HOST: Prime Minister, good morning. Welcome.
PM: Good morning, Barrie.
HOST: 'There should never be a crack of light between the prime minister and the foreign minister'. Are you and Kevin Rudd able to work as closely together as Stephen Smith suggests that you must?
PM: Yes, of course we are, Barrie, and we obviously will be working together in the interests of the nation. I appointed Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister because he brings a lot of expertise.
Obviously, as a former leader too, he is entitled to respect.
I believe Stephen Smith was an outstanding foreign minister, but in putting the ministry together I did determine to appoint Kevin Rudd and asked Stephen Smith, in view of those circumstances, where he would choose to serve, and he chose defence and I think he will do a great job.
HOST: It was often suggested though that Stephen Smith didn't run foreign policy - the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd did. Who will run foreign policy in your Government?
PM: Well, obviously, it will be run by the Government as a team. We will work as a team, and we will have a proper Cabinet process. There will be involvement by the Cabinet. Ultimately, of course, I'm the leader, Barrie.
HOST: Yes, because we've seen this kind of, it's probably through the Howard years particularly, but through the Rudd years as well, that increasingly leaders do manage international diplomacy.
PM: Well, it's inevitable that international diplomacy happens leader to leader at events like the G20 and that the foreign minister also has a large role to play, so Kevin and I will be working together, playing those complementary roles.
HOST: And when you look at Stephen Smith's record, and he's certainly somebody who's diligent and loyal, do you see it in the way that Anthony Albanese, I think, well, he certainly agreed with the proposition this morning that he took one for the team?
PM: Look, I think working together Stephen Smith and Kevin Rudd, and Stephen is right to say that leaders and foreign ministers have to work together, achieved some remarkable results. The most remarkable is the creation of the G20 in such a prized position in international relations. That's obviously great for Australia because we're at the table.
It didn't have to be like that. It could have been a G7 or a G8 where we would have been excluded. They worked hard to make sure the crisis response to the global financial circumstances was done by the G20 and we were there.
HOST: But all things being equal, Stephen Smith would have preferred to stay where he is, surely, or stay where he was?
PM: Look, Stephen Smith said consistently that his view of the Labor Party is a very traditional one. That is, that the leader gets to allocate the portfolios. Obviously, I made a determination about the best position for Kevin Rudd. I was well aware that Stephen had done an outstanding job in foreign affairs. I did have a discussion with him and he indicated in those circumstances he'd like to serve in defence, and he'll be great.
HOST: Well, you talked about the G20, but what other foreign policy achievements were there, because Kevin Rudd tried to create an Asia Pacific community - that didn't happen; he's been trying to win a seat on the UN Security Council - that's not looking too flash; and can you really say that he improved relations with countries like China, Japan and India?
PM: Well, I think, Barrie, when you go through it Kevin Rudd did have an influence on architecture in our region, in particular the formation or the shape of the East Asia Summit and the US becoming involved. That is significant, and in terms of relations with countries in our region I know, of course, that there's always the inevitable Opposition criticism, but as I deal with leaders in the region, as I saw that as Deputy Prime Minister and now as Prime Minister our relationships are strong.
HOST: Will it be part of his job now to persuade the region that having a processing centre on East Timor is a good idea?
PM: It will be part of Kevin Rudd's job, of course, working with the new Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, to further the Government's policy of having a regional framework and a regional processing centre.
HOST: And you're not worried that he might see that as a lurch to the right on asylum seekers?
PM: Look, I think Kevin Rudd, like me, understands that it is not in the interests of asylum seekers to risk their lives at sea and get on a boat. It's not in the interests of this nation to have unauthorised arrivals by sea. We don't want to see people pay people smugglers. We don't want to further that evil trade.
HOST: But the night before you became leader he did warn of this lurch to the Right. What was he talking about if it wasn't something like that?
PM: Well, the Government's policy on asylum seekers will be as I've outlined it and we will be pressing for a regional framework and a regional processing centre. That is the right thing to do under the auspices of the UNHCR, the High Commissioner for Refugees; it's the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective - we don't want people risking their lives at sea; and obviously, for this nation, we would prefer to deal with these questions so that there's orderly processing in a regional processing centre.
