SPEERS:
Prime Minister, thanks for your time. There is no argument that more male teachers are needed in primary schools, but is changing sex discrimination laws the only way to do this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it will help and this is a practical gesture. It's a commonsense proposition. The Catholic Education Commission out of its money will offer scholarships to men to become teachers in their schools and the Labor Party says no. And yet Mark Latham has been running around for the last three months saying how concerned he is about the lack of male role models for young Australian boys - that's something that John Anderson and I have talked about in the past and we're all right, the three of us. It is a problem. A boy grows up without a father because of separation or death or whatever, has no older brothers, no close uncles, goes to school, no male teacher, how can he develop a male role model? And here is a simple commonsense suggestion coming from the Catholic Education Commission and all we wish to do is to amend the sex discrimination act to allow these scholarships to be offered because under the current law it's so tightly written and interpreted this can't occur. Now, I can't for the life of me understand why the Labor Party would object to this, particular as its leader is so concerned about what he calls a masculinity crisis, which I think is overdone, there's not a crisis of masculinity in Australia, but there is a problem with the lack of male teachers. Catholic schools in New South Wales at a primary level have only 14 per cent of their teachers who are men. Now, this an attempt to address the problem. Apparently, an ideological obsession about never changing a word of the sex discrimination act is more important to Labor than helping boys with male role models. So much for the priority that in reality the new Labor leader places on this issue.
SPEERS:
There are other ways of encouraging men into teaching. What about...?
PRIME MINISTER:
But why object to something that is being put forward by the catholic church? I mean, why object? I mean, they want to do this and we want to amend the act to enable any teaching, any school institution to do it. I mean, we have other programmes, we have the lighthouse programme, we have mentoring programmes, we have a lot of other things. But clearly, that's not enough and we should go further. But I mean, this is a triumph of ideological obsession with not changing a word of the sex discrimination act over commonsense.
SPEERS:
But I'm interested in why you're moving on this now? A couple of years ago, Brendan Nelson chaired a parliamentary committee that looked at the needs of boys in schools - this wasn't one of the recommendations, changing the sex discrimination act. Why now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we didn't have a proposal from the Catholic Education Commission and I must say that I'm a little surprised that the Human Rights Commission has said that it's a breach of the sex discrimination act, that they have and the commission has refused to give the church an exemption. So the only way is to amend the law.
SPEERS:
Well, Mark Latham raised this issue, as you say, of a crisis...
PRIME MINISTER:
He didn't... he talked about it. He talked the talk but when it comes to doing something, he won't support us because the Labor Party places a greater priority on not changing a single comma in the sex discrimination act than it does in helping boys who need a male role model. Now, I think it's a very important demonstration that although he's talked about these things, he won't act. Don't listen to what Labor says, have a look at what Labor does.
SPEERS:
What about pay, though? Surely, that's an incentive to get more men into teaching.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, pay is not in our hands. We don't employ teachers. If... pay is not our responsibility. The state governments employ teachers. The catholic schools and the independent schools employ teachers. That is an issue that they can deal with and if there are consequences in relation to the sex discrimination act, which I suspect there would be, far bigger consequences there. So by shifting onto that, Labor can't take the focus off the hypocrisy of their position. Their leader has talked endlessly about helping boys. It was the whole focus of his speech at the National Press Club. Now, this was the first opportunity he's had as Leader of the Labor Party to put his hand up for something that will help address the crisis in the shortage of supply of male teachers in our schools. There's only 21 per cent of male teachers in primary schools all around Australia. And, as I said, in catholic schools in New South Wales at a primary level it is down as low as 14 per cent. Now, in desperation the church is trying to do something about it. It gets stopped by the Human Rights Commission. We're trying to make a little amendment to the sex discrimination act. I'm not trying to roll back the sex discrimination act. I believe in...
SPEERS:
... anti discrimination laws, they're there for a reason. You also flagged a few weeks ago changes to allow employers to advertise for older workers. I mean, how far do you go in...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no, I think you apply a test of commonsense, David. I mean, who is to say that every syllable of what was inserted 20 years ago is now relevant? Let's... we've got to apply commonsense approaches. We have a problem in relation to male teachers and if the sex discrimination act is standing in the way of commonsense progress then we should alter the sex discrimination act. We're not so blindly ideological. But, you see, it's a very interesting clash inside the Labor Party. A lot of them would see the commonsense of what we're proposing, but others would say no you must not change a syllable, a comma of the sex discrimination act. Now, if the Labor Party wants to talk about these things but not do anything, well the Australian public will make the judgement. But this is a very big test for the Opposition Leader. He's talked excessively about these things.
