19 October 2001
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s what I always suspected, all along the Labor Party intended to keep the GST if they won government and the rollback or rollover plan released by Mr Beazley today demonstrates that. What he’s saying is that if they become the Government they will keep more than $29 out of every $30 collected by the GST, it will be 18 months before the gas and electricity concession cuts in - that’s worth $1.90 to the average household and in fact the benefits of it are double for the top 20 per cent of households. But the really important message out of all of this is that they’ve laboured mightily and produced a mouse of a rollover and it just demonstrates beyond all argument what I’ve suspected all along, they always intended to keep the GST. They were quite happy for us to undertake the political challenge of bringing in tax reform, of doing the heavy lifting, hoping we’d become unpopular, hoping they would win and then when they sneak into office off the back of that they would effectively keep the GST.
The main relief being promised here is the gas and electricity and that’s not for another 18 months. There’s no guarantee given they’re the L-A-W law political party that if they won the election even that would be delivered on. So now we have after all the huffing and puffing of three years the secret is out, something I’ve always suspected, they’ll effectively keep the GST if they win the election and there’s no real difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party on the issue of the GST.
JOURNALIST:
Can you match the Labor Party’s offer of rollback on gas and electricity (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Will we what?
JOURNALIST:
Will you match it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Look we are honest about this, we don’t play these silly games. I mean if you’re going to keep more than $29 out of every $30 collected by the GST you’re not rolling it back, you’re keeping it. And why impose the complexity of that minuscule alteration? Why impose the complexity of that on the utility companies because apparently it is restricted to consumers, to households. It means that every utility company has got to go through its records, it’s got to separate out the commercial from the consumer customer, that will add to compliance costs, probably increase electricity and gas bills in order to pay for the additional compliance costs. But fundamentally this is a decision by Labor if it wins the election to keep the GST. I mean what’s the last three years been all about? They’ve been running around the country saying it’s economic poison, that it’s mugged the economy, they have an opportunity to stand up and offer something different to the Australian people and they squibbed that opportunity. I mean this is the most abject policy capitulation on a major issue I have seen in years.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) surplus?
PRIME MINISTER:
You say what do they do with a half a billion, look it is not the responsibility of the Government to defer expenditure on important matters for the Australian public such as defence, such as salinity, such as the price of fuel, such as roads expenditure in order to leave a surplus for Mr Beazley. That’s not our responsibility. If the Labor Party believes the GST is economic poison, which it’s not and which they don’t believe it is, they should have the courage to cut some of our programmes. But they don’t. They wanted it both ways, they wanted us to bring it in, make ourselves unpopular and then sneak into office off the back of that unpopularity. Now that they’re forced to actually take some decisions, they’ve completely squibbed it, they’re not rolling back the GST, they’re keeping it.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)… what the Labor party is offering, tax cuts on those households. Do you intend to announce tax cuts, income tax cuts…….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Ian we will say something about tax at the policy launch. And until then I’m not going to try and answer questions like that. We will say something about tax at the policy launch. You’re talking here about $1.90 for the gas and electricity. That’s my advice. $1.90 in 18 months’ time. Probably gobbled up by compliance costs. Not much of a tax cut. It can’t be much of a tax cut because they’re keeping it. I mean the important message out of today is that Labor is keeping the GST. There’s no difference between us and Labor on that issue.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister they say the reason they can’t roll it back any further is because you’ve spent the surplus.
PRIME MINISTER:
So we’re meant to therefore have not done good things for the Australian people. I mean if somebody will hand me my leather folder I will, my staff, I will actually go through the list, I mean let’s stop for a moment and analyse this issue, it is very important to this whole economic debate, Labor is saying we should have had a bigger surplus, so therefore Labor is saying that we should not have spent money on some of the things that we have spent money on. Those things include defence expenditure, and Mr Nutt is obliging, don’t run Tony, we’ve got plenty of time, thank you very much Tony. Now, these are the things that we should not have spent money on, and I might remind you at on the 13 June this year I put out a press release entitled Beazley’s Double Game on Government Spending and I said, I listed expenditure of $17.5 billion over four years. Now this is the expenditure we should not have undertaken so that Kim Beazley could have had a surplus to spend on more rollback. Now if that is his argument, okay, let him go the next step and tell us what he wouldn’t have spent money on. Tell us which programmes we should not have provided for in relation to that $17.5 billion. And let me go through some of them, welfare reforms, Australians Working Together, that’s McClure, that’s $770 million, he supported that and said we should have gone further. Acknowledging Other Australians, our measures in the budget, $755 million, he supported that. Enhancing our Health System, $942 million. Roads to Recovery programme, $1 billion and $50 million, is he against that? Should we not have spent that money? Backing Australia’s Ability, he says we should have spent more and no doubt we’ll hear about that more when he releases Knowledge Nation. That’s $1.9 billion over four years. Defence, $5.5 billion over four years. Natural Heritage Trust, he's all in favour of that, another $600 million over four years. Reduced excise on fuel, he introduced a private members bill to support that. So presumably he’s not saying we shouldn’t have done that. And of course there’s $2.5 billion in relation to the automatic indexation of petrol excise, is he saying that if he becomes Prime Minister he’s going to reintroduce automatic indexation of petrol excise?