HOST: Now I'll just give you some names - Gray, Shorten, Farrell, Feeney, Arbib. They were all promoted and they were all quite active in the lead-up to the leadership change.
PM: Well, look, I've seen some of the commentary today about the ministerial appointments, and you know, call me very old-fashioned, Barrie, but I just think the news should be about the facts and the facts should be reported.
When you look at this reshuffle as I've done it, of course the big changes are Greg Combet and Craig Emerson going into Cabinet - both appointments well and truly on merit, and Greg will look after climate change and Craig trade; Penny Wong coming into finance; reshaping the ministry so that Simon Crean will lead for regional Australia; reshaping the ministry so Tony Burke will lead on our sustainable population policy.
Yes, I've made some new appointments - Gary Gray from Western Australia, Jason Clare from New South Wales, Bill Shorten from Victoria, Mark Butler from South Australia. These are all appointments on merit.
I know focus has gone on Bill Shorten and Mark Arbib. Both of them deserve the jobs they have. Bill did a remarkable job as Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities. I worked closely with Mark Arbib. He was my junior minister. He did well in his former portfolio and he'll step up to this new challenge.
HOST: And you mentioned Penny Wong and finance. Does that now make her a member of the gang of four?
PM: Well, there won't be a gang of four. There will be a traditional Cabinet Government.
HOST: OK, who will take responsibility, now, for higher education?
PM: Higher education is exactly the same split as it has been for the last three years. Chris Evans will do the work that I used to do, which is he will have responsibility for undergraduate higher education. And then Kim Carr-
HOST: -But under what banner?
PM: Well, under the skills banner of course. His portfolio is Jobs, Skills and Workplace Relations, so he will have the undergraduate end of higher education as I did and Kim Carr will have the research and postgraduate end which he has looked after for the last three years.
HOST: It's just that higher education is it not mentioned at all in any of the portfolios. In fact, education is not mentioned in either the Cabinet or the ministry.
PM: Well if we step back, I mean, we created - deliberately - a human capital portfolio, the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations. I have renamed slightly to talk about skills on the one hand and school education and early childhood development on the other, but of course that covers the full gamut of education from our earliest kids in preschool through schools, vocational education and training, universities and Kim Carr looks after research.
HOST: How will your style of government differ from that of Kevin Rudd? For example, will you encourage rank and file, the backbenchers, to speak out, and under what mechanism? How can they do that?
PM: Well I've always been someone who's believed that you work best if you've got a strong team with you. I believe that whether it's in the football; I believe that as a working Australian. That's why I'm a support of the trade union movement. At the end of the day being in a union is about joining a team and people are strengthened by being members of the team.
What that means for my leadership style is I will be including the team. There is merit in involving more people. For Caucus, I will be including them as well. As I said to them when Caucus met last week, new inclusion comes with new responsibilities. Have your say in the room, not outside it.
HOST: But you're seeing independents fairly regularly. You committed to that. How will be you take soundings from the back bench? Will you do it through faction leaders?
PM: Well, we have a Caucus committee structure where people get to have a say on legislation. What I've said to Caucus is we will design some new structures so people get involved at the ideas generation stage. They don't wait for a piece of legislation and then say 'I like that' or 'I don't like that'. They'll actually be able to throw ideas on the table before legislation is generated, so we will restructure internally to do that.
HOST: And what about media strategy? You say you don't like this focus on the daily news cycle, but what does that mean? What will you do?
PM: Well, what that means is it's more important where you're going to be in a year's time or two years' time than what is reported tonight.
Big reforms take patient, methodical work. Some days they won't get very good press. I, for example, did a series of education reforms. I worked over two and a half years on My School. There were many days when that was getting a bad run. The teachers' union didn't like it, people saying the tests were dud, people were saying, 'Oh, you know, this will never work, she'll never get it done.' You've got to avert your eyes from that and just say, 'Well, I'm going to keep moving, piece by piece, step by step, get the result', and of course when the result was there Australians could see the merit of it and it will drive a transformation in school education.
That's the approach I'm going to take.
