PRIME MINISTER:
Are we right? Well, ladies and gentlemen, I want to announce that the Government has decided on a package of measures which will enhance by a minimum of $267 million over a five-year period the benefits currently available to Australia';s veterans.
This package follows extensive consultations with representatives of the veterans'; community, including but not only the RSL, and also extensive discussions between the Government and many Government members who have an intense interest in matters relating to veterans.
The Minister will be providing detailed statements later, but the principal measures that I want announce are eight.
Firstly, the Government has decided to exempt the veterans'; disability pension paid by Centrelink from the means-test applied to income support payments. That will be of assistance to about 19,000 veterans and the estimated cost is about $20 million a year.
We';ve also decided to index the above general rate component of the disability pension commonly called the TPI component by the consumer price index or male total average weekly earnings, whichever is higher, this is estimated to benefit some 45,000 veterans and the cost is in the order of $66 million over five years.
We';ve also decided to respond to a very strong priority of the RSL and the veterans'; community to extend rent assistance to war widows and this will benefit some 11,500 war widows at a cost of some $73 million over five years.
Equally, we';re going to pick up a Clarke committee recommendation to increase the funeral benefit from $572 to $1,000 a year at an estimated cost of $27 million over a five-year period.
The Government has also in smaller but important areas decided to extend access to the disability pension to surviving veterans involved in the Berlin Airlift, to those involved in mine sweeping and to air crew of the RAAF';s No.2 Squadron which served on the Malay-Thai border.
And the Government has also decided to make an ex gratia payment of $25,000 to surviving Prisoners of War of the North Koreans or their widows for the extraordinary hardship that they suffered.
We also intend to respond positively to the needs of those affected by the British Atomic Test programme when the outcomes are available of the Australian participants in the British Nuclear Test Programme - Cancer Incidence and Mortality Study.
We';ll continue, of course, to provide special recognition and comprehensive assistance to those who served Australia in times of war at personal risk of injury or death from an armed enemy.
We have accepted the Clarke Report';s recommendation that there be no change in the incurred danger test for qualifying service, although I have to observe that the Government does not share the view of the Clarke Review that this test has been interpreted too narrowly.
This does represent a very significant package of enhancements and fresh support to Australia';s veterans'; community. I';d like to thank the Minister for the commitment that she has showed in getting the package together and also to acknowledge the input of veterans'; organisations and the contribution of a large number of my colleagues in the parliamentary parties who have a very close interest in the welfare of Australia';s veterans.
Any questions on this or anything else?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, how is it that all of these extra payments for the veterans have been… were missed in the first Cabinet submission?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Dennis, I don';t go into what was in or out at a various stage. All I can say is that we did take some proposals to the Party Room, as is the Party Room';s right, it said that it wanted the Cabinet to have another look at it and the Cabinet did that and I don';t feel any sense of concern about that. Every so often the Party Room is quite capable of greater wisdom than the Cabinet and any Prime Minister, particularly one who';s served for eight years, who pretends that all wisdom resides in his head, or in the collective heads of his Cabinet, and it is eight years I think, is fooling himself or herself. So yes, the Cabinet was told by the Party Room that it should have another look, the Party Room was right and the Cabinet did have another look and this is the result.
JOURNALIST:
… veterans'; community to be completely satisfied with this revised package?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it';s a fair package, now the question of how the RSL or the other organisations respond is a matter for them. I guess in the nature of things there';s always more that you can do, there will always be some people who will say you should go further, but governments have a lot of demands placed upon them, I believe that this is a generous package, it does meet the major long term concerns that have been put to me by the peak veterans'; organisations. Obviously there';ll be some people who would say you could have gone further or so forth but I think in the totality of things it';s a very fair and a very reasonable package.