I mean here you have, I mean this crystallises the whole economic debate. He’s saying out of the side of his mouth Howard should have left more surplus so I could have had a bigger roll back. Now the corollary of that is that he is against some of the things that we have spent money on, well let him have the guts to tell the Australian people which of those things he’s against.
JOURNALIST:
…. 2.2 billion dollars over four years and you are saying (inaudible). Do you offer more money than that…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I will say something about tax when we do our policy launch. I am not going to start sort of speculating and half hinting and you know grunting about that. I’ve just got nothing further to say, I’m responding to the announcement he’s made today which is an abject political surrender on the issue of rollback.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) small business needs rollback like a hole in the head. The Association of Independent Grocers says it could roll back nappies for example, they’ve got no problem with that…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I speak to a lot of individual men and women in small business and what they’re saying to me is the new tax system is now bedded down, some of them had some difficulties with the implementation process, they appreciate that the Government has responded on the BAS and a few other things. But they now want to move on, I mean this is an old game, they now want to move on, they want to get on with their lives, they don’t want to start going back over something that they’ve had to adjust to and has been an important development in the tax system and Mr Beazley is nobody any service by fiddling around with a minuscule rollback which effectively is a political surround and a retention of the GST. I mean if you’re keeping more than 29 out of every $30 being collected under the GST you’re not rolling it back, you’re keeping it.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but not rollback. Not rollback. I’ve been saying for months, I’ve been saying for months we’ll finetune the administration but this is not, I mean they said all along, when you say rollback it means you’re going to lift the GST. You’re going to lift it, take it off something. Now they’ve taken it off a minuscule number of items which you know effectively means that they’re going to keep it. Now the Government is not doing that, the Government is sticking with what was introduced, of course there are always ways in which you can finetune the administration. But that doesn’t involve taking the GST off any item. You name something they’ve taken it off.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t know, it depends what people put to us. But it won’t involve a rollback, it won’t involve rollback.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)… will it be enough to expose..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look you are the commentator Mitch, I’m not. I’m the candidate, I’m running for office, you’re the one describing the campaign, I’m not going to start saying how voters will react. I’m reacting to three years of political fraud. I mean for three years he’s been running around the country saying this is economic poison, this is disastrous, this is terrible, the world will come to an end, let’s hope it does so we win the government. And now that’s basically what he’s been saying, now that he’s been pushed against a wall and he’s actually had to say something he’s actually had to deliver on that three years of groaning about the GST and what’s he done? Oh well in the end I’m going to keep it too.
JOURNALIST:
Is the Liberal Party putting too much attention into Dickson and Cheryl Kernot?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I think we’re putting the appropriate amount of attention. We have an excellent candidate. Well I go to a lot of seats, I appear everywhere. And I will appear in a lot more places between now and polling day. I work very hard, you only have these elections once every three years and I work very hard and I have been to Dickson before but it’s a marginal seat. I want to win it,. I think we have in Peter Dutton an excellent candidate and it’s the sort of seat where the fight should be carried to the Labor Party.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)… danger money would they be getting? The troops to Afghanistan you are paying them $200 a day. What is that money for, why are they getting that money?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because it is a particularly dangerous mission. And we always have an additional loading, the same thing applied in East Timor, an additional loading to what had previously been paid. And of course it’s a difficult mission and it is the very least the Australian people can do to recognise the danger that they will be exposed to and what they are doing for us. I mean this is a mission for us. All of us.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)… situation with John Olsen and South Australia….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a state issue. People have traditionally separated state politics from federal politics. I don’t want to pre-empt anything John may say and I don’t want to comment on the matter, it’s not appropriate until he’s said something about it. But in any event the two issues are quite separate. I would expect the Coalition, the assessment of the Coalition federally in South Australia, as here in the state of Queensland, to be based on what we have done, not on what has occurred at a state level. That is not incidentally to criticise what John’s done, I think he’s been a very good premier. But they’re separate issues and I think people separate in their own minds.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
No I’m not distancing myself, I’m simplifying stating the obvious that people make separate judgements.
JOURNALIST:
Have we approached Fiji to take asylum …?
PRIME MINISTER:
There have been discussions. There have been discussions…
JOURNALIST:
Are you offering money?
PRIME MINISTER:
There have been discussions.
