E&OE...................................................................................................
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you said that you wanted to listen to people on this
tour, what have you heard that's impressed you most?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, a lot of things have impressed me. The continued resilience and
optimism of most people in the country, that's impressed me. I am
impressed with the way in which individual communities have worked together
to tackle problems involving aborigines. In Bourke, for example, it was
quite clear to me that the cooperation of communities in tackling unemployment
and other issues, the same thing here in Dubbo today, the programme at
the abattoirs is partly funded by our Commonwealth employment programme
for aborigines in Mr Reith's Department. That involves a local business
which is a major employer. It involves support from the local community,
it involves the Federal Government and it involves the leaders of the
indigenous community.
The important thing is that from all the people I spoke to today and
yesterday they see these problems as being a challenge for the whole community,
they are not...they haven't got a situation where a local community
is saying to the aboriginal community: that's your problem, you have
got to solve it. And equally, the aboriginal people to whom I have spoke
are not saying: well look, this is because we've been badly treated
and they have got to come and help us. They see the thing as a joint responsibility.
I think that's marvellous and that is how we have got to tackle these
problems and I was asked by somebody whether I'd had a separate meeting
with ATSIC commissioners and I said, no. I pointed out that I hadn't
had a separate meeting with the NSW Farmers Federation either. What I
had done was I'd met the aboriginal leaders and the farm leaders
as part of community meetings and that is how you should do it because
it reminds everybody that they are part of the same community.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that you have made yourself accessible to everybody on this
trip?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you can never make yourself accessible to everybody. I think given
the kind of responsibilities you have got to have as a Prime Minister
I have made myself about as accessible as I could. Prior to doing this
interview I went on a street walk from the hotel where the lunch was up
to the ABC Studio and met, sort of, several dozen people including shopkeepers
and chatted. Look, you could do that all day and every day but you have
got to also splice into that individual meetings with people. The lunch
today was very good, it had a cross-section of clergymen, stock and station
agents, graziers, aboriginal leaders, health workers, teachers, police.
You need all of those gatherings to get a bit of a distillation of what
people are thinking.
JOURNALIST:
What do you think the bush is telling you about the sale of the rest
of Telstra?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, it's quite mixed. A lot of people support it, some don't.
That's what I am hearing. I find people supporting it and I find
people opposing it. It's quite wrong to, sort of, get one individual
and say that represents the bush. I mean, I heard somebody being interviewed
on a programme last night, I think it was out at Dubbo saying we are all
against the sale of Telstra. That's not right, they're not all
against it. Some are, some aren't. And what I am saying to people
is, is it better to have tens of billions of dollars of public investment
tied up in a telecommunications company or is it better to have that invested
in infrastructure.
JOURNALIST:
But isn't improvement to services and infrastructure contingent
on the sale of the remaining...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. What is contingent is a much greater and a faster improvement.
And there'll continue to be improvement whether we sell Telstra or
not but you won't get as great an improvement and it won't come
as fast than it would if we were able to sell the rest of Telstra because
we won't have the resources. I mean, you have to face the fact that
there is a finite limit on the resources available. We are already upgrading
communications facilities in the bush and we'll go on doing that,
we'll go on spending money. All I am saying is that we could spend
more if we got rid of the whole of Telstra. We could also pay off our
national debt which would make it more responsible to sell more. It is
not just a question of the aggregate amount but it's the circumstances
in which it's spent. And if you're spending against the background
and still having a high national debt that's not as responsible as
spending against the background and having eliminated Commonwealth debt.
JOURNALIST:
I suppose one of the concerns though is that rural and regional people
feel that services are a right not something that should be dependent
on a trading off of other things.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but I am not talking here about services, I am talking about, you
know, really more infrastructure. I mean, services like medical services
and so forth, I mean, of course they are a right - irrespective of the
sale or not of Telstra. But there are a lot of the service things that
could be done which aren't really strictly speaking services but
will nonetheless add to the economic strength of rural Australia which
will occur more rapidly and perhaps in greater volume if we were able
to sell Telstra. I mean, in the end the Government has a finite amount
of money and it's got to make a decision, it's got to allocate
priorities. And what I am saying is that at the moment we have invested
as a nation tens of billions of dollars in the ownership of a telecommunications
company. We are tying up tens of billions of dollars. We can't do
anything else with that money while we own Telstra. That's the point
I am making. It's the taxpayers' money and it's a question
of whether you think it's better to leave it invested in Telstra
or is it better to invest it in retiring debt and in infrastructure, that's
the point.
JOURNALIST:
You have said no more cuts to rural government services but what about
Commonwealth Government services...
PRIME MINISTER:
Commonwealth Government services.
JOURNALIST:
Yes, Commonwealth Government services. But what about services that have
already been cut, are you proposing to reinstate any of those services?
PRIME MINISTER:
Some are already coming back via the rural transaction centres. What
we are doing there is, in fact, restoring services that we didn't
take away. Some of the services we are replacing there are financial services
that were taken away when the banks closed. And take something like services
for the unemployed, the Job Network, the second tender round has resulted
in 50 per cent more job providers going into the region. There are 300
small country centres in Australia and for the first time ever will have
a job provider. The Commonwealth employment service is being outperformed
by about 50 per cent by the new Job Network.