JOURNALIST:
… how do you justify in your pre-war rhetoric going well beyond some of the intelligence assessments, certainly by DIO, and not sharing with the Australian public some of the qualifications in those assessments?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can justify that very easily Michelle by saying that the job of the Government is to look at the intelligence assessments that are made, bearing in mind that there are particular roles for ONA and DIO and the other agencies. ONA is the principal assessment body, its assessment credentials and its assessment responsibilities are greater and more specific than those of the individual bodies. But in the end this is as much of an argument about useability and size of WMD, there was no serious argument from anybody, including the Opposition, about the possession of WMD, the debate was about how you dealt with that possession. Now months on the Iraq survey group has made a preliminary report, I still don';t accept anything other than that the jury is out on the question of the final work of that group, but I';m not making any assertions about what it may discover in the future. But we made an assessment, there were views put to us, particularly by ONA and there';s nothing in that report of the Parliamentary Committee that disputes that the Government';s arguments were essentially consistent with the thrust of the advice, or the assessments we had received from ONA. Now in the end the decision to go to war is an executive decision, it is not a decision to be taken by an intelligence agency or by an Office of National Assessments. Now I was satisfied that there was enough evidence of possession of WMD from all the material coming to me to justify the decision. Now we can argue the toss with the benefit of hindsight, but in the end we had to make a judgement and as I pointed out in my address to the Press Club using the Pearl Harbour metaphor that if you wait until you';ve got enough evidence to satisfy an old Bailey Jury you will end up having another Pearl Harbour.
JOURNALIST:
… today questioned whether Labor';s Graeme Edwards should be drawing any sort of disability pension relating to his war injuries. Do you have any problem with Graeme Edwards also drawing a pension, I understand it';s a part pension relating to his war injuries, as well as his salary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t know the background of this, so let me simply say that I would without any fear of contradiction say there is no person in the Parliament who has played a greater price for his war service than Graeme Edwards and as far as I';m concerned anything he';s entitled to as a veteran he should have.
JOURNALIST:
… allowing the war pension to be (inaudible) aren';t you discriminating against other pensioners and wouldn';t demands for a flow on to other pensions be justified?
PRIME MINISTER:
Dennis, I believe that these people have a special claim, we have historically given benefits to veterans, particularly disabled veterans that we haven';t given to others. Now that is not to say that other people';s claims are worthless, I';m not saying other people';s claims lack merit but there is always a case that can be made for giving veterans more and I have no problem in asserting that, particularly people who are called in the colloquial as we all understand TPIs.
JOURNALIST:
… industrial trends this morning signalled there';d been a slowing in the pace of economic growth of the first three months of this year. Do you think the Government';s economic forecast for 2004 have been overly optimistic and do you see any threats to that, those growth assessments?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven';t seen that particular report, and I take your word for it, of course, we have no reason to doubt the forecasts that have been made by the Treasury, none whatsoever and can I say the Treasury';s had a pretty good track record in relation to its forecasts over the last seven or eight years, they';ve been very accurate.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister…
PRIME MINISTER:
Can we have Louise, it';s not that I don';t…
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what';s your explanation for the differences between DIO and ONA on…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s not for me to, I';m not accountable for those differences and why wouldn';t there be some differences? I mean you have separate, there are always nuances and differences… I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Do you have views on why they differ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Do I have views on why they differ? Look I think if you want to know why they differed you should perhaps talk to them and can I make one other observation, ONA disputes this proposition that there was a dramatic change in tone around about the 13th of September 2002, they don';t buy that and I, I mean that is a judgement that was made by the Committee. I';m not having a go at the Committee but I';m simply making the observation that a number of things that have been rolled up to me and to Mr Downer as accepted, unimpeachable facts are in fact observations of the Committee. Now that is, this sudden change in ONA';s tone is an example of that, now they don';t accept that. Now where it lies is a matter of debate. But I';m quite unsurprised by the fact that there';s a difference in emphasis, quite unsurprised, but in the end in the way we';ve structured our intelligence community in this country we have the prime agencies if I could put it like that, you have ASIS, you have DIO and DSD and then you have ONA who';s job is to provide assessments, now that is how it works, I mean ONA is broadly similar as I understand to JIC in the United Kingdom and I mean it';s not saying it was modelled on JIC, I think there was some similarity, but you have the feeder, the tributaries and it';s the one that sits there and makes the assessment. Now of course in the scheme of things we would take, because it';s the assessment body we would take a lot of notice of ONA, it';s not that we would ignore the other agencies but you always get variations in intelligence, I mean many of you will have read the reports of that national intelligence estimate, the one that was prepared by the Americans, now there';s a whole range of views in that and there';s nothing surprising about that but in the end you';ve got to make a call and okay, people who are critical of the Government are now saying well you know this, and this, and this hasn';t been discovered since the war, imagine the alternative and if we had adopted a different approach and had not made the call, we did. I mean in the end you make a judgement and you are judged on that judgement.
