Subjects: Sydney Airport; Very Fast Train; workers entitlements; welfare reform
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
JONES:
This happens every year, do you think it’s fair that matters requiring such substantial debate as those that have been canvassed now should be announced in this period when people are otherwise occupied?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends how long we’ve been discussing them before the announcement and it depends entirely what they are.
JONES:
Well this is on this major issue that you know that every newspaper around the country and every television program, every radio program will be talking today about airports.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t think that’s true Alan of other states. The Sydney Airport issue is very important in Sydney. It is not the big news in the other states that it is here. And although I may have been born in Sydney and grown up in Sydney and I’m a Sydney person in that sense we have a responsibility to keep a balance all around the country. It’s not the burning national issue, but it is very importantly a Sydney issue.
JONES:
Well let’s address then the Sydney component of it because and both our views are known and you and I have exchanged them on this program many times in the past. Can I ask you how a Government could not rule out completely for ever and a day a site which like Badgery’s Creek which as we speak now is 46km west of Sydney has got a need of half a million litres of fuel a day and there’s no pipeline - couldn’t possibly move that fuel by rail because there’s no rail line, airlines don’t want it, pilots say the bulk of the year the area is covered in fog and the runway space is such that you could take off with international jets, land with them but you couldn’t take off. How could that even be in the equation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan I don’t believe that there will ever be a second airport built at Badgery’s Creek.
JONES:
Well why don’t you as Prime Minister, say that that’s the end of it.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t believe an airport will ever be built at Badgery’s Creek for many of the reasons that you’ve outlined. But I also acknowledge, being reasonable on this subject, I also acknowledge that the technology, the demands and the attitudes of the public of western Sydney may change as such that it would be foolish to give away the site. We’ve got the site, we’ve invested a lot of money in it and it would be foolish in my view to give away the site against the possibility that there may in years ahead be changed circumstances. Now Governments are often criticised for not allowing for long term planning and for not allowing for possible changes in the future. I don’t believe myself, others have different views, I share your view, I don’t think we’ll ever build an airport at Badgery’s Creek. I acknowledge that there could years down the track be different views about that and that is why the site is being retained. Now we debated this at very great length and we came to that conclusion and I think in all the circumstances it was the right thing to do. I don’t really dispute the bulk of the reasons that you’ve advised, they’re the reasons why we’ve decided against it.
What’s happened with this is that attitudes have changed quite a bit over the last five years. Five years ago I thought Badgery’s Creek was a real goer. Over the last five years it’s become apparent that you can operate Kingsford Smith a lot more efficiently, there are fewer complaints about Kingsford Smith than there were five years ago and that is one of the reasons why we’ve taken the view that there’s many more years of life in Kingsford Smith. It’s a very centrally located airport and if you have an overflow at Bankstown you’ve got not just a short term but a medium term response to the situation.
JONES:
Can I just ask …
PRIME MINISTER:
…changes in aircraft technology, there are a lot of other things that can occur as well.
JONES:
Could I just ask one final question therefore about Badgery’s Creek? Can you understand though that by not putting the kybosh on it completely the people of western Sydney feel that your Government has left them at the mercy of future Governments and their political whims.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan, this issue is one where no matter what you do you can never please everybody. And I think the people of western Sydney will understand that if we haven’t decided to go ahead with Badgery’s Creek now after all that’s gone on and all the time and all the debate, we don’t really think it’s a goer. And they will understand that the retention of the site is merely an act of care and prudence rather than of an indication of our intention to build an airport.
JONES:
Okay, right. I spoke to you about a week and a bit ago, about a week and a day ago, and I asked you about Kurnell and I was amazed that you’d allowed that to enter the public domain. And I was amazed, and I didn’t have time to say to you at the time, because I was aware, and my records show, that in 1987 you said and I quote, when you were the Opposition Leader “the Liberal Party has always sought to achieve a working balance”. You were defending the heritage value of this peninsula. And you said “the Liberal Party’s always sought to achieve a working balance between the need to preserve our environment and heritage and the need for productive and economic development. But to the extent that these may clash at Kurnell, our clear obligation is to our environment and heritage”, didn’t those comments surely, in 1987, rule out ever the possibility of an airport at Kurnell while you were in Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we’re not doing it, and it has been ruled out
JONES:
I’m just wondering why you raised it
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan look, you can’t run a successful Government if you are not ever prepared in the privacy of a Cabinet meeting to discuss possibilities. I mean what kind of narrow minded approach is that. I mean all I was doing was saying that we will look at the alternatives, we did look at the possibility of Kurnell. I don’t make… I don’t disguise that, and I would have hoped that all of your listeners would want us to consider all of the options. I mean isn’t good Government about considering every option and then reaching a decision.
