Subjects: Networking the Nation; sale of Telstra; Minister Fahey; GST ads; depression, counselling for politicians; reconciliation, treaty.
E&OE ……………………………………………………………………………
Well thank you very much Richard and John.
Ladies and gentlemen I would emphasise of course that the announcement I am about to make of an additional funding of $65.5 million for over 100 projects, indeed 104 new projects and six variations in funding for previously approved projects, that all of this money is as a direct result of the Government’s partial sale of Telstra. All of these funds are available despite the tenacious opposition of the Australian Labor Party and every Australian living in the rural and remote areas of the country who will benefit from these initiatives should remember as they enjoy the benefits of these initiatives that if the Labor Party’s will had obtained, that those benefits would not have arrived, and indeed might have been taken away.
But there will be an additional $65.5 million available for 104 new projects. These include, and the information would be available in the kit being provided, the funding of $20.3 million for a multi-state project called Farm Wide Regional Access Network Internet Access for all. And that will provide untimed, internet access at the cost of a local call where that is currently not available. Now this is a very important extension for that very large number of Australians who don’t live in the metropolitan area, but do not live in remote areas which were referred to by Senator Alston. Many of these people have local calls available at untimed rates, but must pay ISD charges for, STD charges for internet access. And what this fund do is to provide to them internet access at a local call rate. And that is a very significant practical, development and improvement for them.
We’re also going to provide the communities in Christmas Island, Cocos Island and Norfolk Island will benefit from an extended mobile phone service, as will people living in the major regional centres of Western Australia who now don’t have access to those services. There will be a Northern Regional Development Board allocation of $690,000 to extend mobile phone coverage to the South Australian districts of Melrose, Quorn, Orroro, Wilmington, Carrieton, Leigh Creek and Wilpena Pound. And the New South Wales Local Government and Shires’ Association has been allocated almost $600,000 to provide websites for remote regional councils who currently do not have them as well as a set of internet applications through which councils can provide an increasing range of innovative services to their residents on-line. The East Gippsland Institution of TAFE has been allocated $257,000 to provide public interest internet access at its outreach centres at Yarram, Heyfield, Swifts Creek, Buchan, Orbost and Mallacoota. And these resources will help small communities lacking in services, by providing technical assistance both in and out of business hours for community members to learn about a range of internet services.
Now these are some of the examples of the 104 projects that are funded out of these latest round of decisions by the independent board, chaired by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Doug Anthony which has been charged with responsibility for allocating the $250 million provided for our regional telecommunications infrastructure fund. Now none of this, I repeat, would have been possible without the sale of part of Telstra. And it remains the policy of the Government, subject to the conditions that were laid down, and are well known including of course the successful conclusion of Mr Besley’s inquiry, it remains the policy of the Government to press ahead with the privatisation in full of Telstra. It is one very important way of ensuring that there is a dramatic improvement of communications facilities in the bush and when you add to today’s announcement the earlier announcement made about the remote area access, the $150 million and the other money that’s been allocated out of the sale of the first tranche of Telstra, it represents an unprecedented level of investment in improving the communications available to people living in country Australia. And it remains a very important objective of the Government to steadily provide additional services so that in time it will truly be possible to say that people living in the country and remote Australia have the same level of access and the same enjoyment of the benefits of information technology and of the information revolution as is available to their fellow Australians who live in the cities. And that is their right and it is the goal of the Government steadily and in a practical, considered measured way over time to ensure that that goal is achieved.
And I want to congratulate Senator Alston for his stewardship of this programme and it has the very strong support of the Government and I know it’s enjoyed the very active interest of the Deputy Prime Minister in all its stages and I know it will in the future because of his determination to ensure that the benefits of the sale of Telstra to date and in the future are appropriately applied for the benefit of people living in remote and rural Australia.
Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Is this money in addition to the $670 million allocated in the third term?
ALSTON:
No, no the $670 million is broken down into a number of components and five of those, amounting to $170 million have been added to the original $250 million from Networking the Nation. So it comes out of that aggregate bucket.
JOURNALIST:
Senator Alston, both you and the Prime Minister have made the point that good communications are both an entitlement and indeed a right of rural and regional Australia yet the other point that you are making today is that delivering those services are inextricably linked to the full sale of Telstra, or the partial sale of Telstra. Why should country people have to agree if you like to the full sale of Telstra to get services that you have acknowledged are there as entitlements?
