PM: It's good to be back at this hospital, where we see again the work which is going in to making real changes happen on the ground. This morning, Nicola and I spoke to a number of nurses and a number of patients. And a number of those nurses are dealing with the implementation of the change we're making here - that is, $10 million investment from us for a walk-in clinic.
The walk-in clinic is designed to take pressure off accident and emergency. Right around Australia, accident and emergency departments are under massive pressure. People are having to wait too long.
This is one practical example of the sorts of changes we are already bringing into the country.
The second point is this: again, talking to those who were here today, it's quite plain that hospitals such as this are full to overflowing - full to overflowing. That was the advice I got coming in the door about the capacity at which this hospital, right now, is today.
And as I spoke to the wards, those in the urology and vascular wards, they were full to overflowing, and one of the other wards that we spoke to the responsible nurses for, the same story.
This is a picture in so many parts of Australia at the moment where we don't have enough hospital beds and it is the same here as well. Therefore, that's why the Government is getting behind our National Health and Hospitals Network, funded nationally, run locally, to deal with the fundamental reforms which are needed for the future of our health and hospital system.
If we do not act on these fundamental reforms, my great fear is this: that our health and hospital system will simply crack under the pressure. We've already been advised it's at tipping point. If we don't attend to these deep and fundamental reforms now, our fear is that it will crack.
I understand Mr Abbott's strategy when it comes to health and hospitals, and that is to be negative. I understand his broader strategy when it comes to dealing with Government legislation is to be negative, blocking and opposing. Can I just say, though, that when it comes to improving our health and hospital system it's pretty important that Mr Abbott look beyond his normal, negative, blocking, opposing strategy.
Can I just say when we look at some of the practical measures which are being blocked in the Senate at the moment, these are very practical concerns for us trying to reform the health and hospital system.
One, they are blocking the Government's legislation on private health insurance reform, which provides support at present for some of the wealthier Australians. That would unleash $2 billion worth of additional funding to provide extra hospital beds right across the country.
The second thing is this: we also have Mr Abbott blocking in the Senate our legislation which would enable practice nurses and midwives to have access to MBS and PBS, and if that doesn't unblock soon, what'll happen is that a number of our midwives, for example, will not be covered with appropriate insurance come 1 July.
These are practical matters.
Thirdly, Mr Abbott has already indicated his opposition to our proposal for a new Health and Hospitals Network. Part of that will involve legislation.
So, on key elements of health and hospital reform, we have Mr Abbott blocking, opposing and frustrating necessary reforms for the country at large.
So I'd say this - that when it comes to the future of our health and hospital system, this reform is far too important for Mr Abbott's negative, blocking strategy in the Senate to get in the road.
Over to you, folks.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, now that the full horror of the insulation program has been revealed by Greg Combet now he's had a chance to look at it, isn't it time to sack Peter Garrett for serial bungling? Secondly, can I just get you to clarify, will you or won't you release the Henry Review before the election?
PM: On the question of the future of tax reform, which is the second part of your question, we will of course make sure that that is released prior to going to an election. On the precise timing of it, the Treasurer will make an appropriate statement as to when that occurs.
On the first matter that you raised, Minister Combet has been put in charge of dealing with the problems which have arisen with the implementation of the scheme. These problems are significant. The Minister made a full statement to the parliament yesterday outlining the practical measures he's taking.
I believe Mr Combet is doing the right thing, and we will reserve the right to make further statements as is necessary about other actions which might be necessary to work through some of the implementation problems on the ground.
Mr Combet is doing a first-class job in dealing with this problem on the ground, and he has my full support.
JOURNALIST: PM, under a different stimulus scheme, this country football club received 17 hot water services. They only have four shower heads. Are you shocked at the extent of this type of waste, and will you look into this scheme as well?
PM: My advice on this particular matter is that this loophole previously existed under renewable energy target legislation, and the loophole in question, I'm advised, was closed in September 2009.
Anyone fraudulently using any scheme should, of course, feel the full consequences of the law. The advice that I have is that that particular loophole was closed in September of 2009.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Can I say that anyone who has inappropriately made use of any such program will feel the full force of the law, and this particular loophole, as I'm advised, was closed in September last year.
JOURNALIST: What do you think about Peter Slipper falling asleep during the Indonesian President (inaudible)
PM: Look, I make no comment about Mr Slipper in particular. I wasn't watching Mr Slipper during the President of Indonesia's address, I was watching the President of Indonesia.
Knowing SBY pretty well, I'm sure he didn't take offence at someone nodding off during the parliament, but I think it's very important that when we have important addresses by visiting heads of government that they are treated with appropriate respect.
