PM: It's great to be here in Hobart. I'm joined today by Senator Carol Brown and by Julie Collins, the Member for Franklin. I'm very much enjoying being in Hobart, I've had the opportunity at this great school to speak to students about their future in Tasmania and to speak to them specifically about addressing climate change and about putting a price on carbon pollution. It's been a wide-ranging discussion.
I will, later this morning, sit down with the Premier of Tasmania and sign the Memorandum of Understanding between our two governments on the $120 million which we are making available to build a broader economic future for Tasmania. So, the thing that links the two together, had the opportunity to talk to these students today about the jobs they will do in the future, including clean energy jobs, with the Premier, I will be signing an agreement which is all about jobs for Tasmania.
I've been a very frequent visitor to Tasmania in the recent period and that's because I've been working with the Premier and with our local Members and representatives to strike an arrangement about the future of forestry in this state, the future of the environment here and the new jobs that Tasmania needs.
The economics of the forestry industry was changing and I was pleased that parties involved in forestry and environmental groups came together to discuss a new future. I entered a forestry agreement with the Premier of Tasmania, which is about having a sustainable forestry industry, as well as better conservation outcomes, supporting workers as the forest industry changes and supporting contractors whose livelihoods will be lost as the industry changes. So, it's a tough time for many families in Tasmania.
But as well as supporting those families I did want to make sure that we were investing so Tasmania had a good economic future. We want to broaden the economic base here and that's what the Memorandum of Understanding is all about - investing $120 million to do just that. But this is a plan that won't be typed up in Canberra, it will be written through community consultation here in Tasmania, the people who best know what the future of this state should hold are the people of this state.
So, I'm looking forward to signing that Memorandum of Understanding and I'm very happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: Does that mean the money is secured, or does it still need to pass the Upper House?
PM: We will be - yes, in line with the first agreement, the money will be made available contingent on the forest agreement that I signed with the Premier being delivered and that does mean legislation needs to go through the Upper House.
JOURNALIST: Once that legislation goes through we understand there to be $20 million provided upfront, is that the case?
PM: There is $20 million provided upfront and then the balance of the funds are contingent on the agreement being honoured by all parties and that's including the agreement to pass the legislation which will flow from Professor West's verification process.
JOURNALIST: Given that the Upper House is likely to be hostile to this, what happens if it doesn't pass the Upper House?
PM: Well, I think that's first and foremost a question for people in the Upper House. I mean, let's be clear about the facts here - we are seeing a time of change in forestry. Whether we like it, or whether we don't the economics of the forestry industry is changing and whether I had done nothing or done the actions that I have taken, we would have seen jobs lost in forestry and we would have seen contractors go out of business.
Well, as a Labor Prime Minister I wasn't going to sit in Canberra idly by as workers lost their jobs and contractors lost their livelihoods without acting to support them. And so we have been here building on the process that brought the warring parties in forestry together, building on it for the future and for the future economy of this state.
That's what's at stake and that's what should be on the minds of State Upper House Members.
JOURNALIST: The State Government is expected to make a compensation offer to Gunns today for its native timber contracts. Do you think it's a good idea that taxpayer funds should be going to a company that yesterday announced its financial result and some analysts are predicting its ripe for a takeover?
PM: Look, this is a matter for the State Government and also involves legal issues between the State Government and Forestry Tasmania and Gunns, so I won't be drawn on commentary in relation to it.
JOURNALIST: On the Craig Thomson case, Prime Minister, at what point do you as Prime Minister say that a Labor MP should go?
PM: There's an investigation in train here and the investigation should be allowed to do its work. Can I say on this matter, we've seen a lot of hypocrisy and double standards being brought to bear by Tony Abbott in relation to the question of Craig Thomson. There is a Liberal Senator who is facing police charges. I believe the appropriate thing is to give her the presumption of innocence and to watch those processes go through to their conclusion.
In relation to the Member for Dobell, there is a Fair Work Australia investigation in train. I believe the proper processes should go through as well and people should not be making assumptions about what has happened here. One standard for everyone - it is Tony Abbott who is there arguing for double standards and that's not appropriate.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) as a matter of principle, Prime Minister, as a matter of principle-
PM: As a matter -
JOURNALIST: What is your bench mark (inaudible)-
PM: I'm happy to tell you. As a matter of incredibly high principle, when there are investigations in train, people should let the authorities get on with those investigations without politicians seeking to run interference with how those investigations happen.
JOURNALIST: Are News Limited reports right, that your Chief of Staff was involved as early as 2009?
PM: I'm very glad you asked me that question. First and foremost, let's be very clear about the facts here, the matter involving Mr Thomson was first public in April 2009. That is, any Australian who had picked up the Sydney Morning Herald which reported it could have had that information. My Chief of Staff, it's reported today my Chief of Staff made a call to the Industrial Registrar. I don't remember that and that's unremarkable because the event is unremarkable.