ALSTON:
Well there is always a funding issue, isn’t there? Many governments over many years have grappled with the very sizable cost of providing untimed local calls to people in remote areas, much in all as there was a standard telephone service requirement, it was always hedged with that caveat, and it’s simply very, very difficult for governments to conjure up sums of the order of $150 million for just one single initiative. What we’ve been able to do with the combination of T1 and T2 is to provide a great suite of services to rural, regional and remote Australia that simply wouldn’t have been affordable otherwise. So all that they’re now getting will put them at the forefront of the digital revolution and it will be funded by T1 and T2. And of course they have the security of knowing that there can be no slippage in terms of quality of service because of our customer service guarantee which again we introduced after our commitment in the 1996 election. So they have not only a guarantee that ordinary telephone service will improve, both in terms of connections and fault repairs, but that for the first time they will be able to get access to some of those services they always dreamed about and also some of those services that all of us look forward to in the future.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Perhaps I could put it . . . can I add a you know a postscript to that and say that those who would argue and assert that they can deliver that equity to rural and regional Australia without the resort to the proceeds of the sale of Telstra and indeed despite their opposition to the sale of Telstra in any way perhaps should be asked to identify the source of revenue that would be required.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard would you be shocked and surprised if Mr Besley didn’t come up with the sort of finding that would enable you to continue to keep promising the full sale of Telstra?
PRIME MINISTER:
Shocked and surprised?
JOURNALIST:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
If Mr Beazley?
JOURNALIST:
Besley.
PRIME MINISTER:
Besley, oh I am sorry, I am sorry.
JOURNALIST:
I’d know your answer to the other one.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s right – I’d be staggered, indeed. Well I don’t know, he is a man of independent mood and disposition. He’s not a person who forms his opinions to placate or suit people. He forms his opinion on the merits. And I’ll wait and see what he says. I mean we are, we are confident that improvements have been made, we believe that the service delivery performance of Telstra has been rising. I think Telstra deserves more praise for the improvements that have occurred in the bush than they’ve received. I mean one of the great myths of this debate is the idea
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean one of the great myths of this debate is the idea that’s conjured up by the Labor Party and some others that the days of full public ownership of the old Telecom were days of you know instantaneous repair of phones that didn’t work; of instantaneous availability of services and unlimited access to all the communication aids you needed. I mean nothing of course could be further from the truth. Service delivery’s improved a great deal, we’d like it to improve more but what Mr Besley does and his committee members do will I’m sure will be based upon their own independent assessment of the facts in accordance of the terms of reference.
JOURNALIST:
Is the timing of your announcement today designed to show him that the Government is going forward with those projects?
PRIME MINISTER:
The purpose of our announcement is to deliver on our promises to people who live in rural and regional Australia. I mean we made certain promises about the proceeds of the sale of T2. The committee has met, it’s made findings and I’m announcing them along with my colleagues. I mean this is a good news story for the people of rural and regional Australia but it fulfils our commitment and it’s a demonstration to them more than to anybody else that we’re serious in our commitment, that there are great benefits from the sale of Telstra - not only national benefits in the liquidation of debt. I mean remember, in case I haven’t mentioned it before that in five budgets we will have paid off $50 billion of the $80 billion of debt that Mr Beazley’s government ran up in the last five years they were in office so we’re pretty proud of the contribution that’s been made by our budgets and we’re certain that if we can secure approval for the full sale of Telstra we’ll be able to make a further sizeable contribution to eliminating debt, indeed get us into a net debt free situation by 2004 and in the process have additional resources available for other things.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Anderson do you share the Prime Minister’s confidence that improvements are being made to telecommunications in the bush and do you think that the Besley inquiry will provide a positive incentive for the further sale of Telstra?
ANDERSON:
Let me answer the first part of the question if I may. To come to the first part of that question - I think to a very great degree what you’re seeing at the moment is a debate about relativities. Telecommunications capacity is absolutely exploding. It’s only fourteen years ago that I had a manual party line on my phone and you know it’s hardly remote Australia. And the thing went out all the time and you had to wait until everybody was off the line. You couldn’t run a business with it and in that sense the technological capacity is exploding. So really the debate at the moment is about relative standards I think and how the bush is if you like given security in the knowledge that service standards will be maintained and that there’ll be reasonable chances of technological upgrades. Now that is being delivered and it will continue to be delivered. I think there are several points that need to be made. Firstly, the exploding technological capacity is delivering extraordinary new opportunities to enhance competition and I think we’ve all been fascinated to see the interest in the tendering out process for those enhanced services in the remote areas. There are propositions being put up that we wouldn’t have heard of five years ago and it may very well be that in some of those remote areas you see people from being at the back of the pack to the front.