JONES:
Did you say at that Cabinet meeting look I’ve made a commitment in 1987 to Kurnell.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t disclose what I say at Cabinet meetings, but I can remind you and your listeners that we have decided to rule out Kurnell.
JONES:
Right.
PRIME MINISTER:
And one of the major reasons we decided to rule it out was the environmental factor, which featured in that 1987 statement
JONES:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t apologise for having looked it at, I think Government’s have got to look at all options before they take decisions.
JONES:
What do you say to Brendan Nelson who is within your own party, who is the chairman of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, who is now saying that when you launched the Coalitions air transport policy in 1996 the second pillar of the policy was to build Badgery’s Creek airport.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would say to all people who might raise that, what I said to you a few moments ago that over the last five years Kingsford Smith has been operated a lot more efficiently. If you go back five years the real concern then was that noise was not being shared around, it had all been dumped on one part of Sydney by the former Government. And what we have succeeded in doing is spreading the noise around a lot more fairly, and we believe on the evidence available to us that there is not a compelling case now to build Badgery’s Creek. There is a way forward, through the efficient operation of Kingsford Smith and the development of Bankstown as an overflow airport, and we’re going to facilitate that.
JONES:
Could I just come to that in a moment, on Kingsford Smith…
PRIME MINISTER:
…to the Badgery’s Creek
JONES:
Right, okay
PRIME MINISTER:
… if you don’t go ahead with Badgery’s Creek people say well what’s your alternative.
JONES:
Okay
PRIME MINISTER:
…and that’s what I’m explaining
JONES:
Well does the Kingsford Smith plan involve capping aircraft movements, because under that proposal in 1996 it did…
PRIME MINISTER:
We are retaining the caps
JONES:
At 80 per hour?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes we are
JONES:
Now Brendan Nelson says that we’re at a point where we’re running at or close to the 80 movements an hour.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the advice, the advice of all of our aviation authorities is you’re looking at, if you did nothing more at all you’re looking at a situation where you reach some kind of ceiling close to the year 2009/2010. But of course if you begin to develop an overflow strategy then that period goes out ever further.
JONES:
So are you saying we won’t get to overflow till 2009/2010 according to advice your given?
PRIME MINISTER:
That’s the advice I have, yes.
JONES:
He says we’re nearly at the 80 movements an hour now, Brendan Nelson.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can only repeat the advice that I’ve received.
JONES:
So you reckon that Kingsford Smith is still viable without being in excess of the 80 per hour capacity for the next 10 years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well up to the period I mentioned, yes. That is the advice we have and we debated this very carefully and very closely, yes.
JONES:
Many people, if they walked out there today to Kingsford Smith at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon and put a blindfold on, they could walk where ever they like and know with absolute certainty they’d be hit by nothing. There are large times in that day when the airport is completely idle. How do we improve passenger density per plane? I noticed some figures earlier this morning when I was looking up, that our passenger density per plane at Sydney Airport is about 76 passengers per plane. I mean Heathrow is 110. JFK 90. Hong Kong aims to get 230. Will the building of bigger aircraft reduce the demand on the airport to the extent that it will have a longer life than otherwise might have been the case?
PRIME MINISTER:
It will. That is one of the factors that’s come into the equation. You are aware of the announcements made by QANTAS about the acquisition of larger aircraft. That is a factor. If you just think of the comparison between a 767 and a 737 for example, you’ve got a capacity increase in the 767 over a 73 of something like 60 or 70%. They are factors that come into it. The technology of aircraft is such that I would hazard the prediction that in ten years time jet engines will be much quieter than what they are now. They’re the sort of things you always have to allow for when you’re making these kind of decisions.
