National Security And Economic Management The Key Issues: Howard
November 8, 2001
This is the text of the address given at the National Press Club by the Prime Minister, John Howard. It was the last set-piece speech given by Howard in the election campaign.
Thank you very much Ken Randall
and my fellow Australians. More than five and a half years ago, the Australian
people gave me the opportunity of serving as their Prime Minister. It has not
only been an opportunity for change and improvement but has also been an immense
personal privilege to be Prime Minister of this magnificent country. Today,
in my final national dress, I ask the Australian people for a renewed mandate
to continue many of the policies that have been successful over the last five
and a half years, but also to implement a number of new initiatives announced
in the lead up to the election and during the campaign.
Like all Prime Ministers before
me, I have brought my own personal style, some of my own personal beliefs, my
own personal commitments and my own personal passions to this job. Every day
of the five and a half years has been spent in what I have tried to make the
service of all of the Australian people. I have done some things that people
haven’t liked, I have, on occasions, been in accord with popular opinion, on
other occasions I have been against it. I believe very passionately that this
is the greatest country in the world and I have tried in my time in office,
and I will try again if I have that opportunity to make it an even better nation.
All of us are driven by certain
personal philosophical values. They are grounded in our up bringing, they are
part of what connects us with our nation, they are part of what connects us
with all the things we experience in life. I’ve had a number of personal beliefs
that resonate, of course very deeply with the political party, the Liberal Party,
that I have been privileged to lead. And over the last five and a half years
the commitments to self reliance, to having a go, for pulling together but always
providing a fair go for the less fortunate in the Australian community have
been the guiding lights of the policies that I have introduced. There are, my
friends, two great issues that overlay the whole of this election campaign and
that will be crucial in resolving the minds of those Australians who are yet
to decide how they are going to vote. And those issues are of national security
and economic management. All else flows from national security and economic
management. And my claim to re-election, my request to the Australian people
to re-elect me is based on my belief that I, more than my opponent, can give
better and stronger and more certain leadership to the Australian leadership
to the Australian people in those two areas.
When I speak of national security
I don’t just speak of the way in which this nation has properly and honourably
responded to the terrorist attack of the eleventh of September. I speak also
of the long preparation of the White Paper, I speak of the public consultation
the commitment of an additional $32 billion over a decade to the defence of
this country, the build up that enabled us to magnificently save the people
of East Timor two years ago. I speak also, of course, and contemporaneously
of our response to the terrorist attack, of our joining the Coalition against
terrorism. I’ve said before and I say it again because I believe it, that attack
of eleventh of September was as much an attack on Australia as it was on America.
It not only killed Australians in the World Trade Centre, but it also assaulted
the very values on which this nation is built. National security also importantly
included effective protection of our borders. That has been an issue of debate
in this campaign, and quite properly so. Protecting Australia’s borders against
illegal immigration is an important national responsibility. Every nation has
the right as an exercise of its fundamental sovereignty, to decide who comes
to this country and the circumstances in which they will come. It is important
of course in the wake of the attacks on the eleventh of September to do as we
have done, to join the worldwide response, to take additional security precautions
in Australia, to do a number of things that we would not have ordinarily have
done, but we must do because of the heightened security threat in our own country.
But it is also important that we get on with our own lives that we stare down
what the terrorists seek to create around the world and that is a paralysis,
not only of fear but also an economic paralysis.
The terrorists win if they intimidate
us out of living our lives. The terrorists win if they dislocate our economy.
The terrorists win if they make us turn one upon the other and it is very important
with these challenges that we reach out to all within the Australian community,
irrespective of their religion of their race. And particularly to those in the
community of Arab decent or of the Islamic faith, because this war against terrorism
is not a war between Islam and the rest of the world, it is a war between good
and evil. And they’re good men and women in all faiths and indeed of no faith
at all. So ladies and gentlemen, national security will be for years into the
future an important issue. It will define the way we relate to the rest of the
world and my qualifications I put to the Australian people as superior in that
area to those of my opponent.
The other great area of course,
the area of economic management. There can be no argument, and even in their
more desperately rhetorical tones, not even our political opponents mount a
serious argument against the proposition that the economic strength of this
nation is infinitely greater than what it was five and a half years ago. And
the world that was changed forever after the eleventh of September, is not only
a world facing far greater security challenges but it is also a world facing
far greater economic challenges. And because of the measures that we have taken
and because of what we have done over the last five and a half years, this country
is better able to cope with that new world environment. We have delivered very
strong economic growth. We now have interest rates, which for the average home
buyer are $350 a month, at least, lower than what they were in March 1996. We
have dramatically reformed our industrial relations system, and although roll
back of the GST was nothing other than a damp squib because Labor proposes to
keep ninety six to ninety seven percent of tax reform, I can say to my fellow
Australians that if Labor were to win on Saturday, roll back of the industrial
relations system would be no damp squib.
