PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and Gentlemen I've called this short news conference to release the report on Export Infrastructure prepared at my request by Brian Fisher of ABARE, Max Moore-Wilton and Dr Henry Ergas.
This report was commissioned to identify any bottlenecks of a physical or regulatory kind in the operation of Australia's infrastructure that might impede the full realisation of our export opportunities. It concluded, importantly, that there were no major infrastructure crises, and that while some of our infrastructure faces immediate capacity constraints, actions in train should help resolve these.
It did, however, conclude that there are some underlying weaknesses of a regulatory kind in the way in which our infrastructure operates; with too many regulators, too much inconsistency and too much uncertainty, and has set out a set of guidelines as to how future regulatory impasses should be resolved. Essentially what the report proposes is a situation where if a state regulator has not resolved a difference affecting a facility and therefore affecting our exports within a period of six months, then the relevant Federal Minister can declare that export facility and then the Australian competition body, the ACCC, has then a period of six months in order to make the relevant decision.
It's the view of the committee, and I certainly support it, that in the first instance differences should be resolved by commercial negotiations. That is the preferred path, but if that doesn't work than the procedure laid down should be followed. It's also been recommended that the Productivity Commission do an audit of the efficiency of our regulatory system affecting our export facilities and the report makes some other recommendations including a one-stop shop approach for project facilitation, the extension of Auslink to cover ports of national significance, improved harmonisation of transport regulations and as I say, an infrastructure audit to be conducted by the Productivity Commission.
And I want to thank the three gentlemen who carried out this investigation and reported so quickly and comprehensively in such a short period of time. I suspect the conclusions of the report are on the money and I'd felt myself that it's more the regularity system rather than the physical aspects of our infrastructure that need some reform and it's got to be borne in mind that large slabs of Australia's export infrastructure is in fact in private sector hands and it's important because of that we always have an eye to market solutions.
I think all of us were rather disturbed that it took 20 months for the Queensland Competition Authority to reach a decision on Dalrymple Bay and therefore the proposals in the report for a more timely system of decision by regulators is to be welcomed. I think of the analogy of the Foreign Investment Review Board; one of the reasons that that body operates very quickly and very effectively is that there are strict time limits. You put in an application, and Foreign Investment Review Board is obliged by statute to respond in what, 45 days or 30 days depending on the nature of the application. I think people who invest large amounts of money in port facilities or large amounts of money in export industries are entitled to have speedy responses.
Now I'll be discussing this report with the Premiers on Friday. I think this is something where we could reach a cooperative understanding. We have no particular desire to take everything over, that's not what we're on about. What we're on about is having cooperative arrangement and I noticed this morning that the New South Wales Premier was talking about cooperation and amity and harmony and love and peace - well I am more than happy to go half-way on that issue and this is a good opportunity - we can work something out without anybody ceding authority, we can resolve together to make the regulatory system work better and more efficiently to the greater benefit of the nation, and I'm sure that's what all of the Premiers will want to do and I look forward to discussing this, and indeed other matters with them.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard only last week your Deputy flagged the possibility of a single national regulator for the ports. Does this report kill John Anderson's idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it doesn't, there's not a great deal of difference between what he was talking about and if this report were implemented you'd have a single regulatory system. And I think what... what we'd all like to see is a consistent, single regulatory stream.
JOURNALIST:
Why put price controls on ports at all? The Government has no price controls on airports, which are also...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're not putting price controls, no, no. As I understand it, what happens at the moment... you take Dalrymple Bay-the operator of the port wanted to charge a certain amount and because presumably the view had been taken by the people who in Queensland, who regulate these things, that there was a monopoly type situation. Therefore you needed somebody to judge whether it was a fair price. I mean my preference would be to have as little regulation as possible, but the other thing you've got to try and do is convert the present system, which doesn't work as well as it should, into one that works a lot better.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard airports are also monopolies. The Commonwealth's made a decision not to have pricing decisions, the ACCC has a price monitoring role in relation to the airports and the prices that airports charge are a matter for commercial negotiation between themselves and the airlines. Why not apply a similar system to ports?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in relation to the ports, the decision of the Competition Authority... it's a default position and clearly if the exporter and the port operator agreed on the price, there'd be no difficulty.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, does this report, as it were, undermine the view of the Reserve Bank and maybe the OECD on capacity constraints holding back Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is the view, I don't want to pass judgement on what may have been said by the Reserve Bank or the OECD, but I chose three people who have a very pragmatic understanding, not only of how the market works but also of physical and regulatory infrastructure. I deliberately chose these three people because of their expertise and I think their view of life is very accurate because of their experience and what they have concluded is very much in line with what people in the resource industry have told me. I have not had an army of people coming to me from the resource sector saying that the problem is that we need billions of billions of dollars more invested in ports. In fact I have had two of the most, in my view, most respected people in the resource sector say to me, the problem is really the issue of what we were talking about a moment ago, of a proper return on the investment in the port facilities and I think the method that we've... or the approach that the committee has recommended, and if you read the report you will see they put a great deal of stress on commercial negotiation as the desirable way of handling things. And I mean, I think in Dalrymple Bay, basically there should have been an agreement for a higher-charging right at the outset because you are not going to get the private sector to re-invest in port expansion unless they get a decent return. I think that is more the problem than the suggestion being made by many people that you needed billions of dollars of more government investment. Now I am not saying there isn't a major role for the government in infrastructure but I think this report is a bit of a reality check on some of the generalisations that have been thrown around about the infrastructure, the alleged infrastructure crisis. I mean we are very good in this country in a short period of time of generating crises and we are never really happy unless we have a crisis somewhere and I don't think we have quite the crisis in infrastructure that some people, for a combination of reasons, would like us to believe that we really do.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the coal miners could have given a little more in terms of price in the early negotiations at Dalrymple Bay?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I am saying is that the negotiations of this kind have got to reflect the need for a decent return on a facility - that is what I am saying.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just ask you about the air warfare destroyer?
