PRIME MINISTER:
It is terrific to be here at Yirrkala School. I want to thank everyone for making me so welcome here today. I note that the attendance seems to have gone up rather dramatically this morning from an average of about 55 per cent this year to over 80 per cent today and I am told that the school attendance officers are keen to recruit me for subsequent days. I can’t be here more than occasionally, alas.
It is very important that we get kids to school. A sound education is the foundation of a good life and you cannot get a sound education without turning up at school. That's why at the heart of what the Coalition is trying to do in indigenous affairs is getting the kids to school. Whenever I'm asked about what we're trying to do in indigenous policy I say it's really quite simple; get the kids to school, get the adults to work and keep communities safe. That is at the heart of everything we are trying to do in indigenous policy, but it all starts with getting the kids to school.
It was good to be with the school attendance officers this morning. They are very enthusiastic. They are making a difference, but there is a long way to go. Fifty-five per cent is better than forty-eight per cent, but it's still nowhere near good enough. I was able, after the assembly, to sit down and have a talk to members of the school community. They all accept the importance of trying to get school attendance rates way up, but it's one thing to have good intentions, it's another thing to convert them into effective practice and that obviously is one of the ongoing challenges that the Government faces.
QUESTION:
Can I just ask which actual programme has added to this attendance increase, which Federal Government programme?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a new programme that was created by the Government not long after we came into office and so far, we've committed about $40 million to boosting school attendance officer numbers right around remote Australia.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, I need to take you back to January in Moree when New South Wales police in riot gear – and they were armed – raided a home to remove eight Aboriginal children – is that an appropriate use of force?
PRIME MINISTER:
As some of you might remember, I was part of the truancy team at Aurukun in 2009. This was one of the many programmes that have been put into different townships on Cape York as part of the work that Noel Pearson and Cape York Institutes are doing and I was told by my fellow truancy officers that they rather liked having me along, because I looked a bit like a policeman and that was quite good for getting the kids to turn up. I think it is important to get the kids to school – it is important to get the kids to school. I think all reasonable measures should be considered to get the kids to school, because there is no way they are going to get a decent education if they don't go to school and a decent education is the foundation of a good life.
QUESTION:
That's not the answer I was looking for, Prime Minister, they went to the home to remove the kids from their home, so they could be given over to FACS. Is it an appropriate use of force for police in riot gear to go into homes and remove eight indigenous children?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it's perfectly appropriate to try to get the kids to school. Now, I'm not here to give advice to the New South Wales Government or the New South Wales police, but certainly the discussions that I've had with all the Premiers and Chief Ministers on this subject are that we need to try much, much harder, we need to consider new measures to try to ensure that kids go to school. As you saw this morning, the school attendance officers are certainly running around this town every morning doing their best, including with quite a lot of noise, to encourage the kids to school and I think that's a good thing.
QUESTION:
In relation to the new measures that you've just spoken about, are you considering the sorts of measures that we're seeing in the APY Lands where if you don't send a child to school you could eventually have welfare docked as an extreme measure?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just remind people of a bit of history. For many, many years and indeed still there is a system of truancy fines which has been in operation. In most states and territories the truancy fines have been a dead letter for a decade or more, but there's a long history in this country of imposing penalties on parents if the kids don't go to school. So, I'm certainly not ruling out penalties on parents if the kids don't go to school. It's well within the rights of the Northern Territory Government to fine parents if the kids don't go to school. It used to happen quite regularly. There was a renewal of the system of truancy fines in New South Wales for a period under the former Labor Government. It was something that former premier Morris Iemma, to his credit, was quite keen on. I don't know what the situation is in New South Wales just at the moment, but certainly there's been a long history in this country of parents being punished if kids don't go to school.
QUESTION:
Are you confident that if attendance rates go up, are you confident that schools like this would have enough funding to deal with the extra students coming?
PRIME MINISTER:
Funding is based on enrolment and obviously, if there are more kids enrolled there will be more funding provided. We are determined to ensure that kids get the best possible start in life. That means getting a decent education and you can't get a decent education if you don't turn up at school nearly all the time.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, a member of your own Government, an indigenous politician Ken Wyatt, says a referendum needs to be held at or before the next election. You said you'd listen to that Joint Parliamentary Committee. Why aren't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am listening, but that doesn't mean that I am necessarily convinced by everything that everyone says. I want the referendum to be a unifying moment. I want it to be bipartisan. If it is to succeed, frankly, it has to be bipartisan and yet an election is about the most partisan exercise you can imagine. I think it's going to be difficult to run a bipartisan referendum campaign in conjunction with a highly partisan election campaign. That's why I don't think it is really that sensible to have the referendum at the time of the next election.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, the principal of this school spoke to the children almost exclusively in her own language and the widow of Dr Yunupingu held up a song sheet also in Yolngu Matha. I think they were trying to send a message to you – well, the principal certainly said she was trying to send a message to you about bilingual education and the importance of these languages. Do you support bilingual education?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's really a matter for communities how the very early years of school are handled, as well as for the state and territory education departments. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not that fussed about how kids start school, it's how kids finish school which matters, and they've got to finish school with a full ability to operate in modern Australia and that obviously means full fluency in English.
QUESTION:
Just to be clear on the timeframe, are you saying that there can't be a referendum until 2017?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm attempting to be as bipartisan as I can here, I've already had some preliminary discussions with Bill Shorten on this matter and I would look forward to further discussions with Bill Shorten. I don't want to get too prescriptive until I've had a lot more discussion here and until I've had further discussions with Bill Shorten.