What we would see is a wholesale
destruction of the industrial relations reforms introduced by this government
over the last five and a half years. And they have not been reforms that have
led to lower wages and more strikes and fewer jobs, they have been reforms that
through the heightened productivity that they have brought forth have led to
higher wages, more jobs and fewer strikes. I mean, we have had a trifecta of
success despite the warnings that were delivered in March of 1996 by Bill Kelty
and Paul Keating who forecast, metaphorically speaking, blood on the industrial
relations’ streets of Australia. The reverse has, in fact, been the case.
We’ve also, of course, seen the
Australian waterfront’s productivity soar as a result of the courageous stand
taken by Peter Reith and the Government in 1998. They said we could never reach
25 container movements an hour. It has gone from just under 17 to just over
27. There has been a remarkable change on the Australian waterfront. It’s one
of the reasons why our trade performance now is so much better than it was a
few years ago.
And, of course, of all of the financial
symbols that marks and defines the success of this Government over the last
five-and-a-half years is that by the end of this financial year we will have
repaid $58 billion of the $96 billion of Government debt that we inherited from
Mr Beazley and Mr Keating in March of 1996. But that is not some kind of dusty
statistic. What it has done, because it’s reduced the annual interest bill on
Government debt, it’s allowed us to invest about $4 billion a year more in necessary
public and human services. It’s one of the reasons why we have been able to
increase by 43% Commonwealth spending on Government schools, even though in
that period enrolments in those schools have only risen by 1.8%. It’s one of
the reasons why over the lifetime of the health agreements we will, compared
with the last health agreement of the previous government, we’ll increase funding
for public hospitals by 28% after inflation. And it’s also a great source of
pride to me because 70% of Australians who leave school do not go on to university,
we have more than doubled the apprenticeships in this country over the last
five-and-a-half years. They languished at 120,000 to 130,000 for years. We’ve
now taken them to more than 310,000. And there’s been an enormous increase in
the number of women and a significant increase in the number of indigenous people
who are part of that great surge in apprenticeships.
But, ladies and gentlemen, that
is about past achievement. They are impressive, they are undeniable and those
achievements have provided the foundation for the strength that Australia now
has to face an undoubtedly more difficult world economic environment. But because
of the reforms, because of taxation reform, because of industrial relations
reform, because of the repayment of debt, just as we were able in 1997 to stare
down the Asian economic downturn, we’ll be able to stare down and come through,
not completely unaffected but far better than would otherwise have been the
case, the economic challenges that we now face.
But my friends, a forward agenda
for an election campaign is not only about the policies that are announced during
the campaign period itself. It is a long continuum of planning and policy announcements
which project years into the future. And over the past 12 months this Government
has made major announcements in many areas and the full impact of many of those
announcements will be felt over the next three years. We believe that our policies
can give the Australian economy continued economic growth, the London Economist
predicting, next calendar year, better than most industrialised nations.
We propose, if re-elected, further
reforms in the area of industrial relations. We’ll try again to further liberalise
those unfair dismissal laws. We’ll require secret ballots in relation to certain
strike action. We’ll empower the ACCC to take action on behalf of small businesses
that are not in an economic position to do so against more formidable opponents.
We intend, importantly, to put down the first planks of the long-term reform
of the welfare system. Money was provided, $1.7 billion, in the last budget
and it will be a Coalition Government, not a Labor government, that will begin
the process of serious reform and strengthening of the welfare system, all within
the underlying commitment that we are not going to reduce the strength and the
quality of the safety net. And one of the great achievements of this Government
over the last five-and-a-half years is to remove forever the notion that in
some way the Liberal and National Parties are the enemy of the social security
safety net. And that, in fact, has even been acknowledged by the President of
ACOSS, not always the person who frequently praises the policies of this Government.
We’ll see over the next three years
the full impact of the science and innovation programme that I laid down at
the beginning of this year which will double basic research grants that will
provide generous Federation fellowships to retain and bring back the brightest
of the best. We are doing these things. Our opponents continue to talk about
them. We’ll review the competition laws, an important commitment for the business
community. It is time we had another look at whether the competition laws of
this country preserve the right balance between large and small within our community
but, equally, allow for the development of sufficient critical mass amongst
our larger corporations that they can fully participate in a globalised economic
environment.
Many of you will remember that when
I last addressed the National Press Club, and that meeting took place in the
Great Hall of Parliament House, I identified three issues that I believed would
be very important domestically to this country in the years ahead. And those
issues were the ageing of the population, the constant challenging attempt for
families, particularly young families, to balance the responsibilities of work
and family. And, finally, in the area of the environment, the whole challenge
of water quality and salinity.
