PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Vanstone and I have called this news conference to announce the results of Cabinet';s examination of the report into ATSIC and related matters which we commissioned last year, conducted by the former Senator Bob Collins, Jackie Huggins and the former New South Wales Attorney General John Hannaford. As a result of examination of that report and also a very extensive examination of indigenous affairs policy, we can announce that when Parliament resumes in May, we will introduce legislation to abolish ATSIC. ATSIC itself will be abolished with immediate effect from the passage of the legislation. The regional councils will be abolished by the 30th of June 2005.
Our goals in relation to indigenous affairs are to improve the outcomes and opportunities and hopes of indigenous people in areas of health, education and employment. We believe very strongly that the experiment in separate representation, elected representation, for indigenous people has been a failure. We will not replace ATSIC with an alternative body. We will appoint a group of distinguished indigenous people to advise the Government on a purely advisory basis in relation to aboriginal affairs. Programmes will be mainstreamed, but arrangements will be established to ensure that there is a major policy role for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. This will not result in less money for indigenous affairs. It will in fact result in more resources being focused on challenging areas of indigenous need.
We will raise the whole issue of service delivery and coordination at a grassroots level at the next COAG meeting. The COAG trials in this area have been encouraging and have taught us a number of lessons, and I look forward to close cooperation with the states. This is an area where surely we can put aside political differences. The regional councils will have a role in the interim as we establish different mechanisms at a local level through consultation with communities and with local government and with state governments. But as part of the announcement and as part of the legislation, they will disappear by the 30th of June 2005. That of course does not in any way preclude processes whereby indigenous people themselves will in different areas, according to their own priorities, elect bodies and people to represent them, and the Government will in the course of consulting different sections of the community, be very keen to consult any bodies that may emerge from that process.
We have had reservations, and I';ve expressed them on a number of occasions on behalf of the Government, about the operation of ATSIC. We wanted however to allow the Collins, Hannaford, Huggins'; examination to go forward and to give ourselves appropriate and adequate time to examine it. But as a result of it, we';ve come to a very firm conclusion that ATSIC should be abolished and that it should not be replaced, and that programmes should be mainstreamed and that we should renew our commitment to the challenges of improving outcomes for indigenous people in so many of those key areas.
JOURNALIST:
Why do you think ATSIC failed?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there are a combination of reasons for that. I don';t think there is a lot of purpose in going into it. I do believe that it has become too preoccupied with what might loosely be called symbolic issues and too little concern with delivering real outcomes for indigenous people. That is not to say there is not room for debate on symbolic issues. They are important. Different people have different views on them, and I respect those differences. But we are all surely agreed that our greatest obligation is to give indigenous people a greater opportunity to share in the wealth and success and the bounty of this country, and plainly the arrangements that have existed in the past do not deliver that.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) mainstreaming programmes.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, for example, a la health. Health has gone to the Health Department. It follows from that that something like the CDE programme would go to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. There are a whole list of functions, and what I will do after having made this announcement and instructions having been given for the preparation of the legislation, Senator Vanstone and I and others will sit down and go through all the details. But it';s important that we put in place, which we will, an arrangement whereby there is effective coordination between Ministers. There will be a ministerial task group which will be chaired by Senator Vanstone, which will bring together all of the Ministers that have an interest. There will be arrangements designed so that the policy leadership role of the Minister in this area can be fully developed and fully adhered to and respected, and there will be arrangements to ensure that the resources which are, as a result of this decision, transferred to line departments, that those resources are quarantined for future funding of indigenous programmes. We';re not going to have a situation where money is transferred say into the Department of Workplace Relations and it just goes into the general pool and is dissipated on general programmes. They will continue to be quarantined. And you will see when the Budget comes out that there will be no diminution of resources for indigenous affairs.
JOURNALIST:
Does this mean you';ll have a separate Minister for Aboriginal Affairs?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes.
JOURNALIST:
And when will this take effect from? You';ve mentioned the regional councils 2005.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well ATSIC';s abolition will take effect as soon as the legislation has been passed. From an administrative point of view, we will be taking all action we can to anticipate that change.
JOURNALIST:
Do you see a role for Geoff Clark in this new advisory body and how will you…?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not going to talk about…
JOURNALIST:
… on it.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m sorry. I interrupted you. I am sorry.
JOURNALIST:
Do you see a role for Geoff Clark in advising the Government in any capacity and how will you decide who will be on this advisory board?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Government will decide. Obviously the Minister will play the major role and we';ll talk about it and we';ll decide who';s on the body. So far as Mr Clark is concerned, I';m not going to say anything about Mr Clark given that there are certain legal matters under way.
