Free Trade Agreement, Liverpool Council, Orange Grove Shopping Centre Mark Latham - Federal Labor Leader

Radio Interview with Mike Carlton

Transcript - Radio 2UE - 28 July 2004

E & OE

JOURNALIST:     The Government says Mark Latham is dithering, failing in leadership. You heard John Anderson here just a few minutes ago say that Mr Latham simply doesn’t know what he’s doing on this. He can’t and won’t make a decision. Mr Latham, himself, says, ‘Well, there’s no hurry; not on until next year. Why rush into it? Let’s see what this Senate report has to say.’ Well, we’ll hear what he has to say as well. He’s on the line now. Good morning.

LATHAM:         Good morning, Mike.

JOURNALIST:     Are you dithering?

LATHAM:         No, we’re going through the proper democratic process to get all the facts on the table and get a proper assessment – is this trade agreement good for Australia or bad for Australia? I mean, the Government rushed in at the beginning of the year and signed an agreement that left out sugar, and had restricted access for our agricultural market. So rushing in is not the best way of furthering Australia’s national interests. You’ve got John Anderson there; he said it would be unAustralian to leave sugar out but that’s what he did – an unAustralian thing. The agreement doesn’t start until next year. The prudent thing, the best thing for Australia, is to have a detailed assessment, a thorough assessment of all the facts and figures, and that’s why we’re waiting for the Senate report which is due in the next couple of weeks.

JOURNALIST:     It’s fair to say, though, your party is divided on this, isn’t it?

LATHAM:         Well, there are pros and cons. It’s not surprising that shadow ministers with portfolio responsibilities would air concerns that are well-known in the public debate. There are concerns in a variety of areas. There are some pluses, some minuses and it’s not surprising that people are going to be talking about those particularly in their portfolio areas. That’s what shadow ministers do.

JOURNALIST:     Yes, but, its more than just shadow ministers, it’s also the ACTU. That’s, obviously, the country’s peak trade union body, representing how many workers, they said they don’t like it. It will cost jobs. It will put up the price of medicines. You’ve got a real problem there.

LATHAM:         Well, they’ve got concerns, and the matters you have mentioned are out there in the public debate and it would be foolish of any political party to ignore them. It doesn’t mean you automatically agree with the ACTU – far from it, we have a lot of disagreements. But if they’ve got a concern that is legitimate about jobs, well, you would listen to that. But just the same you look at some of the economic modelling which shows a mild plus for Australia on that front and you try and get it right. You try and get it right; you try and get the balance right – weighing up the pros and cons and try to do the right thing for the country.

JOURNALIST:     Yes, I think a lot of Australians are really concerned about the price of drugs under the PBS – the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme – and concerned that the American drug companies will just see it as a chance to put up the prices. Do you worry about that?

LATHAM:         Of course I worry about that. We’ve said consistently that if the agreement was to gut our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that would be a deal breaker, we wouldn’t be supporting it. So the Government at long last has provided the information –

JOURNALIST:     [inaudible]

LATHAM:         It was only three days ago that the Government provided the information about the appeal mechanism for the PBS. So it’s not as if the facts have been on the table so people can make a judgment. The Senate committee is now looking at that appeal mechanism and, as I say, it’s going to report in the near future.

JOURNALIST:     Yes, but I think there are real concerns about the price of drugs, and they’ve been expressed in America as well that it could make life difficult for Americans trying to buy drugs too.

LATHAM:          Yes, well, Mike, you are making statements of fact – that there are concerns. Those concerns have been well established in the public debate but what sort of political party would make a decision before you had the detailed information about the appeal mechanism? If there are concerns – someone who is wise and prudent in public life actually gets the facts before you make a decision. And here’s the Howard Government having signed a deal months ago without having knowledge of the appeal mechanism and certainly not making that available to the Australian people until the last three days.

JOURNALIST:     But if you find that it would push up the cost of drugs, you say it would be a deal breaker, would you then vote it down in the Senate?

LATHAM:         Well, that’s what that means. We’ve said that from day one – that if this is a scheme that guts our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme then, if it’s an agreement that guts the PBS, then we would be voting it down. It’s a deal breaker. We’ve said that from day one.

JOURNALIST:     You would then have a blazing row on your hands with the likes of Bob Carr, Peter Beattie, and so on, who kind of like it.

LATHAM:         We’ve got to do what's right for Australia. Our responsibility as national politicians is: get this right for the country. It’s the Federal Parliament that is responsible for the PBS not State Parliament. If that scheme was going to be gutted then you wouldn’t expect the Labor Party to be supporting the agreement.