We are an ageing population, which
of course is one of the reasons why the Government reformed the Australian taxation
system. And of the many things that we have done over past years none was more
difficult, none was strewn with more politically inspired obstacles, none was
the subject of more bitter recrimination and negative attack from the Labor
Party than our, I believe, successful policy of reforming the Australian taxation
system. And one of the great values of that system is that it has given us a
revenue base that will grow with the economy into the future and as a result
give us the resources, the tools, to provide a growing number of services for
an ageing population. And if there’s one thing I would say in relation to the
whole taxation debate amongst many with even greater conviction than most and
that is those people who presume to be relevant to the future of this country
yet simultaneously attack the very taxation reform that provides us with a revenue
capacity to provide the services into the future are guilty of a very grievous
contradiction. I have tried and the Coalition has tried during the course of
this election campaign in different ways and within the constraints of limited
budget resources to address each of those three areas – the ageing of the population,
work and family and the particular challenge of water quality and salinity.
Our proposals in relation to superannuation
I believe when further disseminated and more widely understood throughout the
Australian community, particularly the proposal to decouple paid employment
from a superannuation entitlement and the development of superannuation from
birth and the interlinkages of that with the other superannuation changes we
have made will make an enormous contribution to encouraging the young to provide
for their superannuation at a very early age. And I can’t think of anything
conceptually which is more important in a nation whose population is ageing.
The proposal in relation to the
first child tax refund will, I believe, provide further targeted but very welcome
relief for that most difficult period of all for young couples and that is when
they lose an income when the first child is born. We’ve already provided, through
our tax reforms, very significant benefits for low-income families both couple
families and also sole parent. And it may have come as a surprise to many in
the community and to many of our critics that the survey by NATSEM which demonstrated
that the greatest winners out of tax reform have, in fact, been the low income
families, the single income families and the sole parents families, are diametrically
opposed to the mantra put around that somehow or other tax reform was something
for the upper, middle and high income earners. That first child tax rebate will
add further to the assistance and make a welcome contribution towards further
easing the pressures of balancing work and family. And it’s against the background
of a government which has provided thousands of more childcare places and a
government which according to the ABS is actually reduced the cost of childcare
by something like nine per cent over the last 12 months. We haven’t heard much
criticism about childcare and the government during this election campaign and
that is no surprise to me because our policies have in fact increased the availability
of childcare to Australian parents and have in fact at the same time reduced
it.
In the area of course of salinity
we are the first Government, first Commonwealth Government in the history of
Australia to propose a national plan. We’ve committed $700 million and if that
is matched dollar for dollar by the states we’ll have a fund of at least $1.4
billion to begin developing an overall national response to this huge environmental
problem. And over and above that what we have done is that we have dedicated
at least $360 million out of the $1 billion reinvestment in the Natural Heritage
Trust announced at the beginning of the campaign to the fight against salinity.
It remains a matter of national concern that if we don’t do something about
this issue in 20 years time the drinking water for the people of Adelaide will
be unfit for consumption in three out of five days. We do have a long term plan
for that and we do have a long term commitment to do something about that particular
problem.
So ladies and gentlemen let me go
back to what I said at the beginning. This election campaign is overwhelmingly
about who is better able and what is team of people are better able to manage
the affairs of this nation, to provide stewardship to this nation in these very
difficult times. At the beginning of the election campaign my opponent, the
Leader of the Opposition, in the television debate posed the rhetorical question,
ask yourself whether you feel better off now then you did five and a half years
ago. There’s only been one poll done on that and for what it’s worth it recorded
that the majority of people answered they did feel better off. And perhaps that
is not the answer that the Leader of the Opposition wanted. But although the
past is relevant, it guides as both us to the present and to the future. This
election particularly in the light of what happened on the 11 September is very
much about he future. It is about the future capacity of the Coalition compared
with the Australian Labor Party. It is very much about our future economic capacities.
Because in the end you can promise the earth in relation to things like health
and education and all those other very valuable services which are so important
in our community. But unless you deliver a growing economy you have no capacity
to deliver in relation to those commitments. And in the end a capacity to deliver
a growing economy, a capacity to provide the wherewithal to provide and supply
those additional resources for all those public services is fundamental.
I have now been in public life for
27 years. I have served as five and a half years as Prime Minister of this country.