HOST: Yeah, for sure, that's a sort of a policy approach in a way, but look, Kevin Rudd seemed to appoint a designated commentator from the ministry every day and they would go out and talk about everything and anything, whereas the way it used to work is that ministers would speak within their portfolio responsibility. Is that, which way will you go?
PM: Well, once again, Barrie, I'm old-fashioned. I quite like to read the accurate news in my newspapers, and you will see ministers commentating particularly in their portfolios.
Barrie, it's inevitable that people have to speak a little bit more broadly or they can't come on shows like this, but for traditional press conferences I will be asking ministers to stay within the confines of their portfolios.
HOST: And will they decide who they talk to, when they talk with them, what they say, or will that be controlled by your office?
PM: Well inevitably in modern politics we need to know what's happening each and every day. I'm not naive about that, but government has its own rhythm and ministers have things to say when things are ready, when government policy has been approved or it's been delivered or implemented, and they'll go out and say those things as necessary.
HOST: News Limited, what did you make of the News Limited coverage through the campaign and perhaps more to the point since the campaign in the 17 days that the country was in virtual limbo?
PM: Well, I think there's an obligation on news organisations in the modern age to act ethically and responsibly and report the facts. That's the standard against which I think people should be judged, and I'll allow others to have a free-flowing debate about how those standards were acquitted.
I'd also say for the campaign that's just been, Barrie, and this is perhaps a lesson for media organisations overall, when the central issue in the campaign was the economy - our stimulus and what it meant versus Tony Abbott's slogans about debt and waste, the central issue - and it took three independents to find the $11 billion black hole. That should have been a job done by journalists during the campaign. People should have known that before they voted.
So, I know that there's going to be a lost commentary by press people about the individual independents and their merits and how good they're going to be at their job. Well, at this stage if we rule a line under it, it was those three independents that got Australians the information they needed to know.
HOST: Yeah, but the media didn't have the access to Treasury that the independents got in the end.
PM: Well, there's a question about pressing in the campaign for costings. We were certainly pressing for Tony Abbott's costings and the biggest story of the campaign was effectively missed.
HOST: OK, you say standards have to be met, but you're not saying whether or not News Limited met those standards. Bob Brown has said so. He said that News Limited stepped out of its role of the fourth estate, that they think they can determine the parliamentary numbers. Is he just being paranoid or is he right?
PM: Look I don't believe in editorialising on the front page. I do believe people have got an obligation to report the facts.
I think that there are times when media personalities actually think that they are involved in the political process rather than commentating on the political process. Now, to some extent that's inevitably the nature of new media. I've been known to joke that Sky TV is endlessly journalists interviewing journalists - the politicians are no longer required.
Now, you know, I understand that when you've got 24-hour content, two stations doing that, the online media, we're going to see different ways of reporting the news, but it seems to me the ethics should be the same right throughout.
HOST: Have you decided yet when you'll move into the Lodge?
PM: Look, this is just a practical question. There are some small-scale repairs happening there and so we'll work through and go in when it's appropriate. Obviously, some of those repairs are best done when no-one is living there.
HOST: And Kirribilli House, is that going to be used any differently?
PM: Look, it will be used when I'm in Sydney. It's obviously the place for the Prime Minister to stay in Sydney. It's also a good place to host official functions when we have international visitors and the like.
HOST: And when you're in Melbourne?
PM: Well, I've still got to work all that through, Barrie. As you would be aware there are security and other issues. I'm staying in my home in Altona and I very much enjoy that but I suspect that there are some friends who deal with prime ministerial security who would wish for a different result, so we'll work through that.
HOST: And there's one portfolio missing. We no longer have a Minister Advising the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I guess that's redundant, is it?
PM: No, that's not redundant and Kate Ellis will do that job. That was omitted from yesterday's list, but we're in a circumstance, I suppose, with the first female Prime Minister that maybe that portfolio can work a little bit differently in those circumstances.
HOST: And what about a minister advising the Prime Minister on the status of men, given that the Prime Minister is a woman?
PM: Well, I have enough men in the Labor Party, in the Cabinet, in the ministry to make sure I never lose any perspective on that, Barrie. I could always take a bit of advice from, you know, Barry Hall or someone like that, too, if I've lost any perspective.
HOST: Thanks for your time this morning.
PM: Thank you.