Subject:
Zimbabwe; workplace reform; education
E&OE...
PRIME MINISTER:
Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Can we start with cricket? You're probably not surprised there's been a hostile reaction from the Mugabe regime to the ban; they're calling the Government, your Government racists. What's your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's absurd. I'm not the least bit surprised at the reaction but it would have been an enormous propaganda gift to Mugabe if we had not told Cricket Australia that the tour should not go ahead and I believe that the overwhelming majority of the cricket loving and general public in Australia support what the Government has done and what we have done is taken the load off the shoulders of the players. It's not fair, as James Sutherland and Malcolm Speed have both said; it's not fair that the responsibility for taking what are essentially political decisions rest with players or with sporting organisations. I mean, it is for the Government to take these decisions and for the Government to take the rap, carry the responsibility, bear the odium if something goes wrong and I fully accept that and I don't think it's right that the players be placed in a position of making political judgements.
JOURNALIST:
What's your view of the suggestions that the series be played at a neutral venue?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am very sceptical both about the wisdom of that and also about the likelihood of it happening. We'll obviously deal with it if it comes up but we don't want to do anything that provides any skerrick of comfort to Mugabe's regime. I'm sorry it's come to this, it really does pain me as a cricket lover that it has come to this pass but this is a terrible regime, whatever happens he will try and turn it to his propaganda advantage. This is a weapon available to the Government. It is a device, a method of sending a very strong signal of disapproval about his regime.
JOURNALIST:
He's labelled the decision racist?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it isn't, I mean, that is just ludicrous. I mean nobody believes that except him. There's not an Australian who would see this decision as being racist, I mean, heavens above. That is just absurd.
JOURNALIST:
What about the view that the ban hurts the cricketers in Zimbabwe and the fans?
PRIME MINISTER:
What is hurting the cricketers and what is hurting the fans is the appalling regime and the best hope for cricket is to remove Mugabe. Once Mugabe is gone the country has some hope. I mean, this has been going on for years and I do know something about it as a former chairman of the Commonwealth troika when, with South Africa and Nigeria, we talked about what could be done. But while people play along with him, which unfortunately too many African countries have done, and don't put enough pressure on him, he will stay there until he is...til he dies.
JOURNALIST:
There's been some talk, sir, that politics are interfering in sport, in this case could be carried over to an analogy with Australia sending an Olympic team to China. Does that stand up in your view?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's absolutely no comparison. We're sending an Olympic team to China. There's no suggestion that we shouldn't and we're looking forward to Australia doing very well at the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
JOURNALIST:
They're concerned though, if you intervene in this case how do you decide...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have absolutely no intention of intervening in relation to the Olympics in Beijing except to give very strong support to the Australian team.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, this bullying policy that's being applied today, how does that differ from what you announced in 2004?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's a continuation of something and in public policy there's nothing wrong with continuing and where appropriate expanding it. And what is wrong with the fact that we have been talking about issues such as bullying and greater autonomy for principals for a number of years? I think that's a good idea, it's a sign that it's not a flash in the pan approach; it's a sign that we have a consistent approach. We believe that the role of the principal in a school should be enhanced. We believe that principals should have greater autonomy in relation to staff both in hiring of the staff and also where it might become necessary discharging them. We believe that principals should have greater autonomy in determining remuneration issues and that is why we've been talking about and advocating these issues for some time. See school education is one of those areas where of course the day to day responsibility rests with the states because they run state schools and employ the teachers and they set the curricula for both government and independent schools, but that doesn't mean to say the Commonwealth should not get involved where there is a need, where we can provide additional resources, where we can give a lead in certain areas, where we can express the concerns of parents. I mean in the end it's the concerns of parents that matter to me more than anything else and parents are interested in issues like bullying. They're interested in a greater autonomy for schools. One of the things that we must do to maintain the strength of the government school system is to give individual schools more autonomy. Parents like that because it enhances the local identification with the local school. The more autonomy they have the less uniformity there is, the more people will support government schools. And we want to do that because government schools underpin the whole education system and it's very important that their quality and their appeal be maintained.
JOURNALIST:
Specifically what powers then would help principals? Specifically what powers would help them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if you give principals more authority in relation to a whole range of things including the staff, more authority flows from that automatically.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister the New South Wales Government suggested that bullying is already reported in New South Wales public schools through the annual report as are any disciplinary problems that might happen and that your policy is simply an election year gimmick. Would you like to respond to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is the sort of thing you tend to get from state Labor ministers when they don't sort of have much more to say. I mean that same minister this morning said that we hadn't given government schools enough money. In the time I have been Prime Minister, Federal Government funding for government schools has risen by 74 per cent in real terms; that's after inflation, even though enrolments in government schools have only gone up by 1.2 per cent during that period. So that is a measure of Mr Della Bosca's ignorance on these matters.
JOURNALIST:
To effect some of these changes, sir, how far is your Government prepared to go? You will have to get the states on board I guess to get some of these things through?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the role a Commonwealth Government has in something like this is putting the issue on the agenda and it's had the predictable response. The people who understand the issues are sympathetic to what I am saying and some of my political opponents are attacking it. I think parents are interested in these issues. Whenever these matters are raised you always get some response from state governments. In 2004 we put technical education on the agenda through the announcement of 24 Australian Technical Colleges. Since then, particularly here in New South Wales, state governments have begun to reopen specialised technical schools. I think that's a wonderful thing because I think what has to happen with technical education is that we have to go back to the days where you have dedicated technical schools or colleges. We used to have them. We made a mistake 30 or 40 years ago moving away from them. We need to go back to them and the best form of technical education at a school level is to have dedicated technical schools and colleges.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard could you just make it a little bit clearer on what you mean by more powers for the principal? You didn't actually outline exactly what they would be.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I will be having a little more to say about that tonight. Well if you have principals being able to determine the composition of the staff, to hire teachers, they must also have the power to let teachers go if they think that is appropriate. I think they should have greater authority in relation to how much individual teachers might be acknowledged and remunerated. I think the more authority you give in relation to the conduct of the school to a principal the better.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Labor's IR policy, there's some reports this morning that they're considering a compromise position which would allow those who earn more than $100,000 to continue on some form of AWA. Would that sort of policy be workable in your eyes?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the only workable policy in relation to AWAs is to keep the present policy because the present policy gives maximum flexibility; it allows people to make direct arrangements with their employers. AWAs are the way of the future and Mr Rudd wants to take us back to the past. He says he's a man of the future, but when it comes to industrial relations he's a man of the past.
JOURNALIST:
Just the various specifics about the schools and how you would give more powers to the principals and how you will address the whole issue of bullying...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what we're proposing in relation to this area is to, as I have indicated in previous comments and I will indicate it tonight, we will be providing as part of our funding package that there be greater attention given particularly to the power and the role of school principals. Thank you.
[ends]