PRIME MINISTER:
Good afternoon ladies and gentleman, I've called this news conference to announce that today I have appointed a small taskforce to investigate and report to me by not later than the 20th of May on the existence of any physical or regularity bottlenecks in Australia's infrastructure which may impede our future export performance. Australia has enormous export potential, particularly but not only in the area of resources, there is debate about the adequacy of infrastructure and I have decided that the most appropriate thing to do is to appoint a small taskforce to report to me quickly, and I've nominated a reporting date of the 20th of May. The taskforce will be chaired by Dr Brian Fisher, who's the Executive Director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics. It will also include Max Moore Wilton. As well as being the Executive Chairman of the Sydney Airport Corporation and a former Secretary of my Department, he's also a person who's had long experience in infrastructure matters - the Wheat Board, ANL, and various state transport authorities. I can't think of anybody who has had more experience in that area. And the third member of the group will be Professor Henry Ergas of Charles River Associates, who's also had very significant experience in this area. Now these three people will be charged at looking at both physical and regulatory bottlenecks that may impede. It will be limited to physical and regulatory bottlenecks that may impede our exports performance. Their remit will not include a general examination of infrastructure. There has been massive investment in roads, and very considerable investment in rail, at both a federal and a state level. There is a debate about this issue. The evidence is mixed, and I thought the best thing to do was to get three people to understand the area and to report to me within two months. I don't believe that it's the sort of thing that should take 12 or 18 months. There have been too many delays, certainly in the regulatory area. I think the delay that's occurred in relation to Dalrymple Bay through the Queensland competition authority is ridiculous. To have a 20-month period of time to get a decision on something like that is just unacceptable, and if there are some recommendations that this group will make then I'll be very keen to see them. I'm not convinced that there are as many bottlenecks as some people as some people have alleged, but I acknowledge there could well be some, and the possibility of those has been alluded to by a number of people, including the Governor of the Reserve Bank, and I think the most sensible thing to do it to get three people of experience and ability to have a look at it, and that's exactly what I've decided to do, and the group will be supported by a small whole-of-government taskforce, and they'll start work immediately.
JOURNALIST:
Will Dalrymple Bay be the key focus of...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, there won't be any key focus of it. This is not a Dalrymple Bay-specific proposal. I want three people who know the area very well, know it intimately, to have a look at it quickly over the next couple of months and tell me what the problems are. And I stress it's both physical and regulatory bottlenecks that I want them to have a look at, and I stress also that it's limited to those physical and regulatory bottlenecks which may affect our export performance.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, does this signal an intention to get tougher on the states though...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it doesn't. It signals an intention on my part to quickly establish the facts. I seek no argument with anybody on this issue. I just know that we have enormous export potential and it would be a crying shame if bottlenecks of a physical of regulatory kind were stopping the full realisation of that export potential. So, if the recommendation or the analysis of this body stacks up and it involves further cooperation with the states, then I'll be happy to do so.
JOURNALIST:
Could it involve...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg you pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Could it involve further federal financial...
PRIME MINISTER:
Let's see what the recommendations are, Jim. I'm in the mood to get some answers and then some solutions.
JOURNALIST:
Migration though, will this look at...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that is not outside its remit, but we are separately looking at the issue of skilled migration.
JOURNALIST:
When you say 'regulatory', is that as broad as to include labour market structures.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, although we don't need much convincing on that subject.
JOURNALIST:
What do you mean by 'physical'?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the lack of facilities.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) won't look at the levels of spending that have occurred.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I didn't say that.
JOURNALIST:
Oh. Thought you...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no. No, I didn't say that. I said its remit would not extend to general infrastructure like roads and rail, except to the extent that they had a direct import - impact, rather - on our export performance. I don't want a situation where they're reporting on the speed with which the Pacific Highway or the Calder Highway, or something, is being upgraded. That is not the remit. This is really essentially to look at any choke points of a regulatory or a physical kind that directly affect our exports.
JOURNALIST:
If it does take some more roads, some more rail track...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's not outside their....