JOURNALIST:
Based on what we now know on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, would you still make the same judgement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
About WMD?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look what, when I say yes I mean I have no apologises to make for our decision, if I had my time over again I would have taken the same decision and can I also point out to you that although our case was based, and I won';t run away from this, our case was based on non-compliance with UN resolutions and the WMD issue. But if you read my principal addresses and in particular my address to the Australian people just before hostilities commenced, I also place very heavily reliance on the importance of the American alliance. I';m not saying that was number one, I';m not asserting that. But it seems to have been forgotten that it was a significant element and something I referred to in all the major addresses I made.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Mark Vaile yesterday assured us that the full text of the FTA would probably be available today. It';s not. What';s the hold up? What';s the snag?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m sure the agreement hasn';t broken down, Jim. I can assure you of that. But as to why something that was said to be available yesterday is going to be a day later, I don';t think that will destroy the Free Trade Agreement.
JOURNALIST:
Just back on the veterans' package – you';ve nearly tripled the package for veterans in less than a couple of weeks and after some backbench…
PRIME MINISTER:
You';re making all sorts of assumptions.
JOURNALIST:
Well, the last package was $100 million, wasn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t… I neither confirm nor deny. I mean, it';s a bit like intelligence. While it is in the incubation period, until it finally emerges from the Government process, you can';t make assertions.
JOURNALIST:
You';ve substantially enhanced this package.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we have substantially enhanced the benefits currently available.
JOURNALIST:
Is this a sign of a Government panicked by a resurgent Labor Party? And other [inaudible] particularly in the sugar industry, look forward to similar large [inaudible] Howard Government in the election lead up?
PRIME MINISTER:
I seem to remember those words being used at the weekend by an Opposition education spokesman who was saying that we were making a magnificent announcement for the catholic schools of Australia because we were panicked and the fact that we';d been a nine month discussion or something like that with the National Catholic Education Commission was hardly evidence of panic, but anyway.
JOURNALIST:
… of the sugar industry, apparently they are expecting some announcement today of further assistance, is that correct?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I will be saying, Jim, what I will be doing in the Parliament today is indicating that we';ll be extending some income support to people in the industry who are, according to the criteria, deserving of it. This, of course, won';t be the final word in relation to the sugar industry. I';ve said for some time, some weeks now, in the wake of the Free Trade Agreement, that we would have an enhanced package and this is really part of that process, if you like, a beginning of it, a downpayment on it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, yesterday';s reports said that the agencies weren';t subject to direct pressure…
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon? Sorry.
JOURNALIST:
Yesterday';s reports said that the agencies were not subject to direct political pressure, but it also said that it feared that ONA might have unconsciously taken a particular tack because it felt that policy was running strong in a certain direction. How concerned would you be if an agency was…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t…
JOURNALIST:
… anticipating policy and how do you avoid that happening?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I tell you, I do not believe that of ONA. ONA was not subjected to pressure. I don';t believe ONA provided any assessments to suit some presumed political agenda of the Government. I had a very strong regard for Kim Jones, the Director General of ONA during this time. I think ONA is a very strong organisation and any suggestion that ONA just sort of wrote something to placate the Government because we were breathing down their necks or something is just ridiculous and I think it';s an insult to ONA and it';s just something I totally reject.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you suggested that Louise Dodson might direct questions…
PRIME MINISTER:
I can';t hear you, I';m sorry.
JOURNALIST:
You suggested that Louise Dodson might want to direct questions directly to the intelligence agencies. Would you make the intelligence chiefs available to the media to discuss these matters?
PRIME MINISTER:
We';ll follow the usual procedures.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Lawrence Springborg…
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Lawrence Springborg, the Nationals Leader in Queensland, believes it would be in the Federal Coalition';s interest in an election year for the state coalition to be reformed. Do you share his view?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the parties have always performed rather independently of each other at a state and a federal level in Queensland and the election results in Queensland have also been quite independent of each other as well.
JOURNALIST:
Question to Mrs Vale. Mrs Vale, would you be intending to invite the representatives of the veterans'; groups to Canberra as you had done two weeks ago?
