Subjects: Family Court; dairy industry; employment; roads; HECS; veteran's
affairs; privatisatoin; GST; suicide; Aboriginal affairs.
E&OE....................................................................................................
QUESTION:
[Family Court matter]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well sir, can I say that I feel very sorry for anybody who, I feel very
sorry for anybody who suffers a family breakdown. I understand that because
of the intense emotions that surround family breakdown that the operations
of the Family Law Court are of course very very controversial. You made
a remark towards the end of your statement that you were told I thought
you said by Judge Jordan that courts do what politicians tell them.
That's wrong. They don't. We have no control over the courts.
We have....I'm sorry, look, I mean you can interject, people can
interject and cat call as much as they like but when it comes to the adjudication
of legal issues in this country the Government does not control the courts.
The Government does not control the adjudication of the court. There are
many aspects of the present Family Law Act that I'm not particularly
happy with as an individual. The Family Law Act was first introduced
into Federal Parliament in 1975. And it was a free vote, it was a conscience
vote. It wasn't a party political issue. The original Family Law
Act was designed by Lionel Murphy and Gough Whitlam and it was introduced,
there was a free vote where Labor and Liberal and then Country Party people
voted on one side and other combinations Labor, Liberal and one
or two Country Party people voted on the other side.
I can understand the anger of people about decisions of the court because
divorce and family breakdown generates intense emotion. And the sad fact
is that it's difficult for some people to support one family on their
income now but when their marriage breaks down and they're obliged
to support more than one family it becomes even more distressing. I'm
afraid I don't have a simple answer to your problem. I don't
pretend to know all of the circumstances of it. I can't overturn
and I won't even attempt to a decision of the Family Court because
under the laws of this country the courts are entitled to make their own
adjudications. I can understand your sense of frustration and your personal
distress, and I'm very sorry about it. I feel a great empathy for
anybody who is involved in a domestic family breakdown and feels the loss
of contact with his or her children and the break up of his or her family.
But regrettably we have a legal system in this country....I mean it's
not regrettable, the legal system is not regrettable, but we have a system,
regrettably we have family breakdown and no matter what legal system you
have, no matter what legal system you have in this country you're
going to have people unhappy with the adjudication of the courts. And
for as many people in your situation there would be others in different
situations who would express the same sense of indignation.
QUESTION:
[Dairy industry and corruption allegations]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, sir, the dairy deregulation procedure is governed, is governed
by State law. The dairy industry at the present time and the quota system
that operates in New South Wales, and the somewhat different system that
operates in Victoria, is entirely controlled by State law not by Federal
law. What the Federal government has said is this that if there
is agreement amongst the States and in turn the States are consulting
and talking with their respective dairy industries, if there is agreement
amongst the States we will facilitate the introduction of change and restructuring
through the imposition of a levy which would raise a significant amount
of money through in effect holding up the consumer price at a higher level
than it would otherwise be under deregulation, and using the proceeds
of that levy to in effect compensate people for the withdrawal of their
quotas.
Now, it's a joint Commonwealth-State thing. The legal control of
the industry is in the hands of the State government. The funding of the
levy system is a matter that requires the involvement of the Federal government.
And what we have said is that we see some general merit in a restructuring
of the industry but the people who will be affected by that restructuring
need financial assistance and that is why we've introduced the proposal
for the levy. And we are awaiting the outcome of I understand referenda
that is being held in the various States and we're awaiting responses
from the individual State governments. I know nothing of your claims in
relation to corruption. It's nothing that we're doing that in
any way is related to corruption. What we're saying to the industry
is that if you decide as an industry in cooperation with the State governments
that you want to deregulate then we will provide the mechanism of a federally
raised levy in order to fund the buying out of the quotas and therefore
ease the financial burden of milk people who are affected by the deregulation.
Thank you. Do we have another question.
QUESTION:
[Employment in regional areas]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you ask me what are the policies to create jobs. The policies to
create jobs are at a number of levels. Firstly general economic policies
do create.....better economic policies do create more jobs. It's
a myth for people to say that there have been no jobs created in regional
Australia over the last four years. If you actually look at the figures
the comparative rise in the number of jobs in regional Australia has been
approximately the same as the rise in jobs in the cities. No, look, I
mean, look, I'm endeavouring to answer your question. I think it's
only fair to others once you've asked your question you let me answer
and we move onto another and people and make whatever judgement they want
to make about both the question and the answer. Now, that is the first
level at which you create it.