JOURNALIST:
Presumably the move to dismiss him doesn';t matter now because you';re sacking them all.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I am not going to say anything about Mr Clark.
JOURNALIST:
Can I ask you a question about Telstra - Bob Mansfield announced his resignation late last night. There are now question marks over Dr Switkowski in his position. Do you think that Dr Switkowski should fight on, continue in the job?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Dr Switkowski is a very good chief executive. He continues to have my support. But he';s appointed by the board, he';s not appointed by the Government and I don';t want to get into the detail of it, but I';ve always been impressed by him and I found him a very good man. Can I say that I thank Mr Mansfield for the contribution he';s made as chairman. I wish him well in his future career. He';s worked very hard. He';s a very dedicated decent person and I certainly thank him most warmly for what he';s done.
JOURNALIST:
Were you surprised by his resignation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Nothing in this world surprises me. I';m, you know, used to most things and let me say this that, the fact that I have now had three questions on Telstra, you know what it underlines? The continuing absurdity of the Government owning just over 50 per cent. I mean, this is the largest corporation in Australia and it should be managed and dealt with and viewed like any other major corporation. But whilever the Government remains not only the major shareholder, but the majority shareholder, you will have this neither fish nor fowl situation, which is not in the long term interest of the shareholders and not in the long term interest of delivery of communication facilities for this country.
JOURNALIST:
… election of a new Chairman?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
What role will the Government have in finding a new chairman?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, an appropriate role.
JOURNALIST:
What does that mean?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will have an appropriate role.
JOURNALIST:
And what will the timetable be as a majority shareholder, what do you think the timetable…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there are processes that the board has to undertake. I understand that a search company has been nominated. But that';s a matter you should ask the acting chairman. Mr Ralph is one of the most respected businessmen in the country and he enjoys the very full and strong confidence of the Government.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you believe it';s in the best interests of the ongoing stability of Telstra, of which the Government is majority shareholder, that a chairman from outside the board is appointed given the factionalism on the board at present, which Mr Mansfield referred to last night in his parting statement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Mr Lewis, I believe that appropriate processes should be followed in relation to an appointment of a new chairman.
JOURNALIST:
Should it be an Australian do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Could it be?
JOURNALIST:
Should it be?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would be surprised if it weren';t, but I don';t know you that you can sort of rule that out. I mean, rule it out not being it… I think in all probability it will be, in fact I';d be very surprised if it weren';t. But I don';t think there';s a legal barrier to it being somebody else. I certainly haven';t heard of the name of any foreign citizen swirling around on this subject.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) focus on telecommunications delivery rather than making forays into the media?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m not going to comment on matters like that. They';re policy issues for the company. You see, this is your… you';re just making my case. I mean, this is ridiculous. That';s question number six. This is ridiculous. What I';m saying Michelle is that I should not be…
JOURNALIST:
But you are.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I may be, but I wish I weren';t.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, question number seven.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, question number seven?
JOURNALIST:
Are former communication ministers forbidden from putting up their hands for the chairmanship?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven';t seen any upraised hands.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you say that this whole issue reinforces the Government';s stance on Telstra. Where do you go now with the legislation? It';s been knocked back by the Senate twice in the last nine months.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we will continue to argue and we';ll continue to argue and one way or another I hope in the end, obviously, always according to law and good principle, I hope the legislation is passed. But I mean, what is happening is doing long-term damage to the company and it is not in the best interests of shareholders.
JOURNALIST:
When did Mr Mansfield telly you, or did he tell you that he was going to resign? And if so, when?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have had a lot of discussion with a lot of people over a lot of things over recent times and I am not going into… I am not getting into the detail of that. Now, come on, can you ask me… can you make question number ten a sensible one?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you believe…
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Do you believe that Australia';s courts have gone too far when they allow a 13-year-old girl to have a sex change? And is that something that the Federal Parliament needs to have a look at?
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s a very difficult and, from a personal point of view, a very traumatic and sad situation. It';s something that I have been reflecting on. In one sense, I';m tempted to say yes to your question; have the courts gone too far. On the other hand, the person involved in a ward of the state and as to the jurisdictional role of the family court, I';m seeking some further advice in relation to that. I don';t mean by that that I';m being critical of what the court has done. But I guess I share the reaction of a lot of Australians that is the sort of thing that a court should be doing? That is my reaction. I';m not saying it';s going to be the only view I have. It';s a hard one this. Very very difficult because there is a great deal of psychological sadness and unhappiness and I understand that and it';s a very unusual situation. But my initial reaction as a person, as an individual is, is this the sort of thing that a court should be doing?