JOURNALIST:
...to be built?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's not outside their... I'm not going to start forecasting what might be our response to something that I have not yet received, but, Jim, as a general proposition, anything that directly impacts on or impedes our export performance, then obviously that includes a feeder rail or road infrastructure to ports, for example. I mean, that's obviously as an example. That sort of thing would not be precluded, but a highway or a rail track or rail or infrastructure that had no relationship with a port would obviously be excluded.
JOURNALIST:
Given the relatively quick timing of getting this report back by late March. Do we see that in a budget context. Could there be....
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. You shouldn't see it in a budget context. The reporting date I've given is the 18th of May. I just believe that there are enough people in this country with enough expertise and there's enough knowledge around that if you really want to get to the bottom of something you can do it fairly quickly. If you wait for COAG and have a protracted exchange with the states about terms of reference for an inquiry - that takes 6 months - and, you know, I just don't think we should spend that sort of time. I think we ought to try and get an answer because my instinct is that this can be established fairly quickly if you choose the right people.
JOURNALIST:
I think you said before that the Dalrymple Bay situation was ridiculous, I think was the word you used, do you have any idea how it could take 20 months to get...
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't, but I'm not responsible, I think that length of time is ridiculous.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how much did the comments and concerns of the Reserve Bank Governor about this issue weigh in your decision to set this group up?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a factor Jim, I respect the Reserve Bank Governor, I've said before I think he's done an excellent job in the time he's been in that position. But he's not the only reason, there's a lot of talk about infrastructure and some of it has arisen fairly recently. My instinct again is that there may be some issues that should be identified if we have the right people. I have also the feeling that there's been a bit of an exaggeration and I'd like to get to the bottom of it.
JOURNALIST:
Would you concede that the kind of things the taskforce would look at would be primarily state responsibilities.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to go any further at the moment Patrick, I mean I don't want to colour the announcement. I don't want this announcement to be framed in the context of an attack on the states, it is not. It is a genuine searching for fairly quickly available advice on what the situation is. As I say I have no desire to fight with the states on things that are irrelevant to our future and I have no enduring argument with the states, I'm very happy to co-operate where they're willing to do so and as I say I don't want this announcement to be framed in the context of argumentation between the Commonwealth and the States, it has nothing whatever to do with that, it's all about finding the facts and finding the facts specifically in relation to our export potential because we have enormous export potential and as I say it would be an absolute crying shame if inadequacies, physically or regulatory in our infrastructure prevented the full realisation of it.
JOURNALIST:
... you thought there might be an exaggeration of...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there might be, it's like so many issues were instinctively you think well that might be right but then somebody is putting it on with a trowel.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) other explanations as to why export performance has been fairly poor for a number of years?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are a number of explanations, one of them is the strength of our dollar in recent times. Some argue that the strength of the domestic economy has meant that there are fewer exports of elaborately transformed manufacturers, there is a timing issue in relation to the point at which a huge investment in the resource sector translates into actual exports going out of the country. So they're some of the explanations.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you still believe that Senator Lightfoot is an honourable man and do you stand by the statement that you tabled in the Parliament yesterday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the statement I tabled in the Parliament yesterday was Senator Lightfoot's statement and I stand by the belief I expressed that it was a credible response.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Do you think it's a credible response in the light of more recent reports?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) contradictory public statements from the Senator, why won't you take steps to establish for the public what really happened and who gave what to whom?
PRIME MINISTER:
You have a conflict, you have different versions, the versions given by journalists and as I say I'm not casting any aspersions on journalists, I'm just trying to deal sensibly with an issue. There have been versions given by the journalists which are reports of what a third party said to them, and then you have that very same third party producing a signed statement and directly affirming that the contents of that statement are correct to me and to Senator Hill, I've tabled that statement, and as I say it's a credible response and in the absence of new evidence of substance I certainly don't intend to order an independent inquiry.
JOURNALIST:
Are you concerned about Senator Lightfoot's failure to declare the privately sponsored...
PRIME MINISTER:
I think everybody should do that, I think that's a matter for the Senate privileges committee. I don't think it's the first time that's happened, that doesn't excuse it but I certainly to my knowledge, it's certainly not the first time that somebody has been tarty in disclosing a sponsored piece of travel, he should have done so certainly, but that is a matter for the processes of the Senate, it is not something that I have dominion and domain over.