I seek with enormous energy and commitment and dedication the opportunity of
serving my country again as Prime Minister. We do face very challenging and
difficult times. But they ought not to daunt us and the spirit of the Australian
people, the capacity of the Australian people to combine and work together to
meet a common challenge has always been a hallmark of this nation’s existence
and a hallmark of this nation’s contribution to the world. We face twin challenges
in the immediate years ahead of leadership on national security and economic
management. I ask my fellow Australians to again give me the opportunity and
the privilege of leading them because I believe I am better qualified than my
opponent to provide that leadership in those two areas which will so totally
define the direction in which this nation goes in the years ahead.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Dennis Shanahan at the
Australian. You’ve talked about policies being a continuum of the years past,
but one of the issues which has dominated the campaign has been border protection,
those policies that you’ve introduced are literally only weeks old. Many of
them were meant to address short time problems. What are your long term solutions
for border protection given the unsustainable strain that the pacific solution
places on both our Navy and on our fiscal situation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Dennis I think you have to
first of all deal with the short and medium term as well as projecting forward
to the longer term. Everyone knows and I have myself said on many occasions
that if people didn’t endeavour to come to Australia in the first place there
wouldn’t be a challenge. They endeavour to come to Australia for a combination
of reasons, one of the reasons is that until quite recently it has appeared
to the rest of the world that it’s been fairly easy to get to Australia and
once you get to Australia it’s been fairly easy to stay here.
Now, we set about with a number
of the changes we made, we only got final Parliamentary approval to some of
them, to alter that. And our policy at the present time, which I don’t accept
is unsustainable, our policy at the present time is to send a message to the
rest of the world that what was previously perceived to be the situation is
no longer the situation. And there is evidence, intelligence and otherwise,
to the effect that the number of people coming into the pipeline is beginning
to slow. There were or was a bank up of people in Indonesia and, of course,
inevitably they arrived in Indonesia prior to many of the actions the Government
has taken that has sent a different signal to the rest of the world. We will
continue to discuss, if re-elected, with the Indonesian Government, as we have
done previously, the possibility of achieving a different approach and an agreement
about the departure of people from Indonesia. It is said by our political opponents
that all is needed is a change of government to bring that about. That, of course,
is demonstrably not the case. People such as Ali Alatas have made it very plain
that there is really no discernible difference between the two sides of politics
so far as Indonesia is concerned.
The reasons why it’s been difficult
to get an agreement with Indonesia to date goes not to the political colour
of the Australian Government but goes to the domestic political priorities of
Indonesia, which are not going to change if there were a change of government
on Saturday. This is a difficult issue and it’s an issue which gets down to
the fundamental right of this country to decide who comes here. And I yield
to nobody in my determination to maintain the absolute right of Australia to
decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come. And I repeat
what I have said on a number of occasions throughout the election campaign,
I do not believe that the strength of this policy would be maintained if Mr
Beazley were to win on Saturday. I believe the internal pressures within his
own party to bring about a change of policy would be immense and I believe just
as he’s changed before he will change again.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Sarah Clarke, ABC
Television news. Number one, will you state your preference on whether you believe
that Telstra should or would be better off fully privatised and your Party’s
preference? And number two, if you trusted Mr Besley to point out the problems
of Telstra in the bush and then endorsed his report, why not bring him back
to be the final arbiter on whether or not Telstra should be sold off and when
it should be sold off?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sarah, what I’ll do is state the
Government’s policy. The Government’s policy is we won’t sell another share
in Telstra until we are satisfied that things in the bush are up to scratch.
The idea of talking to Tim Besley, he’s always pleasant to talk to, I may well,
having done, you know, all the things that he said, talk to the NFF – hear that
Ian – and talk to all of my rural colleagues and talk to a lot of other people,
I may well further talk to him. But the position is, Sarah, we’re not selling
another share until communications facilities in the bush are up to scratch.
JOURNALIST:
What about your preference, though,
your preference on whether or not you believe…
PRIME MINISTER:
Sarah, I’m stating Government policy
and my preference is exactly the same as Government policy, what a surprise.
JOURNALIST:
Paul Bongiorno, Network Ten, Prime
Minister. We have a clear idea of what a Howard Government would set out to
achieve in its third term but it’s also a fact that no Prime Minister can lay
out how his successor will implement or lay down his policies. Would the Australian
people know, for example, that a Costello government would have a different
view, for example – and it’s only an example, Prime Minister – on the republic,
reconciliation and saying sorry and even how a Costello government might deal
with a boat load of people trying to get in illegally?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very hypothetical. There are only
two governments on offer on Saturday, a Beazley government or a Howard government
and you know my views on those issues.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Fran Kelly, the 7.30
Report. Defence sources are saying today that the photos released by the Defence
Minister’s office some weeks ago of the people in the water from that sinking
boat were captioned when they were handed to the Government and that those captions
clearly showed that the people were in the water because the boat was sinking,
not because people had been thrown overboard, children had been thrown overboard.
