across the board non-means tested approach you can't
> > concentrate as much help for those people who need help. But*
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > [Inaudible] I am on $75,000 with no children, the tax on $75,000 for me is
> > the same as the tax on the bloke with $75,000 with five kids.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes, but you don't get any*I mean, the bloke on $75,000 who is supporting
> > a wife and three children gets more out of this tax package than you do,
> > if you are on $75,000.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Can I just take one other point. I mean, you are saying unemployment*we
> > have got to create unemployment, and we won't go into that debate because
> > it's been well honed, but every time a hotel opens 300 people get a job.
> > So tourism is a phenomenal money spinner in terms of revenue to the
> > country and in terms of the generation of jobs. Why on earth are we now
> > going to have some visa application card for those countries that don't
> > have an electronic visa system all to raise a piddling $32 million over
> > four years? Isn't that a disincentive to people coming into this country?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, Alan, looked at in isolation*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > For $32 million.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes, but looked at in isolation and you can argue that but on the other
> > hand there's no real evidence that that kind of fee stops people coming to
> > this country. There is really no evidence of that.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > But shouldn't Immigration be able to determine what their entitlement is
> > to come this country without having some kind of visa application charge?
> >
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > No, I don't think that is the complete answer to that. I mean, if you
> > accept that it's justified to have visas, and I support visas. I know the
> > tourism industry says you ought to get rid of them, I think most
> > Australians think you should still continue to have a visa system, there
> > is a cost involved in running it. If you are to defray that cost it is
> > much better in my view to have a charge of this character than to raid the
> > general revenue in order to do it.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Prime Minister, it's the Year of the Elderly. I have heard you many times
> > speak on Anzac Days and other functions about the sacrifices people made
> > at war. Plenty of money in this budget for a lot of people. Women who
> > have found themselves carrying a terrible burden of loneliness, grief and
> > depravation, more than a half a century ago, are in their later years now
> > denied a war widows pension. Why? Well, they married again when the war
> > veteran died. Now, their second husband is dead and they get no pension.
> > But if a war veteran marries a young lady, she contributed nothing, she
> > contributed nothing at the war, but she qualifies for a war widow's
> > entitlement. Surely to God it's not beyond the capacity or the compassion
> > of the Government to restore the pensions of war widows who have
> > remarried. There are only 4,100 of them.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, Alan, I can't in isolation say that that would be wrong or unpopular
> > and I take your point and it's not something that any government or any
> > political party would for all time set its face against. We have chosen
> > in the veterans' affairs area to implement those things that the veteran
> > community gave the highest priority to*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > I have gone tired writing letters to the Minister to Veterans' Affair. Do
> > you know*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes, Alan, I know your views on it but could I just make the point in
> > fairness to the Government that this Budget will spend 21 per cent more,
> > that is more than one-fifth in excess of the amount spent in the Budget
> > immediately proceeding our election. Now, I am not saying that the former
> > Government was in different to veterans. I don't want to politicise an
> > area like veterans but I do make the point in defence of my Government
> > that we have increased veterans' affairs spending by 21 per cent over the
> > last three years and that is in a time of very low inflation*
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > It's [inaudible] the elderly*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > And there are some 70-year-olds*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Very, very significant and we have brought in that Gold Card last year*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > I am just about to say that. There are some 70-year-olds now who served
> > in the Vietnam conflict and from Malaysia and Korea who don't get the Gold
> > Card. For God's sake they are 70. Can't we afford to extend Gold Card
> > eligibility at 70 years of age to all Australian veterans including the
> > veterans of Korea, Malaya and Vietnam?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, the criteria that was announced when we extended it last year was 70
> > years of age and in active service. Now, I know that you are arguing and
> > many people are arguing that it should be extended to allied servicemen
> > and we haven't - it's allied servicemen not Australians - we haven't felt
> > able to do that. I am not saying that that is a no for all time but once
> > again it is a question of priorities. And we brought it in as promised in
> > full for all Australian servicemen of a particular age and that was the
> > major priority of the RSL and the major priority of the veterans'
> > community and we delivered on that in full. And as I say, our spending
> > has risen by 21 per cent, more than a fifth. Now, I don't think that
> > indicates a Government that is insensitive but I hear you and I know you
> > feel strongly about that as do many people.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Just before we go and it is 7:30am but I am not going to go to the news
> > because this is probably the most crucial issue of the Budget last night
> > and there will not be time here to debate it in its detail. But you did
> > make a commitment about debt. The net debt for the December quarter is
> > $236 billion. You say that in a couple of years you'll eliminate
> > Government debt. What Prime Minister are you going to do, what
> > responsibility does the Government have for the rest of that debt and how
> > can you possibly give a guarantee that we won't have a continuing
> > escalation in debt as Australians via imports are spending more than they
> > are making?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, I can't guarantee, no Prime Minister in his right mind would
> > guarantee to eliminate all foreign debt. What you can do is to eliminate
> > the debt for which you are responsible.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > And who is responsible for the other debt?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, the other debt is*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Wipe your hands of it?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > No, I am not wiping my hands on it. But I mean, if you*.if Alan Jones Ltd