The second thing I would say is this - there’s no doubt in my mind that properly constructed USO’s and the CSG which of course is Richard’s work, this Government’s work, are basic tools which can ensure that where competition doesn’t provide what you need you can do it by other means. And I sometimes wonder why, I mean I don’t say we’ve got it 100% right yet but the mechanisms are there and I sometimes wonder why the sceptics don’t have a little bit of a look at what you can achieve by properly constructing government requirements. The Government doesn’t own a car factory but look at the standards that a manufacturer who wants to provide motor cars to the Australian market has to meet before they can be put on the roads. It can be done and I think Richard’s done tremendous work here and I think that properly worked, properly driven those obligations can met the objectives that we all regard as so very important in rural and regional Australia where competition fails or isn’t strong enough to deliver those benefits and therefore it is appropriate for us to have a sensible debate about how best to deploy national assets.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister if I may, now that Fiji has finally junked its 1997 multi-racial constitution isn’t it time for the Australian Government to bring in bans if you like that you announced the other day?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well seeing you asked me the question, we’re having a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet this afternoon and Fiji will be discussed and any decision taken at that meeting will be announced after the meeting. Suffice it to say that we remain alarmed and disturbed at the abrogation of the 1997 constitution. It seems almost unavoidable that we’re going to see in Fiji a reversion to a racially based approach and that is something that we repudiate, we can’t possibly accept or agree to. The question of the appropriate level of response, the parameters of that have been outlined by Mr Downer. The timing and the ordering of it and so forth is something that we’ll need to give attention to. We do have to bear in mind that there are still hostages in captivity although Mr Speight appears unmoved and disinterested in expressions of concern about Mr Chaudhry’s wellbeing from the rest of the world. We remain concerned about Mr Chaudhry’s wellbeing and that of other hostages but nothing can alter the fact that what we are witnessing is a return to a racially based approach to the installation of leaders in Fiji and that is totally unacceptable to us and can’t be accepted by the rest of the world.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister to get back to Telstra. How concerned are you at the slump in the company’s share price and given that a number of the investors who bought in on T2 will have to stump in a considerable amount of money in I think November, the second instalment and those, I think hundred of thousands of investors in Telstra are currently looking at a substantial paper loss. How concerned are you at the market’s assessment of Telstra and do you as Prime Minister have full confidence in the management of Telstra in particular Ziggy Switowski given that many in the market believe the company doesn’t have a proper strategic focus at present.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly have full confidence in the management in the board and in the management of the company. As to giving a running commentary on share prices of Telstra or anybody else’s I’m not going to do that.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think there’s potential political damage for the Government though if those investors in November have to stump up their money and their looking at a substantial [inaudible]…?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think however I answer that it might possibly be construed as a observation on the share price and I decline the invitation. I’m quite certain that the broad policy followed by the Government has been right and I’m quite sure that generally speaking the broadest possible share ownership we have in Australia is a good thing and I’m heartened by the fact that Australia is now the largest share owning democracy in the world. And I don’t want to get any more specific than that about individual share values in individual companies but I do have total confidence in Mr Switkowski and Mr Mansfield and the other members of the board, I think they’re doing an excellent job.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister some people might wonder how it is that a government can readily find upwards of $400 million to promote GST and the new tax system but can’t so readily find similar amounts of money to provide decent communication services in the bush without the sale of Telstra. How do you respond to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh very readily Karen. The money that is being provided… I mean the amount you mention of $400 million you know as well as I do that the overwhelming bulk of that is for the provision of what is basic information which has to be provided. And the suggestion that you know the money that’s provided for start up assistance, the money that’s provided to the Catholic Social Welfare Commission and all the various business organisations to provide them with information I mean that is the equivalent of the normal obligation of a government to do that. I think that answer is quite readily given. This is a huge change to our taxation system and there are still people saying they want more information and I think we’ve provided an enormous amount of information but we do have an obligation to explain a new system. It is different. It’s obviously going to be strange to people when it first comes in. I think it will after a while be very readily assimilated perhaps more quickly than many think but the provision of money to explain a new system of this magnitude is absolutely appropriate and understandable.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard is Professor Fels being over zealous in his pursuit of business over possible GST breaches? And are you concerned at the deterioration in that relationship and Mr Dick Warburton, the Chairman of the Business Coalition has written to the Treasurer basically saying that there needs to be some refinements to the law because of the concerns that business has. Would you consider, would the Government consider some legislative amendments if you like to I guess reign Professor Fels in?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven’t seen Mr Warburton’s letter but you have to expect in the lead up to the GST that there will be different points of view expressed about the surveillance role and the policing role of the ACCC. The Australian public welcomes a consumer advocate in this context.