Will you now ask the Minister of Defence to release those photos with captions
as originally provided by the Navy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Fran, I don’t know what defence
sources you’re referring to but let me just take you through the sequence on
this very quickly. The claims that were made by Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith on the
Sunday, I think it would have been Sunday the 7th of October, it
was just after the election was called, they were based on advice from defence
sources. My own comments were based on my discussions with Mr Ruddock and Mr
Reith. On the 9th of October I received an ONA report that read in
part as follows: Asylum seekers wearing life-jackets jumped into the sea
and children were thrown in with them. Such tactics have previously been used
elsewhere, for example, by people smugglers and Iraqi asylum seekers on boats
intercepted by the Italian Navy.
Now, I make the offer to Mr Beazley
and, I’m sure he will respect the sensitivity of it, that if he wants to have
a look at the ONA report in its entirety he’s very welcome to do so and I’m
very happy for him to do so. Now, look, the whole basis of our claim was the
advice we received. Now, if you get that kind of written advice and you get
the sort of advice that both Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock received at the time, that’s
the basis of the allegations that are made. Now, I mean, you can ask endless
questions about releasing this or that but the basis of the claims were the
advice not the video. The video didn’t come into…the discussion of it didn’t
come into the public domain until, I think, the 10th on evening television
and then in the newspapers on the 11th. But can I say with respect,
Fran, that although this is important – I don’t want to trivialise it because
it was a traumatic, emotional turn to the issue – it’s not really, you know,
directly on the issue of whether you agree or disagree with the policy that
we are pursuing. I mean, the Australian people are concerned about the policy
that we’re pursuing. Those who support it, support it and those who don’t, oppose
it. But that’s the central issue in the debate but I have to say to all of you
who’ve sort of raised queries about this, if you get….if the Defence Minister
and Immigration Minister get verbal advice from defence sources and the Prime
Minister gets that kind of written advice I don’t think it’s sort of exaggerating
or gilding the lily to go out and say what I said.
JOURNALIST:
Laurie Oakes, Nine Network. That’s
not a bad question Prime Minister. I’d like to ask you that question. I’d also
like to ask this one: the unemployment figures today show the unemployment rate
in October is up by 0.4% to 7.1%, full time employment fell by 56,800. Can you
tell us please do you expect unemployment to get worse before it gets better
and how much worse? And could you explain for us how these figures, tens of
thousands of Australians losing their jobs, bolster the Coalition’s claim to
superior economic management?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me say in relation to those
figures Laurie that total employment increased by almost 18,000 in October.
The increase in the unemployment rate was due to a change in the participation
rate. And if you’r talking about employment trends the answer to your question
is that employment rose by 17,900 in October, notwithstanding considerable economic
uncertainty. It’s now right of me to say, accurate of me to say, that since
March of 1996 we’ve created 851,200 new jobs. The unemployment rate now is of
course lower than what it was when we came to office. I’m not going to attempt
to forecast about future unemployment levels. It is undoubtedly the case that
we are facing more difficult economic times. We can’t escape it. The world economic
downturn and the fact that America has now had a quarter of negative economic
growth, that Japan is in recession, and that other nations are in recession,
of course that’s going to have an effect. I’m not saying to the Australian people
that we can remain unscathed from the world economic downturn. What I’m saying
is that because of what the Coalition has done over the last five and a half
years we are better able to face that downturn, and because of our superior
economic credentials we’ll be better able to lead Australia through that downturn
than our opponents. That is what I’m saying.
JOURNALIST:
Louise Dodson from the Age Mr Howard.
I wonder given that there is some uncertainty about this video about the children
being pushed overboard, do you regret saying that those people shouldn’t be
allowed….they’re not the sort of people we’d like to have in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t regret saying, I should
go back and have a look at exactly what was said, but I don’t regret ever saying
that people who throw children overboard aren’t welcome in Australia.
JOURNALIST:
But given there’s some uncertainty
about whether they did….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in my mind there is no uncertainty
because I don’t disbelieve the advice I was given by defence. And can I just
say again Louise when you get defence giving advice, and the statements I made
were based on advice, I wasn’t there, neither of the ministers were there. They
get advice, it is then confirmed in writing in terms that I have described.
I think in those circumstances it’s perfectly reasonable and legitimate of me
to say what I said and I don’t disbelieve the defence advice.
JOURNALIST:
Malcolm Farr from the Daily Telegraph.