> > borrows overseas you don't get my permission.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > But this is, but hang on*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > No, but it is. I mean, I think there is a difference between the debts
> > the Government incurs. I mean, if I make a decision as Prime Minister to
> > spend $100 million and I spend $100 billion and as a result of that we
> > have got to borrow some of that abroad then obviously we have a
> > responsibility*if we have got to borrow it from the public we have got
> > responsibility. And what we have done is to progressively reduce the
> > amount of money that the Government owes, not only to the Australian
> > public but to the public overseas when it's been necessary for former
> > governments to go overseas and borrow money. But what you cannot ever do
> > is to say, we are never going to have a situation where private companies
> > or anybody else in Australia owes money overseas.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > Yeah but hang on isn't this the role of Government? I mean, if we are*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > No, it's not the role of Government [inaudible] BHP whether it borrows
> > overseas*
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > No, but the final total debt, the quantum of debt goes to the heart of
> > Government. Because if as has happened in Asia*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes, I agree with that but it's, and what determines whether you can
> > manage debt is your capacity to repay it. I mean, we have all borrowed
> > money, there's nothing wrong about borrowing money*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > What if Wall Street collapses, what if interest rates go up?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, Alan, the*
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > We're paying a billion a month in interest you know that.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes but your debt servicing burden*the debt to GDP ratio which is*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > On current accounts*..
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yeah, but hang on, the debt*our capacity to pay that now is a lot better
> > than what it was in the 1980s. I mean, our debt service ratio is about
> > nine per cent now. In the 1980s it was much higher and therefore our
> > capacity to pay an equivalent amount of money was a lot less. If you have
> > lower interest rates and you have a higher debt servicing capacity and you
> > have got the same level of current account deficit obviously your capacity
> > to service that current account deficit is greater than what it*.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > But part of that deficit is interest rates. Now, we are paying over a
> > billion a month*.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > That's right and that is why keeping them down is so enormously important.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > And then we repatriate dividends overseas every month. Now, if our
> > interest rates were to go up*I mean, this is the best it has ever been so
> > it's got to get worse than this at some point down the track.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, I don't deal too much, I mean, it is very good at the moment and it
> > need not suddenly deteriorate if we go on doing sensible things like
> > reforming our tax system and paying off our debt.
> >
> > JOURNALIST:
> >
> > But don't we have a structural problem. At the end of the day we will
> > never be able to export agriculture and minerals or whatever to pay for
> > the imports of manufactured goods. We'll never be able to do it.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Alan, you say we have a structural problem. Our structural difficulty on
> > the debt front now is a lot less than what it was three years ago because
> > we have paid off an enormous amount of government debt. This Government
> > has not borrowed a dollar since I have been Prime Minister. I must be the
> > first Prime Minister in 30 years who has not led a government that's
> > borrowed money.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > But your nation's debt, net debt, your nation's, as our number one man, is
> > $236 billion, our nation's debt.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes, but our capacity to pay that is greater now than what it was 10 or 15
> > years ago.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > If it's true that our exports will never pay for our imports, do we just
> > accept that there will continue to be an escalation of the debts? Now,
> > earlier this week*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > This country will very likely continue to run some level of debt because
> > we have traditionally been a capital-importing nation. The crucial thing
> > is whether you can afford it. I mean, you don't say to somebody, never
> > borrow. I don't say to you, I'm sorry, Alan Jones can never borrow. What
> > I do say to you, borrow within your means.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > But we've dismantled manufacturing*we've dismantled manufacturing*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > With respect, Alan, that is not quite the point I'm making. The point I'm
> > making is the capacity of this nation to meet its obligation. We haven't
> > dismantled manufacturing.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > Well, we have. We've gone from 22 per cent of GDP to about 14 per cent.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, it is lower but you've got to understand that*
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > But don't we have the manufacturing capacity here, in your country?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > We also are getting export income from other sources as well. And what
> > you have to do is run an economy that enables you to diversify on every
> > front, not just concentrate on one area. And, of course, I mean, one of
> > the reasons I want a GST is to help the manufacturers of Australia. We'll
> > take $4.5 billion off the cost of exports from this country if we have a
> > GST. Manufacturers are the greater winner, the greatest winner sectorally
> > from the GST of any part of Australian industry. So if you're a
> > manufacturer and you believe in manufacturing industry, you will be the
> > strongest possible advocate of the GST.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > Earlier this week we were trying to get increased sheep exports into
> > America.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > The President of the American Sheep Industry accused Australia of, quote,
> > 'asking us' - these are his words - 'to abandon the only mechanism, import
> > restraints, that promise to restore the US lamb market to better than
> > break even levels.' Now, in other words, he*import restraints. Where are
> > our import restraints to help local industry in this country?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Alan, you've got to look at what is in the best interests of Australia.