JOURNALIST:
Could the Federal Government intervene in the court…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I haven';t got to the stage of considering that. I was asked, Samantha asked me a question and I just gave a spontaneous personal response to it. Does that translate into us doing anything? Not necessarily. I haven';t concluded my consideration of it. But that is my reaction as a human being and as an individual.
JOURNALIST:
Just back on ATSIC Prime Minister, what assurances can you give indigenous Australians that the new structures you put in place will be democratic or as democratic as the existing structure in which they do get a direct vote in their elected representatives. It doesn';t appear based on the information we';ve had that they';ll scope, I';m talking about rank and file, if you like, will have scope to elect any of these new bodies.
VANSTONE:
Well, if you have a look at the report the Prime Minister referred to you';ll see a conclusion drawn that many people on the ground in indigenous communities felt an absolute disconnect between themselves and ATSIC. ATSIC was not serving them well, that';s the whole point, indigenous Australians haven';t been getting value for the money we';ve been spending and the whole purpose and priority of this Government in terms of indigenous affairs is to deliver better services on the ground. Now that';s more important to me and to members of the Government than arguing about who represents who and bureaucratic indigenous structures or bureaucratic government structures. We';ll be judged on whether we deliver better outcomes to indigenous Australians, whether they get better value.
JOURNALIST:
… more resources will be channelled into indigenous affairs?
MINISTER VANSTONE:
Well less resources are clearly going to be wasted and we';re not looking at any savings, so it follows that more resources will get through to the ground.
JOURNALIST:
Does that mean that all of the administration funds for ATSIC will be channelled into services?
MINISTER VANSTONE:
The money over, all the services will be transferred over.
JOURNALIST:
What about the administration funds of ATSIC? Will they be redirected into services?
MINISTER VANSTONE:
Well when you transfer services, some in the administration funds attached to those services have to go, I mean that';s…
PRIME MINISTER:
It still has to be delivered.
MINISTER VANSTONE:
It';s like the person, the staff follow the…function.
JOURNALIST:
You said there were no budgetary savings in the decision.
MINISTER VANSTONE:
We';re not looking for savings.
JOURNALIST:
… Aboriginal legal service and Commonwealth funding for Aboriginal legal services around Australia, mainstreaming programmes?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s in the, as I understand there are some legal services that are administered through Ruddock';s department.
MINISTER VANSTONE:
There are some and there';s some done through ATSIS which are about to be, were about to be tendered out rather than given to individual bureaucratic organisations on the basis that they were indigenous, but rather given out on the basis of who could deliver better services. Now the task of that will then be transferred to the Attorney General';s department.
JOURNALIST:
How is this news going to be taken by the Aboriginal people given that ATSIC won';t be replaced by something equivalent?
MINISTER VANSTONE:
Well I think it';ll actually be taken very well because if you mean individual indigenous people on the ground because they';re the ones who feel that they haven';t been getting value for money. Now as to the indigenous politics of it, that';s another issue, people talking about who';s going to get a job, who';s going to have the opportunity to say this or that, that';s another issue, put indigenous politics aside. What I';m concerned about, what the Government';s concerned about, is delivering better services to indigenous Australians, giving them a better chance to share in our prosperity which the current arrangements simply have not done.
PRIME MINISTER:
One more question.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on Lieutenant Colonel Lance Collins, Colonel Stacey who, Colonel Tracey I beg your pardon, who did the review of the report, he does seem to have done a fair bit of work for the Government, sometimes in the courts representing the Government against soldiers who have had a grievance with the Defence Department. Simply, is he appropriately independent to have done the job that he did? And secondly, why wasn';t this issue dealt with when it had been raised with Minister Moore, Minister Reith and Minister Hill on the way in various ways, shapes and forms, why wasn';t it dealt with until it got to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I take those questions in reverse. It has taken a long time, but it';s been going through the independent military justice system and I';m as disappointed as Senator Hill that the thing has taken so long. I don';t know of the work that Mr Tracey has done for the Government, but the fact that he';s done work for the Government is not a disqualification any more than the fact that Mr Toohey worked for Mr Keating in some way affects his independence. I respect both of them as people of integrity who will give honest legal opinions and just as there are different views in the intelligence community, you may have noticed lawyers sometimes disagree with each other. There';s nothing particularly sinister about Mr Tracey. He is, as I understand it, the senior legal consultant for the ADF, or for the Army, he';s a Queen';s Counsel. A number of people I know have spoken warmly of him as a counsel, but I';m not denigrating the other bloke either, I think they';re both fine fellows and I don';t think we should start getting into conspiracy theories about favouritism or so forth. I think they';re both appropriate in the roles that they have discharged. Then I, having said that, I think better go back to the Cabinet Meeting.
Thank you.
[ends]