You would agree I’d presume that Australia as an advanced western industrialised
country should be able to boast of having at least one university within the
top ten, fifteen universities of the world. Why is it that after five and a
half years of your Government we don’t and we don’t look like having an entry
on that list for quite a while yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Malcolm I don’t know what particular
league table or measurement you’re talking about. I don’t mean that response
disrespectfully. I just don’t know. But I do know that the OECD comparisons
of all the levels of education in Australia show that Australia at a primary,
secondary and tertiary level is at or above the OECD average. The one area where
we’re below it is in the area of pre-school which is totally the responsibility
of the states.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard just to Saturday there’s
quite a strong field of independents running this election in the Lower House
seats. There is a possibility of a hung Parliament. Do you fear that more than
you fear a Labor victory.
PRIME MINISTER:
There’s nothing worse than a Labor
victory….for Australia. I would simply say to people who are listening to this
program that you can’t sort of have both. I visited the electorate of New England
last weekend and my pitch to the people of New England, some of whom think the
idea of having an independent is compatible with having a Coalition Government.
It might come down to the wire, I don’t know. I don’t mind saying that the preference
deal Labor has struck with the Democrats and the Greens is pretty good for them.
It’s making our task a lot harder. So any conservative rural voter for example
in the electorate of New England, don’t imagine that you can have an independent
and also have me. I mean, you know, from some of them I mightn’t like the answer
they give. They’ve got to make the choice. But I suspect the great bulk of them
want the Coalition to be returned but they might think well we can have a bit
on the side. In the end that could prove to be totally illusory. Obviously I
would like the Coalition to have a clear working majority. That’s what I’m going
to be fighting for until 6:00pm on Saturday night. And I don’t get into hypothesising
about what I might not do if that is not the case. But whatever you do don’t
vote Labor.
JOURNALIST:
Paul Cleary from the Financial Review
Mr Howard. I’d just like to point out that Mr Reith did say on ABC Radio on
October 10 that there was a video which confirmed that the people were thrown
overboard. Will you discipline Mr Reith in light of those remarks? But also
my substantive question is about what you’ve said in the past about refugees,
that the Coalition’s acceptance of more refugees per capita from Indo-China
in the Fraser Government was one of your proudest achievements. You’ve said
that a number of times. The Vietnamese in particular have gone on to become
entrepreneurs, they run great restaurants, they represent 1% of the population
yet 5% of their kids are at university. Aren’t the Afghanis like the Vietnamese
in that they’re risk takers, they’re risking everything for a better life, and
aren’t they the sort of people you want in this country?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say Paul that I was proud
of what the Fraser Government did in relation to the Vietnamese people, very
proud. We had a particular and special responsibility in relation to them because
we had largely, in relation to most of them, fought on their side in the Vietnam
War we had a particular responsibility in relation to them. But I thought that
was great policy. And I’m not making any general aspersions or unfairly comparing
the Afghani or the Iraqi people with the Vietnamese. What I’m saying is that
we believe you’ve got to run an orderly refugee program and we are facing a
situation….I mean it’s very easy for people to criticise what the Government
is doing. I ask my critics to contemplate the alternative. I ask my critics
to say to me and to tell the Australian people, you dismantle what is called
the Pacific Solution, what is the alternative. The alternative is that you will
be sending a signal, I mean if after everything that has happened if we reverse
policy that will be seen as a magnet, in current economic circumstances, to
great and increasing numbers of people to endeavour to come to this country.
And that will present an enormous difficulty for Australia.
And can I say to you that I’m not
the only person who has concerns about this. I think I’ve said before that when
Tony Blair rang me to say he couldn’t come to CHOGM he talked about the aftermath
of the 11th of September and he drew a link between that aftermath
and the problem of asylum seekers. I mean can I just read something to you?
‘Here in this country’, this is the quote, ‘and in other nations
around the world laws will be changed, not to deny basic liberty but to prevent
their abuse and to protect the most basic liberty of all – freedom from terror.
New extradition laws will be introduced, new rules to ensure asylum is not a
front to terrorist activity, terrorist entry. This country is proud of its tradition
in giving asylum to those fleeing tyranny. We will always do so but we have
a duty to protect the system from abuse.’ Now they were the words of the
British Labour Prime Minister to the party’s annual conference in Blackpool
or Brighton, I forget which, on the 2nd of October of this year.
Now I haven’t said, I haven’t made
the allegation that there are terrorists on any particular boat loads of people,
what I am saying is that we have a heightened obligation to make absolutely
certain who is coming to this country, which further underlines and validates
the attitude this government has taken and I’m not alone in saying that because
the sort of argument that I used is almost identical to the argument that the
British Labour Prime Minister used to his own party conference a little over
a month ago.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m sorry?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Reith’s comments on October…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’ll have a look at Mr Reith’s
comments, I think Mr Reith has been an extremely good member of the Government
and I have a very warm regard for what Mr Reith has done. And can I just say
to you again Paul the claims that were made were based, about children being
thrown overboard, were based on advice before the video even came into the public
domain.
