Subjects: Tasmanian State election; Regional Forest Agreement; Telstra; paid maternity leave; economy.
E&OE...........
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if I could just say, ladies and gentlemen, that I'm delighted to be in Tasmania, always happy to be in Tasmania but particularly delighted to share a stage and a platform with Bob Cheek and to support the Liberal Party campaign at this State election, here at the weekend.
It seems to me that what is coming through very clearly in this campaign is that the Premier is taking the result for granted. That's always a mistake. From long experience politicians and leaders, be they premiers or opposition leaders or prime ministers or federal opposition leaders, who take elections for granted are in for rude shocks. I think the message that should be communicated by me to all Tasmanians is that Australia, because of Federal economic management, is enjoying a period of very strong economic growth. And what's important in State politics is to measure the capacity and the performance of individual State governments in reinforcing the very strong economic conditions created by Federal Government economic management.
I think it's true to say that since the election of the Bacon Government something like 660,000 jobs have been created nationally of which only 1,800 have been created in Tasmania, yet on a pro-rata basis that figure should have been 15,000. State governments now have greater economic security than they used to have because of the new tax system. They're guaranteed over time a higher source of revenue and there are fewer excuses if one part of the country doesn't perform as well as another. I think they are factors that should be put in the balance by undecided voters here in Tasmania. People should be asking themselves which side of politics offers more opportunities and a greater likelihood of Tasmania taking advantage, greater advantage of the national economic strengths that Australia has. I mean to the extent that we have lower inflation, lower interest rates, better business conditions, they flow almost totally from Federal Government policies. And the measurement that has to be made is the extent to which the current Tasmanian Labor Government has been able to build on that Federal economic management and if you look at the jobs record, not very well.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, are you suggesting that there might be, well in the last weekend's poll put Liberal support around 25%, are you suggesting that there might be a 25% swing…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I don't react to individual polls, you understand that. I making an observation, not based on polls, based on years of political experience and that is I see somebody who's taking an election for granted and that's pretty obvious.
JOURNALIST:
How do you think the Premier's been taking it for granted?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's the whole style of the campaign is one of somebody who just assumes he's going to win.
JOURNALIST:
The last poll had the Liberals losing its three seats to the Tasmanian Greens. What part do you think forestry plays in that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I don't give a commentary on polls. I mean, you obviously haven't covered any Federal campaigns I've been involved in. I'm advocate, I'm not a commentator.
JOURNALIST:
But in terms of the forestry issue generally, in Tasmanian politics there seems to be a shift away from both majors to the Greens, what's your comment on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'll comment on the RFA. The RFA has the Federal Government's strong support. We signed an RFA with the Tasmanian Government. We invested a lot of resources in it. We think it represents a balance. It protects something like 86% of old growth forests. It generates a lot of jobs. It provides a lot of resource security for industry. You need a mix of these factors. You don't make good forest policy on the run. You make forest policy over a period of years and we did that. And I remember signing the agreement with Tony Rundle some years ago and that agreement is up for a normal five-year review but the Federal Government supports it very strongly.
JOURNALIST:
The State Party yesterday released its costings, they're predicting a $73 million GST windfall in the last term of the next government, 2006 I think that is. The Treasurer says that, the State Treasurer says that would be offset by a reduction in Commonwealth grants. What is the case with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I haven't seen the Treasurer's statement. I saw a press report but the costings were given but I do know that over time every State will be better off as a result of the GST.
JOURNALIST:
But does the windfall exist in 2006?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't seen the detail of that documentation and I'm quite certain that the Party would not have put out a document claiming a windfall that didn't exist.
JOURNALIST:
To what degree do you share your Deputy Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader's concerns over the Bacon Government's…
PRIME MINISTER:
The Deputy Prime Minister, yes.
JOURNALIST:
Yes, John Anderson.
PRIME MINISTER:
And the Opposition Leader, yes, yes, yes.
JOURNALIST:
…over the Abt railway management by the Bacon Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I share it totally because the Bacon Government has been less than candid in what it's done. I totally agree with them. I've read John Anderson's statement in full coming down on the plane and the Bacon Government has broken the deed because one of the obligations under that deed is to provide full information to the public and also to the Federal Government. I mean, we are providing, what, $20 million to the Abt railway. I mean, it wouldn't be happening but for Federal money and the State government has kept from us, but worse, from the Tasmanian public, details of secret loans. John Anderson had every right to make that statement and I think it was a very moderate, restrained statement, very moderate and restrained. So I totally agree with the reaction of both Mr Anderson and Mr Cheek.
JOURNALIST:
Your old colleague, Michael Hodgman, has renewed his…
PRIME MINISTER:
That's right, I mean he's only in his early 60s.