For a Chief of Staff to check a fact with a public servant is an unremarkable event. Now, I know that Tony Abbot is jumping up and down today about all of this, but let's be clear about the double standards and the hypocrisy here. Number one: Mr Abbott has a Liberal Senator who has been charged by police. He first knew about that in May and did not make the matter public until he was asked a question by a media representative in July. Number two: this morning Mr Abbott told media that Fair Work Australia should bring its investigation to a conclusion quickly and then Senator Ronaldson has said that the responsible Minister should interfere in this investigation.
Well, seems to me there is a world of difference between checking a fact and saying politicians should interfere with investigations and actions being undertaken by public servants.
And third: we've had Senator Brandis ringing around police commissioners, Liberal mates and ministers, so that they ring a police commissioner. It's all very strange conduct indeed.
Now, what this all adds up to, is I don't believe that Tony Abbott should be trying to bully authorities in relation to anything. I also think we should really be clear about what's going on here - Tony Abbott is very angry that he didn't win the last election and that he is not Prime Minister and he thinks to himself if he throws enough mud maybe he will get the job. That is Mr Abbott's motivation in all of this.
While Mr Abbott is motivated by going to rallies and by throwing mud about scandals and about parliamentary games, we will continue with what motivates us, and that's about jobs and opportunity for Australians today and for their future.
JOURNALIST: Just to clarify then, you first became made aware of the scandal when the Sydney Morning Herald published the allegations in 2009, or did you have knowledge before then?
PM: Look, I don't remember events related to Mr Hubbard's telephone call and nor would I. Completely unremarkable for a Chief of Staff to ring a public servant to check a fact and completely different from seeking to bully or interfere with investigations.
JOURNALIST: So, you're not sure if he called before or after it was published (inaudible)?
PM: As is public today, Mr Hubbard has no memory of the call, but completely unremarkable. If you made a completely unremarkable call - I don't know what calls you make most commonly - but a completely unremarkable call more than two years ago, would you remember it? It is completely unremarkable for a Chief of Staff to ring a public servant to check a fact, and let's do the comparison here - Mr Abbott's been out there today claiming that somehow that means I had knowledge of these events in relation to Mr Thomson, and didn't speak about them publicly and I was the only one who knew. These things have been on the public record since April 2009.
And let's look at the double standards and hypocrisy here - Mr Abbot jumping up and down, he knew about circumstances involving a Liberal Senator and charges against her for weeks and didn't make the matter public until he was asked by the media.
Second, Chief Of Staff checking a fact, unremarkable. There we've got the Leader of the Opposition trying to tell Fair Work Australia how long it should take in an investigation, a Liberal Senator, Senator Ronaldson trying to go through the Minister to get the Minister to interfere with that investigation, Senator Brandis ringing up Liberal mate, ringing up the Police Commissioner, all on this question. Well, I don't think it's proper for politicians to be seeking to bully authorities that are going through investigations.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Gunns Pulp Mill is one of the biggest (inaudible) that's happening in Australia. Are you confident (inaudible)?
PM: All of the environmental approvals that are necessary have been provided. This went through the proper process with the relevant Minister, Tony Burke and before him, of course, Peter Garrett, dealing with the matter. So there are stringent environmental conditions in place, but all environmental approvals necessary are in place.
So, now this is a commercial question for Gunns. I believe the mill would bring jobs and economic opportunity to this State.
JOURNALIST: On the other hand, if it doesn't happen, and you're talking about the State's economic future, what would it mean for the State if the mill wasn't to be built?
PM: Well, whatever happens with the mill and as I say, I believe the mill would bring jobs and economic opportunities to this State, but we want to invest $120 million in strengthening and diversifying this economy, because we're all about the people of Tasmania having jobs.
JOURNALIST: The forestry industry thinks that the deal was significantly greened up at the eleventh hour, did you have that feeling when you, from the Thursday to the Sunday?
PM: No, what happened here, we entered the interim agreement and in order to enter the interim agreement there was a question about making sure that contracts for wood supply were honoured. In the time period between the interim agreement and the final agreement we received some advice from Professor West, that's what happened, we received that advice. But of course, contracts for wood supply should be honoured and they will be honoured.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre is about to take its first clients. Looking at the capacity of Australian detention centres now, are you satisfied that the need is being met at the moment, or may there need to be future detention centres opened around the country?
PM: I'm confident that the Minister's made the appropriate arrangements for detention centres. Of course the Department of Immigration keeps all of this under a very watchful eye, but I believe the Minister's made the appropriate arrangements.
JOURNALIST: Are you at all concerned about State Government money going to Gunns, given Gunns' poor balance sheet. I know it's a State Government issue, but surely (inaudible) where their money comes from?
PM: I'm not going to be drawn on a question about the State Government and Gunns, particularly given it involves legal issues.
Thank you.