JOURNALIST:
Reka Bakta from the Indian Post
Prime Minister. You mentioned the aging population and the young families, can
I reiterate it again, the percentage of older citizens are growing, population
is not supplemented by new births as we desire, fertility rate is frighteningly
low. With the growing economy we need a larger workforce, you did mention in
the Great Hall the aged population working longer. You have yourself given 64
as the benchmark, two years from now. Isn’t increasing immigration intake the
answer?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I just say a couple of
things, I don’t believe in any kind of compulsory retiring ages and can I say
I think if the nation had a vote again as it did in the late 1970’s about the
retiring age for federal judges it would probably deliver a different verdict
because I think there’s been a complete change in the last generation. It’s
one of those issues that I’ve watched go from one side to the other in the time
that I’ve been in parliament. In the late 1970’s it was all about sort of having
early retiring ages, so forth, I think all of that has turned around.
In relation to your question about
immigration, before that irreverent interjection, can I simply say to you that
there’s a lot of popular mythology about the impact of a different immigration
intake and I've said in the past that I’ve got an open mind from year to year
about the level of the intake and we have varied it somewhat between years since
we’ve been in office, and I retain an open mind on that. The reality is, and
this has been borne out by a lot of treasury studies I’ve seen, that you would
have to have a massive increase in the level of immigration to have a noticeable
effect on the demography of this nation. A really quite massive increase and
I’m not opposed to having a debate about the level, I mean we have a debate
all the time about it and we have certain principles that we’ll continue to
maintain a completely non-discriminatory policy, we have shifted it more in
favour of skilled people. But there is a bit of mythology that all you’ve got
to do is lift the migrant intake by a couple of hundred thousand a year and
you fix the demography, you don’t. And you would have to increase it massively
according to the studies I’ve seen to have any appreciable impact and that would
of course you know create tensions in other parts of the economy, not least
the environment and unless you’re going to direct people where they go then
you create problems in their city or area of first choice. So I think there’s
a degree of mythology about that. I think the current migrant intake is appropriate,
but as I say I’ve got an open mind from year to year about the level, as has
the government.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, James Grubel from
AAP. Can I just return to the economic management comments you made earlier.
Given today’s higher unemployment rate do you think that now gives the Reserve
Bank some room to move on interest rates? I note this week it made no announcement,
do you think it’s because of the election that’s coming on the weekend. And
finally how would your approach to economic management help prop up the Australian
dollar which is languishing in the low 50’s?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not going to give any advice
to the Reserve Bank at this gathering. It’s a matter for them what the rate
is. And I don’t normally talk about the future direction or otherwise of the
Australian dollar, I simply make the observation I think we have a super competitive
exchange rate.
JOURNALIST:
Tony Wright of the Bulletin Mr Howard.
Yesterday Kim Beazley had pointed out to him that he’d spoken of you as the
most considerable conservative of the generation. And then went on basically
to say that well yes he did feel good things for you at times and that…
PRIME MINISTER:
He went on to bag me did he?
JOURNALIST:
And that he felt that it was reasonable
to say those sort of things, even about a Liberal because he was a man generous
of heart and there was nothing wrong with that. I wonder whether you could give
your assessment of Kim Beazley at this stage of the campaign, putting aside
the heat and dust of it for a bit and find something nice to say about him.
Or would that constitute weak leadership?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it wouldn’t, look, I’ve said
a number of things about Mr Beazley. I bear him no personal malice. I disagree
with him on a lot of policy issues, I don’t think he’s very resolute on many
but I once said and I freely acknowledged on a well known current affairs programme
at the weekend that I had said it, that if there were a war cabinet I’d put
him in it, but I’d be the Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST:
Tony Walker, Financial Review Prime
Minister. This follows on from several questions about the jobless rate, but
with the jobless rate at 7.1 per cent and trending up and if elected…
PRIME MINISTER:
And what?
JOURNALIST:
And trending up.
PRIME MINISTER:
Trending up, well I’m not …..
JOURNALIST:
Well we could have a debate about
that I guess. But to ask the question, if elected does this provide an argument
for a further loosening of monetary policy and stimulatory government spending
to maintain economic growth. That’s the first question. And the second question
is do you categorically rule out running a budget deficit in the first two years
of a third Howard Government before your much talked about retirement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in relation to further fiscal
stimulus, Tony if you believe, if you believe and others believe that the jobless
situation is going to worsen and I’m not saying that, you’re saying that, that
makes a complete nonsense of the fiscal stimulus represented by the additional
discretionary government spending that has been undertaken over the last 12
months… I mean hasn’t Mr Beazley spent most of this election campaign running
around Australia saying that we have wasted money, that we wasted it on defence,
we wasted it on road funding, we wasted it on a whole lot of other things that
have provided a very necessary fiscal stimulus, the $12 billion of tax cuts.