SPEERS:
You're not using this as a wedge? A lot of people would...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I mean, apparently whenever we put up something the Labor Party doesn't like, they don't argue it on the merits, they say it's a wedge. This is not a wedge, this is something that's designed to help address a real problem and if the Labor Parth doesn't recognise that there's a huge problem in schools, there is, I mean if you've 14 per cent, you're down to 14 per cent of men as teachers in primary schools in the Catholic system in New South Wales, the largest state in Australia, we have got a problem and we didn't raise this, it was raised by the Catholic Education Commission and it's because the Human Rights Commission said no to this proposition that we've come forward with this amendment. If the Human Rights Commission had taken a different view and granted an exemption, now I'm not saying that its done the wrong things in terms of the law, it interprets the law, I think if the law is blocking this then the law should be changed, I think most Australians would agree with me because it was never meant to be a barrier to helping boys, the sex discrimination act, it was meant to be a way of preventing discrimination principally against women. Now when it is interpreted to mean it's a barrier against helping boys then common sense suggests that we should change it and I'm surprised that Mr Latham won't support us because he is so interested, so he said, in addressing this problem, I mean he's talked about it a lot hasn't he and surprisingly he won't support it.
SPEERS:
Yes he has. You're under pressure from a number of backbenchers to take over control from the States of running the hospitals. Now is that a good idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well David it was raised in the Party Room yesterday, I mean to say I'm under pressure is to mis-state the position. It came up in discussion, some people were in favour of it but a lot of people were against it as well. We don't have any plans in front of us to do that.
SPEERS:
Are you in favour of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
We don't have any plans in front of us to do it.
SPEERS:
What does that mean though?
PRIME MINISTER:
It means what I've just said.
SPEERS:
So if you were to go down this path at some point in the future, you'd have to rearrange the GST...
PRIME MINISTER:
But hang on, we're not going down this path, it has been discussed in our Party Room, there are some people in favour of it, there are some people against it. Our current policy is make sure the states do the right thing in the administration of public hospitals. That's our policy.
SPEERS:
On another area of health, the Government is still negotiating its Medicare package with the independents and with the Democrats, are you considering extending Medicare to cover serious dental work for low income earners?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't want to get into the detail of those discussions, they're still going on and they have been made necessary because the Labor Party refuses to support a safety net for Australian families, particularly for low income families, I don't want to get into the detail except to say that we remain of the view that the sort of national dental plan that the Labor Party advocated a few weeks ago should remain the responsibility of the States.
SPEERS:
But what about covering serious dental work for low income earners? Is that the responsibility...
PRIME MINISTER:
David, I've stated our position on a national dental plan and that is the responsibility of the states and it does relate to low income earners. As to the final detail of this package it's being discussed by Mr Abbott with the Independents and I don't want to influence or affect those discussions, I'll leave it to him, I've every confidence that if an arrangement can be reached which is sensible and affordable then Mr Abbott will reach it.
SPEERS:
Another one of your backbenchers, Alby Schultz this morning said that Peter Costello should rule out challenging you for the leadership. He's got a point doesn't he?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, I don't expect Peter to do that, I've made that clear and I understand it. Alby is acting out of good will towards everybody but my position on that is clear.
SPEERS:
Would you rather backbenchers kept their views to themselves?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look it's a free party, see I don't get as worked up about people expressing views, I mean we are a party of individuals, we're a party that encourages competition, we're a party that encourages people to be ambitious. I never ruled out challenges when I wasn't leader, it would be hypocritical of me to turn around and expect other people to do the same, I really believe in ambition, I believe in competition and I believe in a party of individuals and we're stronger and better as a consequence, I mean we haven't done too badly over a period of eight years and Peter and I have worked together in a very close, professional relationship, he's done an outstanding job as Treasurer and continues to do that and he's perfectly entitled to have ambition beyond that as a natural legitimate thing to have.
SPEERS:
Do you have a problem with him refusing to say that you're the best person to lead the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have any problem with anything he's said or not said in the context of all of this stuff over the past week, none whatsoever.
SPEERS:
Prime Minister, just finally Abu Bakar Bashir has had his sentence reduced, he could be out of jail within weeks, does that concern you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it does and I think the Foreign Minister has had something to say about this and he put it very well on behalf of the Australian Government.
SPEERS:
So are you going to be making any...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that is a question of respecting the fact that there is a judicial process in Indonesia and whilst we may have reservations and give voice to those reservations it doesn't automatically mean that we then make representations, that's something that I will discuss with the Foreign Minister and take his advice on.
SPEERS:
Prime Minister thanks for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]