JOURNALIST:
An islamic leader in NSW today said that Australia’s trade would be affected by our troop deployment. Do you believe that is the case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I would hope it was not the case. But in the end you make these judgments according to your assessment of the national interest. And you can’t look at it in those sort of terms. You have to assess it according to the national interest. I would hope that no Australian would want us to judge these sorts of things on economic considerations of that kind. I don’t believe that that will be the case, I really don’t. But in the end it is one of the things that you have to accept could occur but I don’t believe it will.
JOURNALIST:
You are going to APEC this evening. What is your plan, who are you meeting and are you meeting Megawati?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, my arrangements are still, like all of these things are when you go to these meetings, I’m meeting Jiang Zemin. I expect to have a meeting with two or three other leaders. The question of whether I see President Megawati, at this stage, we are discussing that but I will certainly have discussions with her during the course of the meeting. Whether there’s a physically separate bilateral meeting at this stage, I don’t know.
JOURNALIST:
… what sort of statement would you like to get from the APEC ministers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I would like a very strong anti terrorism commitment. I would like it to go as far as the leaders felt able to go, given that it does bring together a very broad cross section of people with a variety of views, we’ll have a variety of views, their views have a variety of intensities. I would like to see it go as far as it can, but I think it is important. This is the biggest gathering of world leaders since the 11th of September and that of its own is a reason why Australia should be represented.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, is this a turning point of APEC… trade and there’s going to be… do you see the nature of APEC as changed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Karen, that might turn out to be the case. I don’t know. This is such an unusual set of circumstances. I don’t know that you can necessarily treat it as a precedent but it could prove to be the case. But once again the forum is proving to be the vehicle to address other issues as it was in Auckland in 1999 in relation to East Timor. It was the fact that President Clinton was there and he and I were able to talk directly and I was able to talk to the President of Korea…
JOURNALIST:
That was conducted differently though wasn’t it really….
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, no the whole thing sort of got, you know, the whole thing – the way these things operate, the leaders are talking to each other in an informal atmosphere and you talk about all sorts of …. but there was no group statement on…. The point I’m making is that the dynamic created by a gathering of so many leaders from such a diverse group of countries and you could scarcely get absent further representation from Europe. You could scarcely get a more representative group.
JOURNALIST:
On the terrorism threat in Australia, …. published terrorism threat assessments have always been that there is a low risk in Australia. Has there been a change, do you expect….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, everybody recognises that as a result of what happened in September, there is more vulnerability.
JOURNALIST:
… Osama bin Laden if they set a death penalty if captured. Do you have concerns that he would be made a matyr?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just on APEC, would you like to the leaders to give their full backing to …action…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I would like the leaders collectively to go as far as they felt able?
JOURNALIST:
Do you expect anymore military involvement out of APEC other countries to be more involved…?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don’t think it is the sort of forum where collectively there will be discussion about, certainly not, about who should be involved. I don’t think that is the case. That is something that is dealt with on a bilateral basis between the United States and individual countries.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any more update on troops …
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I was asked about that this morning and at this stage I am not able because the date has not been settled, because it relates to the basing arrangements for the personnel when they go to the area. And it is broadly still the case that most people will have gone overseas by the middle of November and as soon as I have particular dates I will be able to give some more information. I do know that, I mean, it is not the final point of departure but I do know that the Kanimbla is leaving Sydney on Monday and then going around to Perth. It will actually deploy, to use that expression, it will depart Australia from Perth and its escort vessel will be HMAS Adelaide, but in relation to the other personnel I don’t have any more precise times.
JOURNALIST:
….in Shanghai….
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I don’t have any particular fears of my own safety. One should be rather fatalistic about these things. The answer is no I don’t. The only times you know I ever have any sense of concern about security is in relation to those close to me but not myself.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard have you sought a meeting with President Bush?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I’ve had a couple of conversations with him recently on the phone, we had a three hour meeting of course before the terrorist attack. I’m no longer seeking a separate bilateral but I’ll have plenty of opportunity to talk to him during the meetings.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) ask you to help him with any legal advice over…
PRIME MINISTER:
No. We’ve not discussed it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister George Bush (inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
No I won’t, I won’t have any armed escort no. I will have the normal security people and that’s it and I will have some of you. What more protection could a Prime Minister, and Tony O’Leary, no he's not coming, it’s Gary Dawson.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard what about…
PRIME MINISTER:
This is the last question definitely Katharine.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) security arrangements…
PRIME MINISTER:
The which?
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) security arrangements…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there have been discussions, in Parliament House?
JOURNALIST:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s a matter for the Speaker and the President. I’m answerable to them, they run the Parliament House, you’ll have to ask them but I do nonetheless understand that there have been discussions between the protective security coordination centre and the presiding officers about enhancing security but the details of it I neither control or are conversant of.
Thank you.
[ends]