I think yesterday was a good speech by President Yudhoyono, and I believes marks a big turning point for the long-term future of our relationship.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Wayne Swan says that there might have to be budget adjustments to deal with (inaudible). What is it going to cost?
PM: On the question of how we deal with implementation problems associated with the home insulation program, we'll take those one by one. The ones that have been the subject of Minister Combet's statement yesterday will be accommodated within the existing funding envelope of the overall program.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, can you clear up, in terms of the people smuggling deal signed with Indonesia, is there any additional funds that will go to Indonesia to deal with (inaudible) people smuggling?
PM: One more time? Okay, right, can I just say, as far as the framework agreement on people smuggling and irregular migration is concerned, it is a confidential agreement between governments as it involves a range of security agencies and operational matters.
The second point I would say is that one of the things that it does is it provides for enhanced interception, enhanced disruption of people smuggling activities in and through the Indonesian archipelago.
On the question of funding, the agreement, as I'm advised, does not provide for that. We will, however, continue to implement our bilateral cooperation programs with the Indonesians through the Bali process and continue to support their efforts, where appropriate, to combat the common problem for us all.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Just in terms of (inaudible) the states on health reform (inaudible), have you met with Isobel Redmond (inaudible). And from a Victorian perspective, what do make of John Brumby's claims that a national (inaudible). And with your incentive payments proposed last night, why have you done that given that the Victorian experience was (inaudible) and then they found hospitals were actually (inaudible)
PM: Yeah, I think there were three in that question, if I've got it right.
The first is, and I'll ask Nicola to add on this, is that I understand the, it's about the South Australian Liberal leader, quite some days ago I said that the Australian Government was happy to provide briefings to any political party, any mainstream political party, in terms of the future of our health and hospitals reform plan.
And I think I said that in Tasmania when, obviously, the opposition party there has an interest in this as well. But that invitation was extended right across the country, and not just to those states which are currently having elections.
Nicola, do you wish to add to that? I'll come back to the other ones.
MINISTER ROXON: Yes, we did provide a briefing to Isobel Redmond yesterday. That briefing was attended by Treasury and Health officials and my chief of staff.
I do have to tell you, however, that the media alert that Ms Redmond was holding a press conference with Mr Abbott was issued at 8.30 in the morning yesterday. It was only some half an hour after that that a request was first made for that briefing, and the press conference was held at 10 past nine in the morning. So despite us actually having no notice of that, we did provide our officials, we did provide the briefing.
I do think it would be helpful if there any other oppositions or parties that would like briefings that they would perhaps consider giving us a little more notice, so that we can make sure that that is a particularly fruitful discussion.
We want everybody in the country on board for health reform, and we are happy to provide briefings to those who appropriately need them.
PM: I think the other thing to say is that the Monday I was in Tasmania I made this clear statement that we'd brief anyone who wanted a briefing. And then come Wednesday, we had this particular orchestrated activity involving the South Australian Liberal leader and the Federal Liberal leader.
The easiest thing that you can do is to run a fear campaign. The easiest thing that you can do on national health and hospitals reform is to run a fear campaign. We've seen that begun in part by New South Wales health bureaucrats. You can see it in other parts of the country as well.
I understand the South Australian Liberal leader has been also running a fear campaign about the closure of country hospitals in South Australia, as I'm advised, I haven't seen the reports myself. If that's the case, let me just say very plainly, the National Health and Hospitals Network is designed to increase funding for South Australia's public hospital system, increase funding for Australia's public hospital system, and therefore to underpin the services they provide.
What we are seeking to do is to build up the public hospital system for all Australians, including South Australians. And in terms of our activity-based funding, it will provide not one basis at all for any country hospital or rural hospital or regional hospital to be closed - at all. Now, the other bits that you were asking about -
JOURNALIST: - On incentive payments and the extra workload.
PM: On the question of incentive payments, which is the particular operation of activity-based funding in Victoria, I think that would be the example that you gave - of course, this depends entirely on how you design activity-based funding formula. And we have said quite plainly that we will make sure that this is designed in a way which fairly, properly, efficiently, effectively rewards local hospitals for delivering services on the ground.
The alternative is to continue to provide a blank cheque to various state Governments around the country, and who knows where the money is actually spent.
I'm also advised that when activity-based funding was first introduced by the previous Liberal Government in Victoria, they excluded key elements from the cost equation, one of which is the cost of nursing within the delivery of services. I was advised that this morning by representatives of the Nurses' Federation from Victoria. I've taken it at face value. I haven't tested it yet. But can I just say, it emphasises the point about why you must get the activity-based formula, the activity-based funding formula absolutely right.