VALE:
We often do. It';s part of our practice. They actually do come to Canberra times a year for briefings on certain issues of concern to them. These are the leaders of our ex-service organisations.
JOURNALIST:
Mrs Vale, do you think it was a mistake in retrospect not to have asked the Cabinet for more money for veterans in the first place?
VALE:
Oh, well, I think we could say that all ministers always want to ask Cabinet for more money in all circumstances.
JOURNALIST:
When are you going to the sugar seats? You promised…
PRIME MINISTER:
When am I what?
JOURNALIST:
Going to the sugar area? You promised to go up there.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, soon. I can';t tell you exactly when.
JOURNALIST:
Do you know when?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don';t right at the moment, no I don';t. I';m still sorting through my challenging diary.
JOURNALIST:
… new inquiry.
PRIME MINISTER:
The matter has been discussed amongst senior ministers.
JOURNALIST:
How soon will there be an announcement?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
…decision been taken.
PRIME MINISTER:
A final decision has not been taken, no.
JOURNALIST:
How soon would you expect to make the announcement?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will do the normal thing.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you were reading the ONA reports in 2002. Did you notice any shift in the tone and nature of those reports, sudden or otherwise?
PRIME MINISTER:
Now this is, you know, relying on sort of very hazy recollection – I don';t recall the dramatic change. I do remember though that there was an increase in the volume of reports becoming available. But I don';t recall that dramatic change. But, you know, please don';t hold me absolutely to that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you regret any of the language that you used in the lead up to the war?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think the language I used was measured and moderate and more restrained and the Committee acknowledges that. Indeed, I can remember some people suggesting at the time that my language perhaps could be more vigorous. I was trying to be, you know, consistent with what I thought was the material flowing to us. But equally, I wasn';t losing an opportunity to rather passionately put something I believed in. Can I just go back to this central point – you get a whole lot of intelligence data, it is never absolutely conclusive. I mean, you never… at best you can have a strong circumstantial case, you never have a silver bullet, you never have something that says this is beyond all reasonable doubt proof that this material is held, you never have that. And from all of this, you';ve got to make a judgement. Now the judgement I made was that Iraq had WMD. How much? I couldn';t entirely quantify. I did believe they had WMD and that was the collective view of the material put to us. Now in… there were variations in relation to useability, variations in relation to size and number. But the collective advice was they had WMD and they were very unco-operative with the UN and they';d been messing around with the rest of the world for a very long time and I was concerned that if they got away with that other states would try and do the same and eventually it would fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation. Now, that was the essential thrust of my case. I mean, I would have expressed it differently on different occasions and you can pick a word here or there and say he should never have used that. But heaven';s above, when you';re giving speech after speech and doing interview after interview, you have to draw a line through what is being said and that was the essence of my case and I still stand by it and it';s justified by the material.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, will the new inquiry…
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Will the new inquiry report before the federal election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the question of when it reports will be dealt with when it is announced.
JOURNALIST:
Do you agree [inaudible] should be perhaps secret?
PRIME MINISTER:
Do I believe…
JOURNALIST:
Jull said yesterday that he didn';t think it should be… the issues…
PRIME MINISTER:
We';ll deal with that when we make the announcement.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, in…
PRIME MINISTER:
Haven';t we done well enough?
JOURNALIST:
One more if you may. In trying to get your MedicarePlus package through the Senate, are you now prepared to drop the safety net threshold to $500?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not going to talk about that, Jim, except to say that everyday that Labor blocks this wonderful safety net for the Australian people they';re hurting average Australian families. Thank you.
VALE:
Could I just add to that question from that lass. I think it';s important to note that in our last Budget we actually did have a record $10 billion dedicated to veterans and war widows. This is nearly $300 million of new money. The Howard Government is doing even more for veterans.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how are you celebrating the eight anniversary?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
How are you celebrating the eighth anniversary?
PRIME MINISTER:
By…
JOURNALIST:
Eight balloons?
PRIME MINISTER:
By, you know, spending as much time as I can meeting you and dealing with the various questions that come across the range of my responsibilities. I have no special celebration planned. I';m not a celebratory person.
JOURNALIST:
I';m not sure about that.
[ends]