The second level in which you endeavour to create jobs is where appropriate
to have specific policies which are designed to provide more job assistance
in individual regions which are harder hit by unemployment. And one of
the things that the rural summit was charged with was the best policies
that could be designed to do that. The third thing is to have general
economic policies that are tilted towards giving a greater advantage to
the regions than the metropolitan areas and I mentioned in my opening
remarks reductions in the price of fuel. Reductions in the price of diesel
fuel are of no benefit virtually to people in the city but they are of
enormous benefit to businesses in the country, and they will provide very
very significant benefits for businesses which operate in country areas.
You have seen a reduction in unemployment in this area but it is still
too high. As to the circumstances of the individual person you mentioned
I would have to have some more detail about that before I could do so.
QUESTION:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
The answer to the second question is yes and it was found to be quite
unworkable because it would fall a very very, with great discrimination
against those businesses that were involved in high volume turn over and
would disproportionately harm them compared with businesses that have
lower volume but higher margin turnovers. There is just no way in all
the examination that we undertook we could get around that. And that is
why a transaction tax of the type I think you have in mind has not been
introduced anywhere else in the world. ....I beg your pardon. Norfolk
Island. Yeah well I'm sorry. It's been introduced in Norfolk
Island. I thought the answer was none but if you say it's Norfolk
Island, I'm not sure that it's exactly that. But yeah that's
the reason. You asked me about roads. Since coming to office we've
done a number of things that have been of direct benefit to regional roads.
One of those was the introduction of what's called the RONI scheme
Roads of National Importance whereby the State and Federal
government provide half of the funding each to construct roads of national
importance and as a result of that a number of very significant decisions
have been announced and construction has commenced in relation to Roads
of National Importance. We, of course, have continued to fund at a very
high level and given absolute priority to improvements and extensions
and upgrading of the Pacific Highway as part of the national roads program.
We also provide some specific money to the States which they can use on
a discretionary basis in relation to roads, and they can make their contribution
out of that to rural roads. As to increased funding to roads, well, that's
something that we'll look at in the budget context in the same way
as we do other things.
QUESTION:
[Cost of education. How much did you pay when you went to university?]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, when I went to university of course there were full fees or Commonwealth
scholarships. The first year my fees were paid in full by my parents.
Well they were. Well as a lot of people were. I didn't have a Commonwealth
scholarship the first year I was at university and my mother was able
to pay my fees. And I had a part time job at the weekend. I worked in
Noth and Kirby's between 11 o'clock and 3 o'clock on Friday,
and on Saturday morning like lots of other people did then and still do
now. They have part-time jobs. And in my second and subsequent....I
know you don't like the answer because it doesn't quite fit
what you expected does it? In the second, third and fourth year, second
third and fourth year I was fortunate enough to win a Commonwealth scholarship
that nearly paid my tuition fees during those years.
Now, as for the HECS system I think the HECS system is very fair to the
entire community and I defend the HECS system very strongly. I think the
idea, I think the idea that the ordinary tax payer should totally fund
the cost of sending young people to university to see those people, many
of them go on to earn quite rightly and quite positively very high incomes
without having made any contribution to the cost of their education, I
don't think that is reasonable. What is good about HECS? Well you
can disagree as much as you choose. I think HECS is a fair system because
what it says to people is that if you can pay it up front then you pay
it up front. If you can't pay it up front you aren't obliged
to pay it until after you start to earn an income and I ask you and I
ask the ordinary taxpayers of this country who don't go to university,
who don't send their children to university, don't you regard
that as a fairer use of your taxpayers' dollars rather than subsidising
the full cost of sending young people to our universities.
QUESTION:
[Veterans' Affairs grants]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I will have those specific issues examined, the ones that you've
raised. I can't let the comment go by about Bruce Scott without saying
that I think he's done a very good job as Veterans' Affairs
Minister and I'm sorry that your view is different. The mail I get
from veteran communities is that Bruce is a very dedicated and conscientious
minister. I can't pretend that every request of veterans has been
met anymore than I can pretend that very request of every other group
has been met. We have delivered on all of our major commitments in that
area, including the introduction of course of the Gold Card which is very
well...I know it's in relation to people over a certain age, and
we are examining the agent orange report that we received recently and
we're not in a position to give a response to that. But I will investigate
the apparent lopsided allocation of the grants.
QUESTION:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can't get to Nimbin in the next 48 hours. Well I'm
sorry. I promised to go somewhere else and I think it would be very ill-mannered
of me if I didn't keep that particular promise. Look I'll have
a look as to whether I've properly responded to that material you
sent through. I get 4,000 bits of mail a week and I can't remember
everything that comes in. But I have since the first question was asked
by the gentlemen, my ever vigilant principal private secretary has handed
me a note saying that my office did reply in detail to the gentleman's
submission and, in fact, Mr Nutt himself signed the letter. He remembered
it and he made the comment I guess in accordance with what I said that
it was one of those particularly unhappy family law cases. So I wouldn't
want the audience to think that correspondence of that kind is ignored.