JOURNALIST:     Can I switch a topic on you now. It’s all, not all over the papers but it’s gradually creeping into the papers these days – your management of Liverpool Council when you were Mayor there, right. They are asking all these questions about your financial management and did you leave the place in debt and a wreck and so on. What do you say? How are you dealing with this? It’s a very complex issue for people to understand.

LATHAM:         There is no great complexity. These are matters of historical record. I left the Council 10 years ago and during that time even my harshest critics acknowledge that the debt servicing ratio of the Council came down from 17 to 10 per cent, which is a five-star financial performance. You can’t bring the debt service ratio down from 17 to 10 per cent unless you’ve got good financial management. All of that is the established facts in the debate. I’m not responsible for things that happened in the last 10 years after I had left the Council. But that fact about debt servicing, which is the key financial measure, that’s well-established.

JOURNALIST:     It went up again shortly after you left, didn’t it? It went up to 12, I think.   

LATHAM:         Yes, well, Mike, if your ratings go down at 2UE after you leave the program, you are not responsible for that and you wouldn’t take responsibility for it. If you left the program today and over the next two years the ratings collapsed at 2UE –

JOURNALIST:     There would be.

LATHAM:         There would, of course, but nobody would blame Mike Carlton.

JOURNALIST:     Gee, you’re a cheeky sod; aren’t you?

LATHAM:         Well, it’s the truth. I can’t be responsible for what happened at the Council two years after I left, just as you wouldn’t be when the ratings collapsed at 2UE. And thank goodness you’re not leaving!

JOURNALIST:     Oh, you are very kind. The suggestion is though – and they’re making this case against you and I can see them building it brick by brick – that, because you couldn’t manage Liverpool Council, and that then led to the Oasis project and God knows what else, this Orange Grove Shopping Centre and so on, you are not fit to run the country. That’s what they’re saying.

LATHAM:         Well, that claim is just ridiculous. Oasis started in 96, 97, 98 – so what’s that four to six years, sorry, two to four years after I had left the Council. Again, I can’t be held responsible for things that happened two, three, four years after I’d left Liverpool Council. 

JOURNALIST:     Yes, all right.

LATHAM:         Quite frankly, I went on to Federal politics and I was busy being a Federal parliamentarian. I didn’t try and micromanage the Council from Canberra, far from it – I left them to their own devices and the rest is history.

JOURNALIST:     Talking about things local in Liverpool this Orange Grove Shopping Centre where people are going to lose their jobs – apparently it’s illegal, they are going to close it down and so on. What are you saying about that? Are you going to try and find them jobs? What are you going to do?

LATHAM:         It’s a matter that’s gone to the ICAC and there’s going to be an inquiry into it, and it’s a local and state planning dispute. I can't understand how an appeal was upheld following a planning instrument to allow retail down there. I don’t know how that planning instrument was arrived at in the first place. I’m not questioning the court judgment – that sounds legitimate – but I don’t know how a planning instrument, a rezoning to allow retail, was allowed in the first place. But, as I say, it’s a local and State matter. Nobody wants to see job losses. I hope people can find jobs. I hope a solution can be found but, when you’ve got these local and State planning instruments, it’s not a Federal responsibility to be involved.

JOURNALIST:     Yes, but they’re your voters or they’re damn near your voters out there and they’re going to lose their jobs.

LATHAM:         I never knew there was problem down there until it got into the media. And the people there – we all want them to find jobs. They’re in the electorate of Fowler and, you know, I see that the State Government is and other organisations are trying to find them jobs. I hope that is successful. I hope that is successful but, as for the ins and outs of the planning instrument, I know nothing more than what I’ve read in the media. It is confusing. I don’t know how it happened in the first place. It seems very sad for the people involved to lose their jobs and let’s hope that employment can be found for them in the near future.

JOURNALIST:     Yes, all right. You had better go and feed the kid. He sounds as if he’s anxious for his Weetbix there!

LATHAM:         Yes, I’ve got the little one here. I’m home alone at the moment.

JOURNALIST:     Are you?

LATHAM:         Yes. This phone call we’ve managed to squeeze it in without too much background noise, which is something of a miracle.

JOURNALIST:     There was a bit of it – how did you manage that, just shoved the Weetbix in his mouth or something?

LATHAM:         No, I’m blessed with very good children.

JOURNALIST:     Are you! Half your luck! Good to talk to you again. What are you doing today?

LATHAM:         I’ve got a few things we’ll be talking about later in the day. Can't say too much, just yet.

JOURNALIST:     Give us a hint.

LATHAM:         All will be revealed.

JOURNALIST:     Give us a hint.

LATHAM:         All will be revealed. We’ll talk about it tomorrow.

JOURNALIST:     Okay. Good to talk to you.

LATHAM:         Thanks, Mike.

[Ends]