JOURNALIST:
Do you believe it's reasonable Prime Minister for the Senator to be carrying weapons overseas?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well according to his statement, he was given a weapon by his security detail in Iraq and whilst I have a very strong view about the use of weapons that everybody in politics would be aware of, I made the point in parliament yesterday that the circumstances of Iraq are such that that is not an entirely unreasonable thing to have occurred. I think that is the best way to put it.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the episode has embarrassed your government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look I'll leave judgements like that to be made by others.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) made a statement to parliament (inaudible) Senator Hill, I mean he was there (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for him, I mean look you have to bear in mind that he is a private member of parliament, he is not a member of the ministry, he is not on the front bench, he has signed a statement and I have tabled that statement. Now that carries with it the same force and implication as far as I am concerned, I can tell you, of a statement directly made by him. If one of my colleagues signs a statement, gives it to me and I table it, but that means, that has to mean something.
JOURNALIST:
What about the other statements that he's made on radio yesterday and yesterday afternoon which directly contradicted elements of the signed statement?
PRIME MINISTER:
I listened to those on AM this morning and whilst there were some differences I agree, I think on the major issue of substance and that is the allegation of smuggling, there wasn't.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) claims that he signed a memorandum of understanding on behalf of Woodside?
PRIME MINISTER:
On behalf, as I having heard once again, the interview, on behalf of the foundation and I do think that it is fair to make a point that often foundations at universities carry the name of the donor or the sponsor but that doesn't mean that the donor or the sponsor controls the foundation. I mean put...
JOURNALIST:
The foundation wasn't seeking to drill for oil, Woodside was seeking to drill for oil through that memorandum of understanding.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but I have not investigated that. I mean there is nothing per say wrong with Woodside having an interest in oil development.
JOURNALIST:
What about a private politician travelling on a taxpayer-funded trip?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well according to Woodside, Senator Lightfoot has no association with them.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he talked about his association with the foundation.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) or there is another explanation which is that Senator Lightfoot has been big noting himself...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not accusing people of lying, I mean you've chosen to use that word, I am not using that word, I am simply dealing in a realistic, sensible, pragmatic way, with a situation where you have story in a newspaper which is based on a record/ recall of conversations involving somebody who has subsequently in detail produced a statement refuting those allegations, has signed that statement and that statement has been tabled in Parliament. Now I have said that if evidence of substance were to emerge that casts new light on the matter then I would obviously consider some further course of action, but I don't believe that's happened. I don't believe that's happened and unless and until it does I don't intend to order an independent inquiry.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) statement this morning, that's new evidence, a completely new witness to Senator Lightfoot's claims.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I understand that Senator Lightfoot has put out a statement refuting that, now I don't think, with respect, what Rothwell has said is essentially of the same genre as what has been reported by the other journalists and I have read the reports and he is in effect repeating the same, although it obviously refers to different conversations, but the substance of the allegation is the same.
JOURNALIST:
Why does it not go to the credibility of the Senator - if what he said in a signed statement is at odds with what he has said on the public record with his own mouth in other circumstances, particularly for example with the gun.
PRIME MINISTER:
Jim, what I said was that the statement I tabled yesterday I believe was a credible response to the allegations. The serious allegation is that of smuggling and there are different versions of that and I can only repeat and I also understand and I haven't seen any footage of it, I had my attention drawn to an excerpt from a news programme this morning that the gentleman who Senator Lightfoot claims carried the money has asserted that Senator Lightfoot knew nothing of it.
JOURNALIST:
But why should we believe what he says about the money when he's told three different versions about other, at least three different versions about what he said about the gun?
PRIME MINISTER:
Jim, I would agree having listened to the interviews that there were some differences of emphasis but the substance, the issue, the real issue and that is the smuggling, he just denies that and that is at variance with what the journalists have said. I wasn't there, you weren't there and I can only in those circumstances in the absence of some other evidence and it seems to me that the only evidence that's emerged this morning is from Halmet. That's the only new evidence I mean he is the person after all, I mean I don't know, I mean I wasn't there, neither were you but the only new evidence that's come in the last few hours is from the person who carried the money according to Senator Lightfoot and he has backed Senator Lightfoot's version. Now so far from there being new evidence that's undermined the credibility of the Lightfoot statement, the new evidence that I have heard of this morning and as I say I don't know the strength or otherwise of it, I am reacting as we all are to reports, is supportive of what Lightfoot has said.