JOURNALIST:
He's older than us, in fact. Anyway, he renewed his push…
PRIME MINISTER:
Is he? Well, he's still very much in the prime of life.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I got his letter and I've read it and it will be analysed.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any possibility that this could occur?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we're having a look at it but Australia is one nation, an indissoluble Federal Commonwealth, that's what the Constitution says. And I'll have a look at the proposal but I've always sort of regarded the six States of Australia as a national whole and I take a very nationalistic approach to these things and we'll consider what's in Michael's letter and I wish him well.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, in regards to the Federal Government moves to improve services to the bush for Telstra and yesterday's announcement by Communications Minister Alston, how have you reacted to the polls today which suggest on in five people only support the full sale of Telstra and 66% of Australians are opposed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's never been something that's attracted top of the head support but I'm not a poll driven, political leader. I'm not a poll driven political leader. I remain of the view that once services in the bush are up to scratch that steps should then be taken to sell the remainder of Telstra. I'm not driven by polls on individual issues. I formed a view on the merits. I'll continue to argue the case subject to that condition but services in the bush must be up to scratch. That poll doesn't really surprise me. It's not one of those things that attracts top of the head support.
JOURNALIST:
Was Cabinet able to move any closer on Monday in terms of determining how to measure how Telstra services are being provided in the bush?
PRIME MINISTER:
We'll be having something to say about that in the near future. I've discussed it with my colleagues and we'll be establishing a mechanism and announcing the details of that mechanism in the not too distant future. But,let me say to people that there's not going to be any indecent haste on this. The policy is considered. We will look at selling further shares in Telstra only after we're satisfied that conditions in the bush are up to scratch and we'll need some kind of procedure to determine that.
JOURNALIST:
Paid maternity leave, Prime Minister ,was described by one of your colleagues as middle class welfare. You don't agree with that obviously.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, my view is that in this whole area of achieving a balance between work and family you have to have a variety of policies because there are a variety of attitudes. One of the things that is wrong with this whole debate is that people who have strong views from one point of view assume that the family circumstance that they're advocating is a family circumstance enjoyed and advocated by everybody else. I've been very impressed with some research conducted in England by an academic by the name of Catherine Hakim at the London School of Economics. And she's identified effectively three groups of women with children - women who are career-centred, women who are home-centred, and the rest comprising about 60% who are trying to achieve a balance between the two. And I think what you have to do in this area is have a range of policies that address all three groups. Paid maternity leave is part of the debate but it's not some magic cure. But it's part of the debate. We'll consider it. I don't want to see it introduced in circumstances where the financial burden is thrown on small business. They just can't afford it. It's uneconomic. It's unfair. And it will actually damage the employment prospects of women.
JOURNALIST:
Do you expect to see something that reflects where you'll move in that regard in terms of maternity leave in the next Federal Budget?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not going to put any kind of time scale on it. We are examining the issue and it's not the first time it's been raised. We are looking at it. But we're also looking at a whole range of policies in this area. Can I just say again that there are… paid maternity leave is of value to some women in the workforce. It's not of the same value to others. And the point there is that you don't want a one size fits all approach. You have to have a range of policies and the criticism that's been made by some groups of the baby bonus, I totally reject. I mean I find this extraordinary. We campaign on a policy and then we're told to break our promises. I think the baby bonus is an excellent policy and we certainly won't be watering it down in any way to fund other policies.
JOURNALIST:
Last night you expressed some concern on how the policy might affect small business. Is there a way around not imposing the cost on to small business?
PRIME MINISTER:
The way around it is for the taxpayer to pick up the bill.
JOURNALIST:
What about other sections of the private sector?
PRIME MINISTER:
We're not going to introduce a special tax on big business to fund maternity leave. I mean that's absurd. You have paid maternity leave in the public service. It's been there for years. And paid maternity leave exists in many firms. The point I';m making is that if we are to introduce it, [inaudible] to extend it, you can't impose an unfair financial burden on small business. And I don't think it's reasonable to ask larger companies to fund maternity leave obligations of other companies. I think that is a form of penal taxation. But can I just make the point again that it might be an interesting issue in its own right and it is an interesting and important issue in its own right, but it's only one element of a whole range of policies that Governments need in order to help people make their choices. The role of Government in this area is not to tell people how to behave in relation to the care of their children. The role of Government is to support the choices that individual Australian families make and those individual choices are going to vary quite dramatically. You're going to have some people who want to get back to work as quickly as possible for career reasons. You'll have others who want to remain out of the workforce for a while. You'll have some who want to remain out of the workforce indefinitely. But some of those who want to remain out of the workforce for a while might want to go back part-time for a long period of time and ultimately perhaps full-time but not [inaudible]. What you need is a whole variety of policies.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just [inaudible] clear on that though, so if any model that you would be considering would be a taxpayer-funded model?