You have to understand that it's not always possible for a Prime
Minister to read every submission that's put to him. I mean we're
an open democratic society. Everybody thinks they've got the solution.
We try and examine things on their merits.
QUESTION:
[Where will privatisation end?]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm rather glad you asked me that question because you say
we're hell bent on selling off Telstra, our assets. Do you know who
we've sold it to? We've sold it to a couple of million ordinary
men and women of Australia. We've sold it to Australians and can
I tell you I know lots of Australians who are very very happy to buy shares
in Telstra, and I even know lots of Labor voters who are very happy to
buy shares in Telstra as well, and they're very very happy to be
share owners. They're very happy to have the nice share increase,
but they they're also happy to hide behind a generalised political
attack. I think selling Telstra to the men and women of Australia is an
exercise in Australian democracy. We're selling it to the men and
women of Australia. That's who we're selling it to.
QUESTION:
[GST on tampons]
J:
The inclusion of tampons in the GST is entirely defensible, entirely
defensible on the grounds that to be effective a taxation reform of this
kind should be based as broadly as possible and that is precisely why
I've taken the view that once you exempt one item then pressure will
arise to exempt another. And you have to look at it in the overall context
and if you look at the overall impact of that on a budget, when you take
into account the increase in allowances that is going to occur, and changes
in taxation it is entirely defensible. And it is not the intention of
the government to change that position. What part of rural Australia do
you come from? In Lismore, yes okay. I'm interested to know, sir.
QUESTION:
[Regional employment and suicide]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, sir, I agree with you that the teenage suicide rate in this country
is far too high and it's particularly bad amongst males in rural
Australia. That group both by way of the age cohort and the location had
the highest incidence of youth suicide in the nation. Unemployment and
lack of self-esteem has a good deal to do with it. You are right about
the desirability of shifting government activities away from the centre.
As far as possible we're endeavouring to do that. I mean for example
the....well, I mean, let me just give you an illustration, and I don't
come here suggesting for a moment that all wisdom in this country resides
in Canberra. It is true that I've only been engaged for a week in
this particular visit, but I'd point out to the earlier speaker that
this is not the only rural trip that I've undertaken in the time
that I've been Prime Minister and there will be quite a number of
rural trips that I will undertake of a similar kind to get the views of
people.
One of the advantages, can I point out to you, of the new arrangements
for the Job Network is that because the Federal government is funding
not only the government owned provider for the contracts it wins, but
also the private providers. And because there are more private providers
and providers overall in the rural and regional areas in the second Job
Network tender, as a result of that there will be over time I believe
an increased number of people employed in the job Network system in rural
and regional Australia. We have endeavoured through programs such as the
Natural Heritage Trust, through programs such as Networking the Nation,
both of which have been fully funded out of the partial privatisation
of Telstra, the sale of shares in Telstra to the men and women of Australia.
Because we've got funds from that we've been able to generate
more employment opportunities in country areas of Australia. But the point
you make about the government having a role in boosting employment in
regional areas is taken. It's a very legitimate point to make.
Well in relation to suicide, I understood the gentlemen to couch the
question in terms of employment. But also can I point out to you that
the reasons for suicide as everybody in this audience will know are to
do....they're to do with a whole range of factors. They're
to do with the breakdown, well the stress of unemployment is one of them.
But the breakdown of personal relationships is another, the breakdown
of families is another, and there are a whole variety of reasons as to
why there is suicide. It is possible for the government, and we have committed
something in order I think of $48 million over a period of four years
for a national suicide prevention program which is....well you can
always say in isolation something is not enough. The sky is the limit
in relation to what you could spend on any individual item. But unlike
some people governments have to stay in touch with the reality of what
can be provided in particular areas. So we do have a comprehensive strategy
to try and improve the situation in relation to youth suicide. We can't
stop it. We can't abolish it. No government can. And people take
their lives for a combination of reasons. Some of those reasons are influenced
by economic circumstances, others are influenced by emotional circumstances
over which no government no matter what political persuasion can have
any control.