PRIME MINISTER:
You certainly can.
JOURNALIST:
There seems to be a bit of grumbling from Victoria that South Australia was unduly favoured in some way. What are your comments on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I, South Australia, look we awarded the contract to the company which was the beneficiary of a unanimous recommendation. At every point the recommendation was AWC, ASC rather, sorry ASC at every point. Now you know I find this interstate rivalry a bit much. You know we took a decision in the national interest we didn't, I have no desire to penalise Australians living in Victoria or advantage Australians living in South Australia unduly. I am not in that business and you know I really think that this is a bit much. We took a fair dinkum honest decision based on the professional advice. If we had taken a decision in the face of such a unanimous consistent recommendation, if we had taken another decision, people would have said what, what is the justification for that? We had a probity adviser, a former Chief Justice, not of the Supreme Court of South Australia but a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in NSW and we had other people. We had an assessment board chaired by David Mortimer, a former Chief Executive of TNT and a very respected businessman and somebody whose reputation is above reproach, the whole process was totally transparent and this nonsense that just because some of my colleagues come from South Australia, Adelaide was favoured, that is ridiculous. ASC won it according to the experts on merit, and I have a great regard for Tenix as a company. I know the people who run Tenix very well but we took a proper decision and the suggestion that we've in some way done Victoria in the eye and there's some kind of partisanship between... favouring South Australia against Victoria, I mean that is a nonsense. Can I tell you, national government does not operate that way. I am supremely disinterested in state rivalries and I just think all of that is nonsense.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you talked about meeting the Premiers half way but how prepared are you to meet Petro Georgiou half way or more than half way on his concerns about detention centres?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I think don't think I'll get into any sort of comparative language on that subject except to refer you to what I said on Lateline last night.
JOURNALIST:
Well how far are you prepared to go in changing the system?
PRIME MINISTER:
Just have a look at what I said on Lateline last night.
JOURNALIST:
Well Prime Minister, (inaudible) moves in the House for a suspension so those can bills can be debated....
PRIME MINISTER:
Which bill?
JOURNALIST:
Petro Georgiou's bills. What's your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Has it been introduced?
JOURNALIST:
Well there's a division called by your Government to gag a speaker.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but I didn't even know the bill had been introduced.
JOURNALIST:
They're calling for a suspension of standing orders...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh really. You know, a stunt.
JOURNALIST:
... my South Australian colleague...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh dear me, dear me. It's 104 years since Federation.
JOURNALIST:
What does better value for money mean? Does that mean that the ASC bid just was cheaper and that was it or...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's a whole range of reasons that Senator Hill dealt with. It's... price is one thing, capacity to deliver, the nature of the arrangements for the construction, there's a whole range of things. But look, I understand in these things there is competition and there's natural disappointment, but I just want to put down emphatically this idea that there was some kind of politician favouritism. I mean why would I want to favour one state over another? I mean I am interested in the confidence and support of Australians wherever they live and the idea that you win favour as a Prime Minister in playing favourites amongst the states has never been valid and it's wrong and I have never been guilty of it.
JOURNALIST:
At Friday's COAG will you be offering the states new incentives to speed up some of the reforms, particularly in areas like infrastructure? And is there scope for any reforms in the health area, which is what the states have been seeking?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there's always scope for some change and reform in the area of health. But against the background that our fundamental current responsibilities remain, I think are some areas... and one of the things I would like to have in that steer is the beginning of a dialogue between the commonwealth and states, and bear in mind that there was a Premiers' Conference at some point in the not too distant past where I wanted to discuss some of these issues and a few of the people around the table suddenly left. Now I'm sure that won't be repeated on this occasion.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on the SAS, do you think the allegation that a soldier has taken souvenirs in Afghanistan has tainted the SAS's reputation?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't. I think the SAS is a fantastic unit of the Australian Defence Forces and whilst I don't wish to canvass further what General Cosgrove and Senator Hill have said in relation to this issue, they have dealt with the specific merits of it. But can I just make the general statement that we expect these incredibly well trained and able men to undertake life- endangering missions in our name and on our behalf and as Neil James said this morning inevitably when you get into a dangerous situations people have to take action to defend themselves and nothing that I have heard about this alters the fundamental fact that they took proper action consistent with the laws of war to defend themselves in anticipation of physical danger or death. Now every Australian would defend totally their right to do that. As for other incidents, well they've been dealt with by General Cosgrove and he's indicated a willingness to look at aspects of that again. But speaking overall, on behalf of the Government, I retain great confidence in, and admiration for, the men of the SAS.
JOURNALIST:
The officer who spoke to Time magazine suggested the Department had covered this up and he was concerned about it. What's your response?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's always talk about cover-ups. You've asked me a view about the SAS and I've given it to you and it's unequivocal.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't have any comment on them, I'll leave that to the Treasurer.
JOURNALIST:
Will you release the Podger report?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll think about that.
JOURNALIST:
Well, is that a...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll think about that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, when you said last night that the basic policy of mandatory detention won't be changed, does that mean that it's non-negotiable, that asylum seekers will remain in detention?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it means what it means and was stated to me and in the context of everything else I said last night.
JOURNALIST:
Will you start your talks with Mr Georgiou with week?
PRIME MINISTER:
Michelle, I think we've had enough.
Thank you.
[ends]