JOURNALIST:
Is he being over zealous?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don’t believe he’s being over zealous.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you’re asking what my view is and I’m indicating to you that I don’t believe he’s being over zealous. I haven’t seen Mr Warburton’s letter. I’ll obviously have a look at it. I have a lot of respect for Mr Warburton, I appreciate the contribution he’s made to the overall cause of tax reform. I’ve just had a meeting with the President and other members of the Business Council to talk about a whole range of matters. There remains very strong support for tax reform within the business community. The business community played a significant role in advocating tax reform. But it’s inevitable you’re going to get differences of opinion when you come to the behaviour of individual companies. And there’s no sort of one blanket business view and you do need somebody who’s in there punching for the consumer. And I think the Australian public rather likes the idea that there’s somebody in there punching for the Australian consumer. Now whether everything said in an individual case is right or wrong is not for me to say, I’m not in possession of all of the facts. But you asked me do I have confidence in Professor Fels? The answer is yes. Do I think he’s being over zealous? No I don’t. I think it is important that the consumer’s interests be protected and that the consumers understand that their interests are protected. I also think that most businesses will behave in a very ethical and honest fashion. Australian business is constrained not only by the natural ethical instincts they have but also by competitive forces.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] what Professor Fels has said that some of these business groups are acting our of self-interest?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven’t read everything he’s said. I mean it’s impossible for me to read everything everybody says in this context. But look everybody has a point of view to put and if you’re running a business organisation and you’re facing a big change you naturally focus on how it effects your organisation and that’s why you need the balance of a consumer advocate like Professor Fels.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard one of your senior ministers who has been left looking very poor prospect in his seat for the next election, Mr Fahey. He clearly wants out of that seat and into another. Are you going to stay out of this contest, or are you going to back Mr Fahey’s survival against Schultz or what would be your position?
PRIME MINISTER:
Michelle that matter will be I am sure appropriately resolved in accordance with the processes of the New South Wales division which are normally applied. I have a great respect for Mr Fahey, I am not going to get into any more particularity than that.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I finish? I am not going, I am not going . . . Michelle, come on, come on really. I mean it is not.
JOURNALIST:
He is a Cabinet Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes and a very good one and an excellent Finance Minister.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard do you believe that the Tax Office should take Joe Cocker’s name off the GST advertising?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard do you think your politicians are particularly stressed and do you think there should be stress counselling available for politicians in Parliament House?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hadn’t thought of it. I think . . .
JOURNALIST:
Kim Beazley has.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well okay, I am not sneering at it. No I am serious, I am not sneering at it. No, can I say generally I think there is a lot of stress in the Australian community. I would prefer to relate it to the community, I don’t want any particular focus on politicians. A lot of other people are subject to stress as well. It is not just politicians. I think it is important that we recognise the incidence of depression and stress and I think it is particularly important for men to be more open about those things. And not be so stitched up about the emotional impact of their careers and juggling the responsibilities of family and work. It’s important for both men and women to recognise that. And I certainly think we have in the past been a little reluctant to talk about these things, particularly men, but not only men and I think we ought to do so a lot more often. But stress and so forth is something that is not confined to politicians, we’re not the only ones that have stress. The responsibilities that are thrown on people today who are trying to raise families and to earn a sufficient family income, to pay off a house and to educate their children are very considerable. And I admire the juggling act that so many young parents are involved in. And that applies whether you are a politician or you are doing something else. I mean we are all subject to stress and I think we should all be a little more open about it.
Equally though it not get to such a situation that you become sort of compulsively sorry for yourself and we are all subject to stress at various stages in our life and that applies to politicians, and it also applies to the other 18 million or so Australians and it’s not something that is peculiar to us.
JOURNALIST:
Should there be services available to politicians though in that this is a work . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t think the services available to politicians should be such that are not available to the general community. I don’t think there should be any special deal for politicians. But equally people shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that we’re part of the community and we’re subject to stress like everybody else. But we don’t want any special consideration.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on reconciliation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, this will be the last question.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the black leadership has made a tactical mistake by moving the debate on to treaties so quickly?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don’t want to talk about this debate as though it were some kind of chess game. As though it’s, you know, they’ve made a false move or I’ve made a false move. I mean that is, frankly devaluing the debate. The views I hold on this issue are very sincere genuine views. I’ve expressed my reservations about a treaty. I think a treaty would be divisive. I think everybody sees a treaty as being something that is made by one nation with another or a group of others and no matter how you sort of define it and no matter what gloss you try and put on it, that’s what it means to the average person and I know that if we got into any kind of treaty negotiations you would be talking about things like representation in parliament, special indigenous seats. You’d be talking about land ownership issues, you would be talking about regional governance issues and they would be seen very widely by the rest of the community as being quite divisive. I think if ever there was you know a single message that came out of the large number of people who walked over Sydney Harbour Bridge, whatever it is and it doesn’t matter, it was a large number – the real message that came out of that to me was that overwhelmingly Australians want us all to be together on these issues, they want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be treated as a full and equal part of the community. They want their disadvantaged addressed, they want racial discrimination completely removed from our society and they want us to be together and I think the superimposition of a notion which is inherently and instinctively divisive such as a treaty works against that process.
Thank you.
[ends]