PRIME MINISTER:
I didn't say that. I just said that it would be absurd to ask large businesses to pay for the obligations of small businesses.
JOURNALIST:
You talk about this being, not the be all and end all, and you say that it's one of what you envisage as a variety of policies to address the family balance. What's the priority in that range of…?
PRIME MINISTER:
The priority is to facilitate and promote individual choice. That's the priority. That is the role of the Government. It's not the Government's role to say we want people to go back into the workforce as soon as possible after they have children, or we want them to stay at home indefinitely. That's not our role. It's our role to support the choice that individual parents make because in the end it's parents who should decide the caring arrangements of their young children. Ultimately I'd like a situation where the choice that individuals make can be supported to the maximum extent affordable by the rest of the community. And if people want a situation where for an indefinite period of time you can have one parent at home caring for a child while the child is young, then you shouldn't have to be a millionaire in order to be able to do it. And I think you need a whole range of policies to support those choices. That's my very strong philosophy on this and it will be the philosophy that will instruct the Government.
JOURNALIST:
What's your relationship with Premier Jim Bacon been like over the four years and do you believe that your relationship with a Liberal Premier would be more beneficial for Tasmania than a Labor Premier?
PRIME MINISTER:
I work with whoever is selected by the people of an individual state. That's my responsibility and I have worked with Mr Bacon. Clearly my philosophy is closer to Mr Cheek's than it is to Mr Bacon. Mr Cheek and I belong to the Liberal Party, Mr Bacon belongs to the Labor Party. If Mr Cheek is elected as Premier on Saturday I';m sure that we'll have a very close and effective relationship. I';m certain that we will work together, very closely together for the benefit of Tasmania. But, you know, I believe in the democratic process. I work with people. I'm the Prime Minister of Australia. I have an obligation to the Australian people to work with whoever is the Premier of the individual state and I don't, you know, I take decisions in the interests of the people of this state because they are Australians irrespective of what government they elect. But I';m naturally as the national leader of the Liberal Party I have a philosophical view and I do think that given the strong national economic conditions that over the past few years with 660,000 jobs created nationally this state should have a larger slice of that cake. And you can't blame the federal government for that.
JOURNALIST:
Has Labor holding power in all the States and Territories in any way changed the dynamics of COAG's and other Federal/State meetings?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think on some issues it has. I mean I hope that I';m wrong but all the noise that's coming out of the Police Minister's meeting in Darwin today is that the police ministers of the Labor states are going to try and repudiate an agreement that the premiers made with me at the COAG meeting in April about the Australian Crime Commission. If they do repudiate that agreement they'll be repudiating their own leaders as much as repudiating the federal justice minister. I go into these meetings to try and reach sensible decisions for the people of Australia and I work with whoever the people of the individual states elect. I mean that's my national and public responsibility.
JOURNALIST:
Whatever the police ministers do in the Darwin will be to sanction …..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that will reflect very badly on the premiers because we had an agreement. We had an agreement in April. It was set out in a communique that involved the reconstruction of the National Crime Authority and the creation of the Australian Crime Commission and what we need is a strong national approach to fighting crime. They all agreed on it and if that agreement is now walked away from it will be because of the petty turf wars of the state police ministers who have an inadequate regard for the national interest and the national interest is to have a strong Australia wide fight against crime. I mean the on the ground expertise obviously rests with state police forces. But you need a strong national approach as well.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what did you make of David Knott's comments overnight on corporate governance in terms of perhaps the Government needing to take a more [inaudible] role and what's your view?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I thought what David Knott was saying is that many of the problems that exist in the United States don't exist in Australia and I think that's true. I think we have more effective corporate law. My view is that where there is evidence of a need to change the law then it should be changed but I don't believe that because there have been some failures in certain areas that you dump a whole lot of additional regulation on honest ethical law abiding business men and women and the great bulk of people in business are honest and ethical and if you regulate and burden and provide too much red tape for the honest operators it'll have an adverse effect on economic activity.
JOURNALIST:
Speaking of economic activity, Mr Prime Minister, with the American economy going on the downturn…(inaudible) Alan Greenspan is trying to talk up the American economy, how is that affecting Australia's stockmarket?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can read All Ords results as well as I can but the experience of the past few years has been that the Australian economy has performed very strongly despite difficulties in other parts of the world. Now I';m not able to guarantee that for all time Australia will be unaffected by what happens around the world but I can say that we avoided the Asian economic downturn in 1997 and we avoided the effects of the American downturn last year. So to date we've had a very good track record of standing apart from recession and downturn in other parts of the world. I remain positive about the future of the American economy. It's very resilient because it's essentially an unregulated economy and unregulated economies are always more resilient and able to withstand shocks than those that are over-regulated such as the economies of Europe.
[Ends]