E&OE.............................................................................................
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on the issue of aging. Do you agree with suggestions
coming from the Labor Party today that Australia's immigration
intake should be increased to pay for an aging population?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think immigration is an issue that should be debated in a sensible
fashion. At the present time we have a more balanced immigration intake
than we used to have. The Coalition Government has put a greater emphasis
on skilled migration than on family reunion and that's certainly
the way to go. And that sort of approach is better economically for
the country and will make a greater contribution to caring for older
people in the Australian community. I don't think what Mr Sciacca
has said has been adopted as Labor policy. But I think a sensible
debate on immigration is always desirable.
JOURNALIST:
Would that debate encompass an increase in the immigration numbers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think if you have a debate on something you debate every aspect
of it. Although I make it very plain that the present Government will
not depart form a non-discriminatory immigration policy.
JOURNALIST:
Do you agree with the general idea though that an increase in, for
example, skilled business migrants, could help us with this problem
of the aging population?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have changed the policy. I mean we have already done this.
We inherited an immigration policy that was grossly skewed against
skilled migration and we changed it, and we have brought in far more
emphasis on skilled migration. So if the Labor Party is now saying
that it supports that, then I welcome their expression of bipartisan
support for a greater emphasis on skilled migration.
JOURNALIST:
Do you see any need at this stage for a rise in the number of those
skilled migrants?
PRIME MINISTER:
We look at it each year according to Australia's national need.
I'm not going to commit the Government on the run to some kind
of dramatic change. We think we've got the balance right at the
moment, but we look at it each year and the immigration minister,
will in the normal course, be bringing a recommendation to Cabinet
for the next annual intake. And we'll make a decision based on
the needs of the Australian community. But I repeat that we fixed
it when we came into office by putting a greater emphasis on skilled
migration.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Beazley said this morning that's the wrong approach, the year
by year look at immigration and it should be done on an quarter basis
[inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
Mr Beazley always goes out of his way to be different from the Government.
He's becoming an knee jerk oppositionist.
JOURNALIST:
What's your reaction to the figures from the Chamber of Industry
and Commerce that we need about 43,000 more than the current intake.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I'm not going to conduct a debate at this news conference
on the whole thing. I've just said that what our policy is and
that we welcome debate.
JOURNALIST:
The farmers on the southern tablelands are experiencing a very tough
time at the moment with the fires. What can the Government do to help?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are standing arrangements to cover these situations. Once
again we see the magnificent response from the volunteers for the
fire services. The are particularly bad fires. The stock losses are
between 4,000 and 5,000 which was really quite devastating for many
of the farmers, the primary producers in that area. But we have standing
arrangements which automatically come into play between the Commonwealth
and the State governments. But I express the admiration of the Government
to the people of the tablelands area who've fought so hard against
these fires and continue to do so. We are a great volunteer society
and they deserve our gratitude.
JOURNALIST:
What do you make of the discrepancy between Bruce Baird's claim
that there was an agreement between him and some of the top media
bosses to ignore stories about the duchessing of Olympic officials
in the lead up to Sydney's Olympic bid?
PRIME MINISTER:
Go and ask Bruce Baird about that. I'm not here to give a running
commentary on everything in the newspaper.
JOURNALIST:
Do you accept that your Senate Committee, the Government Senate Committee
on the GST has accepted the fact that the GST, there's no economic
difference whether food's included or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't. That interpretation is quite wrong. If you read what
they said they didn't say that. They in fact said no evidence
was presented to the inquiry to justify the exclusion of food. And
they also went on to say that in efficiency terms the inclusion of
food was desirable and they also went on to say further that no evidence
of disadvantage for the less well off in the community was demonstrated.
The reporting of their conclusions is misplaced and wrong and it doesn't
support the argument that there is no economic difference whether
you have food in or out.
JOURNALIST:
Are you concerned that after these reports have come out, these first
rounds of reports, the Democrats certainly seem to be (inaudible)
their position?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Peter that there is a long way to go before a final decision
is made and when you're in the situation of the Democrats you've
got to find something to say each day to sort of keep yourself in
the game. I don't think anybody should draw too many conclusions
from what people in the minor parties are saying at the present time.
We put this plan before the Australian people. We were courageous
enough to put ourselves on the line and to stand or fall on it. And
we intend to see implemented because the Australian people voted for
us. If the parliamentary process means anything then a government
that gets a mandate on such a difficult issue as that has a right
to introduce it, and I think the Australian people increasingly will
see our point of view on that.
[ends]