The important thing about this is that we get it right and we get it through, and if we want to get it right and get it through, it's better not to rush it. I'm not saying that it's going to be in this year or that year, but the important thing is to get it right and get it through and to me, that means not rushing it.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, there are reports this morning that you've decided on 2017 as the year. Are they not true then?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm just not going to speculate on speculation, I think that's the best thing to say.
QUESTION:
What about a draft question?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, again, it's important to have a draft question, but the question comes at the end of the process, or towards the end of the process, not at the beginning of the process. Look, I understand how the media works, because I was a journalist before I went into Parliament, and I know that we are always speculating, we are always anticipating. We don't so much want to know what's happening today; we want to know what might happen in a week, a month, a year, a decade, fair enough. My job is to be purposeful, methodical. My job is to try to ensure that we get it right and get it through. If we rush prematurely into naming dates, into deciding what the proposal will be, I think we cruel our pitch and I think we jeopardise our chances of getting it all through.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, you're interrupting your trip here to go elsewhere. Why is it so important to you? You promised to be here for a week and now you're going to spend some time away.
PRIME MINISTER:
I've been here Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, I'll be here tomorrow, although you're right, it is highly likely that I will interrupt the trip for a few hours tomorrow to farewell some of our air capability to the Middle East and then I'll be back again here on Friday. So, I think six days constitutes more than a working week and I'm determined to honour my commitment that I gave to Galarrwuy Yunupingu last year and I'm determined not to short change the Yolngu people.
QUESTION:
Can I ask you a question on another topic?
PRIME MINISTER:
Have we more or less done indigenous issues? Ok.
QUESTION:
This morning I believe the Australian Workers' Union has called for the aluminium industry to be exempted from the RET scheme. Are you concerned about the impact of RET charges on the aluminium industry and do you think it should be exempted? If it is exempted, what effect, would that have a negative effect on other industries? Is that in fact an argument overall for reducing the RET target?
PRIME MINISTER:
As you know, we've had a review which was prepared for us by a panel headed by a very respected businessman, Dick Warburton, a person who has regularly done these sorts of reviews for governments of both persuasion. It's a good document. We're carefully considering that document. We're weighing the public response to that document and we'll have more to say about the renewable energy targets in a few weeks' time.
QUESTION:
There's also reports that you're doing performance appraisals of your Cabinet. Are you undertaking that process and who's getting A’s at this stage?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think some are getting A’s and some are getting A-pluses, but the fact is, this is a competent and trustworthy Government which promised that we would stop the boats, that we would scrap the carbon tax, that we would build the roads, and we would get the budget back under control, and that's precisely what we're doing.
What's happening at the moment is that 12 months into the life of the Government I am reviewing progress against the charter letters which I sent to all of my Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries at the beginning of the Government's life. It's a perfectly normal dimension to management that you from time to time review progress with your senior personnel and that's exactly what we're doing now.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, a top US general has said American troops might have to fight on the ground in order to defeat ISIL. Can you still rule out Australian troops fighting on the ground in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have no intentions of combat troops on the ground. As you know, we have dispatched a force to the Middle East. There will be, should further decisions be made as I anticipate, combat operations inside Iraq but they will be air combat operations. They will be air combat operations, but part of our force does include a contingent of Special Forces and they'll be available to act as military advisers to the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga.
QUESTION:
Can you rule out troops on the ground in a fighting capacity?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's not something that we have any intention of doing. As I said, we're sending a capable air component to the Middle East. The spearhead of which will be up to eight Super Hornets. We're also sending about 200 Special Forces personnel and they'll be there to act as military advisers to the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, isn't part of the point that General Dempsey was making that Special Forces who operate as trainers necessarily face a risk of being engaged in ground combat, so shouldn't Australians, based on General Dempsey's comments, conclude there is at least a risk our troops will face ground combat operations?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our troops will certainly be armed and if they're fired upon they'll be entitled to respond, but the whole point of military advisers is to have them with the headquarters of the units that you are working with and normally, battalion headquarters which is where I imagine most of our military advisers will be based, normally battalion headquarters are not themselves involved in combat operations. They're directing combat operations, they're oversighting combat operations, they're planning combat operations, but they are not usually conducting combat operations themselves.
QUESTION:
They won't go out, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
If we have military advisers with the headquarters of Iraqi security forces and with Peshmerga forces, obviously they'll be moving around with those unit headquarters, but the point I stress is that there is no intention for Australia to conduct independent combat operations inside Iraq. There is no intention that Australia will have combat forces on the ground, we are making available Special Forces for the purposes of being military advisers to Iraqi and Peshmerga units and military advisers do not themselves normally engage in actual combat.
QUESTION:
Can I just ask about Ebola, Prime Minister? [Inaudible] given $7 million for this fight. The UN said a billion is needed. Shouldn’t we be contributing more to this international incident?
PRIME MINISTER:
I absolutely accept that this is a very serious health situation. It certainly is a crisis, no doubt about that. It is crisis and I suspect that over time, depending upon how this develops, we could give more. We gave a million dollars about a month ago after conversations with the head of the World Health Organisation. We've committed another $7 million; there's $2.5 million to the World Health Organisation, $2.5 million to Médecins Sans Frontières, and $2 million for frontline health services in Sierra Leone. So, we are monitoring the situation, in conjunction with international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, and if it gets worse, we could commit more money. But what you've seen from us is an increasing commitment of funds as this situation worsens and that's what you'd expect from a country such as Australia which always wants to be the best possible global citizen.
[ends]