JOURNALIST:
I see. You have said that you wanted to [inaudible] argument about rural
funding. Who's that argument aimed at?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I said I wanted to put my case to the Australian people about whether
it's better to have tens of billions of dollars invested in Telstra.
JOURNALIST:
Right. So that's [inaudible] Telstra argument?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, that's a Telstra argument. I mean, there's no...look,
let us be perfectly clear, we have an obligation as a Government in relation
to particular services and there's a lot we are now doing and there's
even more we are going to do in the future. But the point I am making
is that we could do even more if we had available the money that is now
tied up in a telecommunications company.
JOURNALIST:
Your suggestion that schools remain open for longer hours certainly generated
some talk. You said it wouldn't be appropriate for rural and regional
schools. Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I have said is that it's not something that we'd seek
to impose or should be imposed. Look, I can't make it happen, that's
a matter for State governments but I have never seen State Premiers reluctant
to give advice on national issues so occasionally a Prime Minister is
entitled to give some advice or express a view on something that's
the prerogative of the State. I think what you need is flexibility and
I do acknowledge that in country areas that kind of change wouldn't
be as appropriate as it is in some city areas. I am not saying we should
go from a mandate of nine to three or three-thirty, to a mandate of nine
to five. What I am saying is that people should have the flexibility and
that it would make a lot of sense in many city areas if that kind of arrangement
were to be made possible. I don't envisage teachers working longer
hours, in fact, I have in mind there might even be more teachers employed.
They'd work different shifts. We just need more flexibility. We have
our family structures and the working patterns of those families are different
now. That led to a demand for longer shopping hours. What's the difference
in principle. I mean, the old shopping hours were cast at a time when
the norm of a family structure was that you had one breadwinner working
nine to five. That's no longer the case. And that's what led
to the pressure to change the hours.
JOURNALIST:
Yes, there's certainly a need or a desire for longer hours care
before and after school.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's not a question of fitting the service to, as it were,
the convenience and the availability of parents. And that's all I
am seeking to do. I am not saying everybody should change. But we have
to have a capacity in this country to kick things like that around without,
sort of, people being pigeonholed and organisations just screaming no,
this is an attempt to conscript me as a childminder or something. In the
end that's not the purpose at all. It's very easy to say that
but we'll never get sensible changes of this kind unless we are prepared
to look at those things.
JOURNALIST:
But on the other hand cuts by the Federal Government to childcare...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there haven't...what cuts? We are spending more money on
childcare now than was being spent in 1996. I don't accept there
have been cuts in childcare.
JOURNALIST:
Well, the National Out of School Hours and Services Association is saying
today that cuts have meant that at least 60 services...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I will analyse that. Well, I will get hold of that because I know
for a fact that overall we are spending more on childcare than we were
spending in 1996.
JOURNALIST:
So you would argue that people haven't suffered changes to childcare
over...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I believe the changes that we have made to childcare have been
very fair and reasonable. We have given additional incentives in some
areas, we have reduced, I think, greater equality in some other areas.
There were some areas where certain childcare centres had unfair advantages
over others but if you look at the aggregate spending I don't accept
for a moment that we have cut the aggregate level of spending.
JOURNALIST:
I saw you on the TV last night at the Allan Border medal ceremony. You
always look so happy when you are with cricketers.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I like cricket, I like cricket.
JOURNALIST:
What is it about the cricket that makes you seem so...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, it's the cultural thing, it's almost spiritual. I just
like it.
JOURNALIST:
You are going to be missing a lot of cricket in the next few days, you
must be a bit cranky...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, no, I had a good opportunity during my three week holiday to see
cricket on television and go and attend a lot and therefore I have got
a job to do. I wanted to go down to Melbourne last night. I flew from
Nyngan to Melbourne and then I have come back to Dubbo this morning to
go to that very important dinner and, of course, a Narromine boy Glenn
McGrath won the award so all the people around here are claiming him.
He's our man, they say.
JOURNALIST:
You must have been thrilled to be there last night.
PRIME MINISTER:
It was very enjoyable.
JOURNALIST:
Yes. Now, look, just finally, you have talked about rural Australia and
how it influenced and formed you as a person, the idea of rural Australia.
But in a way is that a bit nostalgic, do we have to look for a new meaning
or a new image of rural Australia to make it survive, make it relevant?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I am not saying that it should never change. What I am saying is
that I can't imagine Australia without some part of its being made
up of the rural inheritance. Now, that's not saying that it never
changes. I mean, rural Australia is changing all the time. I went out
to Bourke yesterday and saw the booming cotton industry now that's
something that wasn't there 10 or 15 years ago. I am not saying that's
nostalgic. Whenever I talk about those sorts of things my critics say,
oh he's being nostalgic. I am stating the truth and that is that
when people think of Australia they think of a number of things and one
of the things they think of is the bush. And what I am saying is I don't
want to lose that. That doesn't mean to say that it's form won't
change, but it's part of it. And we have a social investment and
a national identity investment as well as an economic investment in preserving
it.
JOURNALIST:
Thanks very much for your time today Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
You are very welcome.
[ends]