> > And our future prosperity lies in growing exports because we don't have a
> > big domestic market. The Americans have a big domestic market, over 200
> > million people. We've got 18. And if we are to continue to grow we have
> > to export and that means that we've always got to have a weather eye to
> > how we can get our produce into another country. And we've got a better
> > chance of getting our product into another country if we're not held up as
> > a country that is unduly protectionist. Now, we are prepared to protect
> > where necessary. We have toughened our anti-dumping laws. You will
> > remember that we took a decision on the motor car industry that provided
> > the basis for long-term investment in that industry. We did the same
> > thing with textile, clothing and footwear. But on the other hand it is in
> > our interest to expand our export markets, particularly in primary
> > produce. And we can put far more pressure on the A! mericans by being able
> > to say to them, look, access to our markets is fair and reasonable, your
> > sheep people are trying to make access to your markets unfair and
> > unreasonable and therefore you've got to change. And in the long run that
> > will do our farmers a greater service than if we adopted a more
> > protectionist approach.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > Now, I know you've got to go so one question - all I ask is one minute -
> > and perhaps a question with notice and you might give us an answer. What
> > do you know about something that none of Australia know anything about?
> > The fifth protocol of the general agreement on trade in services GATS
> > which is to be signed by us on June 15 which provides for - and this is
> > what it says it will do - quote: 'eliminates the prohibition on the
> > acquisition of control of any of Australia's four major banks. Also
> > eliminates the measure which [inaudible] its banks, resident or
> > non-resident from holding shares in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.'
> > In other words, you've said that the four pillars, the bank policy, is
> > cast in concrete. Here is a protocol that Australia knows nothing about
> > which is to be signed by us on June 15, a Treaty of the World Trade
> > Organisation, which eliminates the prohibition on banks, resident and
> > non-resident, from holding shares in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia a!
> > nd other entities. A blanket prohibition on foreign take-over of the four
> > major banks. Why are we signing that?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, Alan, I can assure you that nothing in anything we sign, either in
> > that protocol or elsewhere, can alter the fact that if there is to be any
> > foreign take-over of an Australian bank it will require the permission of
> > the Government through the Treasurer because that is the law of this
> > country.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > That's not what the WTO says.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, I don't care what the WTO says. I mean, with respect*
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > But we have agreed to this. We agreed to this protocol.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Alan, there is nothing in that protocol that overrides the domestic law of
> > this country.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > Well, I'm telling you that we are*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, I'm telling you that nothing in that protocol can override the
> > domestic law of Australia.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > But joint standing committee*
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding amongst your
> > listeners. We are not altering our policy on the take-over of banks by
> > foreigners.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > But we had representatives at the fifth protocol negotiations in February
> > last year.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Alan, well, you can have them at meetings. They can sign declarations and
> > protocols. And I haven't read all the detail of it but I've been briefed
> > about this issue. But let me just tell you that the domestic law of
> > Australia which is supreme requires that take-overs of the type you cite
> > cannot occur without the authority of the Government through the
> > Treasurer.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > Well, we have signed this agreement in 1995.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Look, Alan, I can only say it again, that it will not override the
> > domestic law of this country.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > So will we be deciding the fifth protocol on June 15?
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Alan, I understand some treaty arrangement is being considered but it does
> > not in any way override the domestic law of this country.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > Well, the treaty imposes obligations.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > Well, look, Alan, I'm sorry, I mean, I assure you - I mean, I don't want
> > anybody to be in any doubt we support the maintenance of the four pillars
> > policy until we're satisfied that there's greater competition amongst the
> > banks and I'm not satisfied about that yet and there cannot be an increase
> > in the level of foreign ownership of the Australian banking system without
> > the Treasurer and he has to be satisfied, acting for the Government, that
> > it's in the national interest for that to occur.
> >
> > JONES:
> >
> > Okay, you've got to go and thank you for your time.
> >
> > PRIME MINISTER:
> >
> > I have indeed. Great pleasure.
> >
> > [ends]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > PM's Media Email List
> >
> > If you have any problems with this service
> > please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this service go to:
> > http://www.pm.gov.au/media/media.htm
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
>http://www.mail-archive.com/
> To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
> of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
>from the
> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
>the "fair
> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
>without
> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
>
> RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