JONES:
Alright. Well then on that basis if you then say, well there’s two things we’ve got to address. One is the airport density and the movement of aircraft to accommodate a whole range of issues, then the problems on the roads. Up came this Very Fast Train proposal to relieve pressure on both and also to provide better access of young people to affordable housing. I mean someone under a Very Fast Train, as you know, could live in Goulburn and work in Sydney and be here in 24 hours or live at Albion Park near Wollongong and get here in 18 minutes. Your kybosh on the Very Fast Train proposal now means that we couldn’t get a VFT up in the next ten years, could we?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well not between Sydney and Canberra unless it’s commercially viable. Can I just make the point about the Sydney to Canberra Very Fast Train. We never promised to give it a subsidy. I notice that people are saying we pulled the rug from under the feet of private enterprise on this. We never put the rug under their feet. We always said it would have to be constructed without a government subsidy. It was plain that you needed a government subsidy between $1-2 billion because …
JONES:
Supposing that was true, supposing that were true, and you’ve been a former Treasurer, wouldn’t it be possible to argue that if you put up $2 billion in a very visionary proposal that your net benefit may well be well in excess of $2 billion?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well not just for a track between Sydney and Canberra. It would be more defensible if you were looking at a project that linked Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and perhaps going down the coast – the Eastern seaboard. You would be talking there about linkages between millions of people, not just between the largest city in Australia and the national capital. You see you’re only talking here about a track between Sydney and Canberra. You couldn’t – we looked at this very closely and I would have liked to have gone ahead with the Very Fast Train …
JONES:
You’ve spoken at length to Wal King and Leightons about this?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have yes, I’ve had several …
JONES:
They’ve spent a lot of money though haven’t they. They’ve done it.
PRIME MINISTER:
But Alan, their eyes were always open on that. I really do reject the claim being made, I noticed somebody I think from the Infrastructure Council a Mr O’Neil saying that people have to be wary in future about dealing with the Government, we made it very clear there’d be no government subsidy. We made that very clear right at the beginning.
JONES:
But do you understand that they’re talking about net benefit and they are arguing that there would be a net benefit to government.
PRIME MINISTER:
But with great respect every private entrepreneur who wants money out of the taxpayer will argue that case. It’s our responsibility in the end to make a judgement in the interests of all of the taxpayers and we couldn’t defend …
JONES:
Do you think a project like a Very Fast Train is a project, I mean, what feedback I’m asking are you getting, capable of capturing the imagination of people. I mean I just know here in this office there are young people who can’t afford housing …
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the idea of a rail network linking the …
JONES:
Goulburn, Wollongong, Brisbane,
PRIME MINISTER:
Brisbane, Sydney…
JONES:
Central Coast.
PRIME MINISTER:
We are going to investigate that but we’re going to investigate that in conjunction with the Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland Governments.
JONES:
But your feasibility won’t be finished until 2005 and so in your lifetime, my lifetime and the lifetime of many it’s not a goer.
PRIME MINISTER:
2005 – I hope to be around by then.
JONES:
You are the Prime Minister in 2005?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh Alan….
JONES:
PM, look, can I revisit the subject which I’m sure you’re more concerned about than sometimes your policy position would suggest. We’re talking about worker entitlements. Today 180 workers have lost their jobs – employed by Electruck – which is a national crane manufacturer and components company. And they’ve been told that the firm’s parent company, ECTEC, has folded. The unions say that ECTEC has an elaborate web of shelf holding and subsidiary companies. 180 workers are owed $4 million, the employer’s gone belly up, Christmas and they get nothing. One of them, the workers was saving up his long service leave because his wife is waiting for a transplant. Now he has no money and she won’t get it. When is this going to end?
PRIME MINISTER:
You will never be able to end some companies going belly up. I’m not going to promise that.
JONES:
No, no.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can’t promise that. Those people – I’ll investigate the details of this. I don’t have them with me and I’ll get some advice on it. There is a Federal Government scheme available that will give some assistance to those people. It’s already in place. I know it’s more limited than other people would like but at least we have a scheme unlike the state governments of Australia who aren’t prepared to contribute anything even to our scheme. We will make that scheme available to those people and I will make sure that Mr Reith’s department actions that immediately. If in fact there has been any illegal behaviour, I’m not suggesting there has been, but if there has been any illegal behaviour by the company or it’s officers then the ruler will be run over them by the Securities Commission.