QUESTION:
[Visit to Lismore by Paul Keating, and funding into rural Australia]
PRIME MINISTER:
And I suppose that when Mr Keating came here he had a public gathering
like this. Did he? Did Mr Keating when he came to Lismore, did Mr Keating
have a public gathering....I'll come to the question....No
you've had....now I know you may not like the answer. I've
been in this game long enough and I can tell by the smile, I can tell
by the smile on the face of the questioner that that particular man that
asked me the question has probably never voted for me in his life and
is never likely to, and he's probably a member of the Australian
Labor Party isn't he. But there you are, of course he is. But ladies
and gentlemen, let me answer. What the gentleman sooght to say was that
the Keating Government, the Keating Government was better for the bush
than the present government. That was the take out of the statement. Well
even he has the decency to shake his head at that. And of course the Keating
Government, Mr Keating may have made that particular announcement here.
I haven't checked the records, I'm not going to say that the
statement you made is wrong. I'd contrast his visit to this town
and whether or not he was willing to take all questions in an open and
public meeting with my willingness to do that. I think you'll find
that he wasn't and in fact it's been made perfectly clear to
me that he was very reluctant to do that whenever he visited any part
of Australia, and it's one of the things that I set out to do by
contrast when I became Prime Minister. Look the economic conditions for
the Australian bush when Mr Keating was Prime Minister, and I know because
I inherited the conditions when I became Prime Minister, you had interest
rates of over 20%, you had an unemployment rate in this area that was
about 4% higher than what it is now. You had an inflation rate significantly
higher than what it is now. You had a budget deficit which he concealed
of $10.5 billion. So by no stretch of imagination can anybody other than
somebody who has a political commitment to the memory of Mr Keating allege
that the bush was better off under Keating than it is under the present
government.
QUESTION:
[Mental health care.]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, sir, I have a considerable degree of agreement with you on that
issue. I'm not certain that the path down which mental health went
a few years ago towards the approach that you've outlines was necessarily
the right one. You are right in saying that it is a State responsibility.
I'm not, I mean it's very easy....I mean I suppose you could
have a situation where Federal Government was responsible for everything
and you abolished the States but I don't think may people would support
that. And so I don't think, I mean, I can do other than to say to
you I share some of your concerns and I hope that when Mr Carr comes to
this hall and has his public forum then you might raise the question with
him. I think it would be a very appropriate way. I mean I believe in accountability,
I believe that the Federal government should be accountable for its responsibilities,
and from time to time on huge national issues give a lead even though
it's a State area. And State governments should be made accountable
for their responsibilities. Unfortunately State governments in this country
of both political stripes, whenever they're under criticism on health
they say oh it's because we don't have enough money from the
Federal government and they say that whether there's a Federal Labor
government or a Federal Liberal government. And both State Labor and State
Liberal governments or State National Party governments say exactly the
same thing. And I think it's time that the Australian electorate
said to State members of parliament, you are responsible for B, C and
D, we'll make you accountable, and you said to us you are responsible
for A, B, C and D, and we'll make you accountable for those things.
But I actually think the point you make has got a lot of merit in it and
I would like you to pursue it with Mr Carr when he has his forum here.
QUESTION:
[Aboriginal issues, and a government apology for the stolen generation.]
PRIME MINISTER:
I agree with that, I agree with that. What you've just said is,
the last bit of your comment is very similar to comments I made over the
past few days about tackling problems in relations between indigenous
Australians and other Australians. I've said that it's not something
that has to be tackled on the basis of two groups with fixed positions
negotiating with each other, but rather seeing all of us as part of the
one community. And I was asked on a number of occasions why I haven't
had meetings with the Land Councils. And I replied that I hadn't
had separate meetings with the National Farmers Federation either. What
I'd done was to have meetings with community leaders together and
to try and get a sense of community in relation to the tackling of these
problems. You of course in the first part of your question asked me why,
although I had personally on numerous occasions said that I was personally
sorry for any injustices done to Aboriginal people years ago. I've
said that repeatedly. I personally regret any injustices inflicted on
any of my fellow Australians at any time. The point I made and the point
to which I stick is that I don't see that it's appropriate for
a formal national apology to be made by the current generation. Look can
I please finish. ....a formal national apology to be made by the current
generation of Australians in relation to......
QUESTION:
Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because the current generation of Australians were not involved. And somebody
says so what. Well I think it does matter. And as an Aboriginal elder
said to me in South Australia, he said I don't think you should say
sorry because you didn't steal anybody.
QUESTION:
[Farming challenges]
PRIME MINISTER:
I think, sir, you've put it very eloquently and we have been, and
to be fair, I think both sides of politics in Australia have been for
the last 20 years campaigning for a better trade deal for Australian exporters.
And in the long run as you know as a farmer that your best salvation lies
if you could get access to more markets overseas. And farmers have always
done best when they've got good prices selling overseas therefore
farmers have a vested interest in an open world trading system. I thought
we were going to get somewhere at the meeting in Seattle. The World Trade
Organisation meeting in Seattle was an intense disappointment. I don't