JOURNALIST: Senator Fielding seemed to muscle his way on to your frontbench yesterday during the SBY speech. What do you think of his conduct, and if he wants to be the Government's friend, do you think he should start passing or assisting in the passage of some of your legislation?
PM: Oh look, my call is for all Senators - whether they belong to the Liberal party, the National party, or Greens or Independents - to take a constructive approach to getting legislation through the Parliament which working families want. Working families want -
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you prepared to negotiate with the Senate on the parental leave? Is it your way or the highway?
PM: Can I say, we have been absolutely clear-cut about our approach to parental leave, and that is, what you have from the Government is a clear policy which says that we are going to provide nearly $10,000 for parents from next year. That's clear-cut. That's our policy. It's up there in black and white.
JOURNALIST: 26 weeks?
JOURNALIST: Why is that the -
PM: Well, we've actually provided a policy which is carefully costed, carefully funded, based on Productivity Commission advice, the way in which Governments should actually develop policy.
The alternative is Mr Abbott, who wanders into the room, scratches his head and says 'I've just had an idea, I haven't bothered to ask anybody about it in terms of how it will be costed, but here you go'. And what's he done? Repudiated his statement of years ago that it would be over his dead body that anyone would ever introduce paid parental leave, or paid maternity leave, as he described it then.
Secondly, repudiated his statement of what - six weeks ago - that there be no new taxes, period.
Thirdly, brings in this massive new tax which flows through to the cost of living for working families, so much so that Mr Abbott yesterday, when asked the impact on the cost of bread, couldn't answer it -
JOURNALIST: People are allowed to change their mind, though.
PM: Well, I note that Mr Abbott said in response to that particular point that, of course, his view was that principles are there to be adjusted.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Can I just say, when it comes to something as basic as paid parental leave, and paid maternity leave, our approach is simple. We have properly costed, properly funded policy which comes into effect next year. That's our plan.
The second is this. The alternative is one which imposes a massive new tax on working families through businesses who will pass it on to the cost of groceries. That's the alternative.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) increase upwards from what you have now.
PM: We have taken advice from the experts, we've looked at the conclusions of the Productivity Commission, we've done a policy here which is properly costed, properly funded, and capable of implementation from 1 January next year. That is what we've said. That's what we intend to do.
Then out of left field, or right field, I'm not quite sure which field at the moment, you have this idea which is a massive new tax on business, which then flows through to groceries for working families, and has an impact, therefore, on the family budget.
And secondly, Mr Abbott could not even answer clearly which businesses would be liable for this tax. He couldn't answer the question whether it's $5 million worth of taxable income, or $5 million worth of tax paid. Well, pity about the two or three thousand businesses which now don't know where they stand.
JOURNALIST: Is that no to any changes from the Greens or Nick Xenophon or Senator Fielding that would win their support? I mean, if it's such a great plan, why wouldn't you consider minor compromises to get it through?
PM: We think we've got the balance right. I mean, in the business of Government, you get the advice, the Productivity Commission comes forth with their conclusions. We examine it. We work out, therefore, what the public purse can afford. We have done that as far as this is concerned. It's properly costed. It's properly funded. And it's got a proper timetable for implementation -
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: - So that it therefore is able to be used by working families from next year, many of whom right now are planning on it - planning for it.
JOURNALIST: But you need the numbers.
PM: Look, the Government's been very clear about its plans. Can I say, the alternative's a massive new tax whacked on a whole bunch of businesses who had no prior warning, from an Opposition Leader who doesn't even know what the tax threshold is. And then, the impact of it flows through to the cost of living for working families.
JOURNALIST: On Scientology, why have you blocked that inquiry in the Senate? And secondly, (inaudible) the Opposition for being called obstructionist - are you then going to look very weak if you don't use the double dissolution triggers you've been given?
PM: You know something, on the Scientology question I'll need to come back to you in terms of the specific question that you ask, and I will later on through a statement through the office.
Secondly, I have said consistently that I believe Governments are elected to serve their full term. That has always been my view, unless exceptional and extraordinary circumstances arise.
Second point I'd say is this. Mr Abbott, it's time to get out of the road and stop blocking fundamental health and hospital reform. The nation wants to get on with it. Doctors want to get on with it. Nurses want to get on with it. Patients want to get on with it. It's time for Tony Abbott to get out of the road.
And having said that, I've got to get back to the House. See you folks.