JONES:
Well I promise Prime Minister I’ll only ask this question once more in the year 2000. Only once more in the year 2000. I can’t guarantee I won’t ask it in 2001. Why shouldn’t a worker get all those benefits to which he is entitled?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he should get it and the reason he doesn’t get it is that companies will, in some cases for genuine reasons go broke having not made provision for it in a separate trust account. You can do that and we’ve had this debate before. One of the reasons why small companies don’t make those provisions is that it has a bad effect on their cash flow and it often means they’d employ fewer people. Now it’s a bit of a trade-off. We are strengthening the corporations law so that people who are guilty of deliberately, how shall I put it, deliberately allowing their workers to be robbed can be subject to criminal prosecution.
JONES:
I just find it difficult whereby we are able to say compulsorily and rightly that the GST liability that you have to government, you say to every employer, you must put aside, don’t give me any excuses you can’t afford it. That is a liability, government is entitled to it, you must make provision for GST liability.
PRIME MINISTER:
…I mean there’s a liability . . .
JONES:
Hang on, but just say that. I mean why don’t we say that to employers? Why don’t we say that to employers? You’ve got this other liability to workers, it must be provided for too.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s a liability because you don’t have…see the difference between the GST and PAYE taxes is that you’ve got to make regular remittances. Whereas in relation to these entitlements, you only pay them if people are made redundant. The difference is you, with respect you can’t quite compare the two because the practical way they operate is quite different. Of course if you were liable to make redundancy payments regularly to a person in anticipation that he or she might be made redundant well that would be a comparison with the GST but that doesn’t apply. You are only liable to make the payment if the person is made redundant.
JONES:
Prime Minister you delivered a lecture yesterday at the Menzies Research Centre primarily addressing the issue of aboriginal wellbeing. What do you say to those who argue that reconciliation is an unstoppable force and you therefore should do something by way of a treaty or a formal national apology to secure total reconciliation between indigenous Australians and the wider Australian community?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my answer to them would be that people of goodwill and people who want reconciliation and desire equal treatment for all Australians can disagree on the question of a treaty or a formal apology.
JONES:
Are you in favour of a treaty?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I am not.
JONES:
Are you in favour of a formal apology?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I have explained my position on that. I have personal sorrow for past injustices but I don’t support a formal, national apology or a treaty. Now I have explained my reasons for . . .
JONES:
And do you think that the failure of the Prime Minister to approve a treaty or at least entertain the notion of a treaty, or deliver an apology inhibits reconciliation?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don’t. I think Australians have different views on these things. Most Australians want reconciliation, most Australians want to get on with the job of giving indigenous Australians better opportunities, more work, more housing, better education, more hope for their communities, more help in fighting substance abuse and domestic violence. They’re the things most Australians want tackled. We will always have debate about whether you have a treaty or a formal, national apology and that’s part of our democratic system, but we shouldn’t have a disproportionate focus on those things because if we do that we retard the progress towards reconciliation.
JONES:
And just one final thing on welfare. Today there will be a statement about delivered, or a positional paper presented by . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
A directional statement.
JONES:
A directional statement by Jocelyn Newman, I might add we all wish her well she’s been an outstanding servant of the Australian people over many years. Just on that one thing though in terms of welfare, when would your Government ever consider saying to Australians, look the one way to avoid the dependency on welfare would be to save for yourself and we will make savings tax exempt.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we already give a tax privilege to savings, superannuation is taxed, contributions are taxed at a concessional rate.
JONES:
Concessional rate, that’s right, but not much of an incentive to save when the tax is only concessional.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well . . .
JONES:
Why shouldn’t we say to someone who’s saved a $100,000 if you earn interest on it you won’t pay tax on it.
PRIME MINISTER:
In isolation that’s fantastic, but governments always have competing priorities between encouraging provision for the future and helping people cope with the present. And you’ve got to balance those two off and that’s why we’ve adopted the approach in this country of giving a tax concession privileged benefit to people who make provision for their retirement without making their savings totally tax deductible.
JONES:
Good on you. Well it’s the second time we’ve said Happy Christmas and thank you for your time. I hope you are not going to sort of drop a few more bombs on us between now and Christmas Day, I think everyone needs a bit of rest.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we believe in good government right to the end.
JONES:
Okay, thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Merry Christmas Alan.
JONES:
You too John. Happy Christmas.
[ends]