JOURNALIST:
On the bottlenecks infrastructure, you said there were mixed messages so you want to have a quick inquiry to find out what the facts are.
PRIME MINISTER:
That there are different views.
JOURNALIST:
On the Senator Lightfoot matter, there are lots of different views, why won't you have a quick inquiry for the truth?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are different issues, good question. Bold attempt by the Sunday Age, yes bold attempt but a very different situation. It's not a question of mixed messages, you have an allegation by some people based upon a recorded discussion and you have the person against whom the allegation is made categorically denying that.
JOURNALIST:
Is it appropriate for MP's to be active traders in the share market and doest that expose them to conflicts of interest?
PRIME MINISTER:
I know of nothing which says that a private member of parliament should not freely trade share and can I say I don't believe there should be restrictions placed on members of parliament trading shares, I mean if we keep going down this path of limiting and limiting what Members of Parliament can do including elements of their remuneration, you'll end up with a parliament which is so far removed from the vitality and the activity of a modern country as to make it increasingly unrepresentative. I don't object to Members of Parliament buying and selling shares, citizens can do that, I think it is different if you are a Minister because you control a portfolio and there can clearly be conflicts of interests, I think as far as ordinary members of parliament are concerned I don't hold that view and I think if you care to go back over the years you will find that there have people who have engaged in share buying and selling. It is no different in my view from private Member of Parliament having the right to invest in property or the like.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) in their party rooms and on committees and elsewhere, influence policy decisions.
PRIME MINISTER:
They can express a view, that's true. Well Mark, I don't agree with, you've asked me what my view is, I'm telling you forthrightly what my view is. I think it will be ridiculous if we get to a stage where we say that a private member of Parliament can't buy and sell shares. I mean that's my view, you can say it's wrong, some people will, perhaps the majority of you will, I don't hold that view.
JOURNALIST:
... up to date register though on...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Should they keep an up to date register though on their share trading?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I don't know the every last detail. I mean there are requirements, you've got to disclose certain interests and I expect every Member of Parliament to comply with the requirements of disclosure. But they are, I mean there are two separate requirements, there are requirements imposed by the House in which you sit, and that applies to all of us, I mean I'm bound as a Member of the House of Representatives by the rules of the House of Reps. And then there are separate and additional requirements if you are a member of the Ministry. Now my view very strongly is that we shouldn't further restrict the right of private Senators or Members to own shares or to trade in them, obviously if you've got a right to own share you've got a right to sell them.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) wandering around the oil fields of Northern Iraq trying to do deals for Australian companies, doesn't (inaudible) national interest?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you're asking me to accept a number of propositions before giving an answer to your question, and I don't intend to do that.
JOURNALIST:
... Prime Minister about his conversation with the News Limited journalist yesterday?
PRIME MINISTER:
He in general terms denied it.
JOURNALIST:
Have you spoken to him?
PRIME MINISTER:
He denied the substance of the discussions as reported in their, sort of, controversial aspects. He didn't deny having talked to people.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister (inaudible) this morning as corroboration rather than repetition?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the thrust of it was the same and it's been explicitly denied and in addition to that the person who Lightfoot claims carried the money has said directly, I mean he was there, I mean I wasn't there, you weren't there, your colleagues weren't there, Lightfoot and Halmet were and as I understand it, as of now, I say as of now Lightfoot and Halmet's versions coincide, but I don't push it any further than that because I don't know anything more. Now can I have one more question because I do have to go to lunch. Mr Coorey hasn't had a go.
JOURNALIST:
... Prime Minister, do you think it's a good use of public money to spend $7 billion building a fibre optic network in regional areas?
PRIME MINISTER:
Jason, all of the contributions to this debate will be properly considered and in the end I believe the Government will do the right thing by the Australian public, by the shareholders of Telstra. And the sale of Telstra will not proceed unless I and the senior members of my Government are satisfied that services in the bush are up to scratch.
Thank you.
[ends]