I mean if you look back over the last couple of years I think the timing of
the tax cuts and the timing of those expenditures have together been major contributors
to the ongoing strength of the Australian economy. As far as the question of
deficits are concerned it is not the policy of the Coalition, it is not my policy
to run a budget deficit in any year.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister Gerard McManus from
the Sunday Herald Sun. Two days out from the election the Labor Party still
have not produced their immigration policy.
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
I was just wondering why anyone
in the Liberal Party has failed to capitalise on this clear vacuum in the Labor
Party’s policies?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will now. Perhaps they can’t
make up their mind what to put in it. But I’m serious, I think immigration is
an issue where there are very deep divisions inside the Labor Party. I would
reiterate the point I made earlier that I do think if Mr Beazley wins on Saturday
he will be under enormous pressure not to maintain the line that I have in relation
to border protection.
JOURNALIST:
Michael Harvey from the Herald Sun
Prime Minister. One of your themes in Government has been that the things that
unite are greater than the things that divide us. How much has that suffered
in this campaign with its emphasis on the desirability of people from other
countries, et cetera. And what would you do…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well hang on, you say this emphasis,
on the what? Just what are you inferring by that Michael?
JOURNALIST:
I think that the backdrop and the
overtone to this campaign on issues which have dominated and the way in which
they’ve been responded to on the desirability of certain people to come to this
country, that’s just one. Well if I can take it in a boarder sense then. My
question is what long term plans would you have as a re-elected Prime Minister
to repair some of the divisions in the community over these issues.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I just say Michael that
I think that is a, I think it is a false representation of our position, a completely
false representation. We have not sought to exclude people on the basis of their
race or country of origin. We have sought to exclude people on the basis that
they have sought to come here illegally and we would have the same attitude
whether they came from Japan or Britain or America or anywhere else. It’s got
nothing to do with their race and its got nothing to do with their religion.
It’s got everything to do with the circumstances in which they have sought to
come here. I don’t find the divisions of which you speak of. I don’t find them
as deep as you imply. I think Australians find this, as I do, a difficult issue.
I don’t find it one of the easiest or the more enjoyable parts of the job that
I have had over the last five and a half years and of course, like any human
being, I was very touched by that tragedy in Indonesian waters and that poor
man who lost his three daughters. I’m human like everybody else and that touched
me very greatly and that is why I was so angry that Mr Beazley sought to imply
in some way that I and my colleagues were responsible for it. But you have to,
in the position I have, you have to, you should respond to your emotions but
you’ve also got to respond to the other responsibilities that you have Michael
but I do want to emphatically reject totally the notion implicit in your question
that the basis of the exclusion of these people is ethnic. Well I am sorry Michael,
that is how I heard your question. If that is what you, if you didn’t mean that
then, I accept you didn’t mean it and that is good and we don’t have a difference
but we have sought to exclude them, not on the basis of their religion or their
ethnicity but on the basis of the improper way in which we believe they have
sought to come here.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister I asked you a question
in Melbourne yesterday about the analysis of this campaign by Mr Oakes that
a key element of your election strategy was dog whistle politics. You told me
at the time you hadn’t seen it. Have you now looked at it and how do you respond?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes I have now seen it and
I have now read the column. I don’t agree with the analysis by Mr Oakes. I don’t
believe at all what he says is accurate and I reject it completely. This election,
as you know, is being held against the background of a set of circumstances
that have come upon us. It’s being held at the time it’s constitutionally required.
I find the suggestion in that article is inaccurate. It’s politically offensive.
People are entitled to attack me, I am not personally offended by it because
I’m used to a fair degree of personal attack and journalists are entitled to
state their views plainly and passionately.
Look, I have done what I have done
in relation to border protection because I genuinely believe that it is in the
national interest to do so. I haven’t done it because I am catching up with
somebody else on the subject. I’ve done it because I genuinely believe it. I
think if we were to reverse that policy now we would send the wrong signal around
the world and I think the challenge we would then face would be enormous. You
have got to control you borders. It’s a fundamental exercise of national sovereignty.
That is all I have sought to do. I know it is subject to a lot of criticism
and a lot of that criticism has a moral overtone to it and like everybody else
I examine criticisms of my behaviour that have moral strictures contained in
it like other strictures but I am satisfied within myself that what we are doing
is in the national interest. Others wait. Others have waited interminably to
come to this country and I have found as I have moved around many people who
went through that long process of waiting would be offended if the Government
abandoned its policy and believe what the Government is doing in relation to
this is fundamentally correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
