TRANSCRIPT OF THE THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON P J KEATING MP
AND THE TREASURER THE HON J S DAWKINS MP
JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE, CANBERRA, MAY 11 1992
E OE PROOF COPY
PM: We thought we would give you a run-down on the meeting
we have just concluded with the Premiers. The first
point I want to make is, there's an agreed communique
and it's now in the course of being published so we'll
have that available for you soon but it was written in
the course of the afternoon as we went through subjects
so there was no pro-forma communique drafted before
hand so that's why it's a bit slow in coming but it
will more than adequately reflect what was discussed at
the meeting.
The first thing I would like to say about the meeting
was that it was a very co-operative one and the
outcomes were, I think, exceedingly good. We in terms
of the broader discussions, we agreed to establish a
Council of Australian Governments to meet at least once
a year on non-financial issues. So where we have the
Financial Premiers Conference to discuss financial
assistance grants, Commonwealth payments to States,
this is about all the other national agenda issues in
the micro economy, education, all the other subjects,
the Commonwealth will be the Chair, the venue will be a
rotating venue around the States where the respective
Premier will be the host, and the Commonwealth and the
States will jointly provide a Secretariat.
The first meeting of this body will decide the protocol
relationship between the Council and the Ministerial
Council, that is the Councils of Ministers of each
particular discipline of the Commonwealth and the
States. So where we now have education ministers and
transport ministers meeting with their counterpart
ministers in what's called Ministerial Councils, the
protocol between those Councils and the Council of
Australian Governments will be decided at the first
meeting.
So it's quite an historic event and, I think, a good
outcome from a succession of meetings discussing
various issues and it will be a useful forum for
debating matters of national moment beyond the
financial discussion. That's not to say that this body
itself can't have a general financial discussion it
can, but by and large the Annual Financial Grants
Arrangements and Loan Council will still be the subject
of the financial meeting.
On the broader topic of federal finances, we've spent
considerable time this morning discussing that subject
and we have agreed to a joint treasury study joint
meaning Commonwealth and State Treasuries to look at
the underlying financial trends in state budgets,
that's on the receipts and the outlays side, and likely
budget balances in the future, the impact from the
recession and the recovery, and to get some idea of how
State budgets will look ahead of the financial meeting
coming up in June.
The States will be deciding this week whether they
require of the Commonwealth a one-year financial
arrangement in 1992-93 or whether-they would prefer to
seek an on-going relationship, financial arrangement,
over say a three year period. It may suit their
purposes to make a one-off arrangement with the
Commonwealth at the financial meeting in June, it may
similarly suit their purposes to make an arrangement
with the Commonwealth over three years because the
Treasurer and I indicated today that we are prepared to
discuss with the States certainty of funding and
questions of adequacy including the prospect of growth
in Financial Assistant Grants and it is with that
background they have now, themselves, withdrawn to
consider their positions as to whether they say to the
Commonwealth we want to now consider a one year
arrangement or a three year arrangement.
The States presented a paper to us of financial trends
and some claims which have been published by some of
you. I think it's fair to say that when we pointed out
that a reference to historical shares, that is to take
Commonwealth payments to the States back to the
proportion of Commonwealth payments which obtained in
the early 1980s would involve an addition of about
billion in the coming year rising to $ 9 billion by
1995-96 which we rejected out of hand and said it was
not possible and reminded them of our own budgetary
position and the fact that we spent the 1980s pulling
the public sector down for national adjustment and
national savings purposes and there was no point now to
try to reverse that to make it easier for State
officials to put their budgets together.
While we said we will examine longer term trends in
State financing we are not accepting of the notion that
we return to some share of payments back in the 1980s.
Certainly we're not the implications of sort of $ 5-9
billion, those sorts of numbers. That was I think
accepted. There were number of other things decided. Mutual
recognition of standards were agreed and the States
agreed that the Commonwealth should fully participate
in the setting of those standards. This was an item
which had been on previous Special Premiers Conference
agendas and has been decided today.
On Technical and Further Education there was an
agreement to resume discussions with a view to
advancing the outcome by the June Financial Premiers
Conference meeting. That is, States at this stage are
not entirely certain of what the dollars and cents of
such an arrangement will mean because some States have
a bigger effort in TAFE, some have a smaller effort and
again, if there's a change to Financial Assistance
Grants, the Grants Commission formula re-allocates
funds on a different basis of distribution than that
which we pay now to TAFE or to that which they spend.
So we agree that we continue discussing this, but we
also said that as John, as Minister for Education, had
discussed with the States some time ago, that if we are
about re-sorting, functions with the States doing
things which they think they can do best and us doing
other things, that in the symmetry of them handling the
compulsory education area, the Commonwealth may handle
Technical and Further Education, vocational education.
But consistent with that would be that the Commonwealth
removed some of the conditions under Specific Purpose
Claimants which we now attach to payments for
education. In other words, what's called in the jargon
the ' tags on the FAGs' that's the Financial
Assistance Grants, the tags we put on them the
requirements of policy which we put on the Financial
Assistance Grants if they were to be removed and we
paid this over to them as Financial Assistance Grants
free of any requirement by us in terms of their
expenditure, meaning that the compulsory area of
education was handled exclusively by them, though with
conversations with us but not legislation,
conversations about general policy that we're
contending and they are considering that a Commonwealth
take over of TAFE funding provides that symmetry. Now
again, we've agreed to continue discussing these issues
and we'll resume discussions on that at official level
soon. There was an emphasis upon the importance of youth and
youth training and TAFE being an important part of that
whole equation. Training young people, those people
who have left school beyond compulsory education who
are not getting tertiary places, and having an
important place for them.
But on the main change, on the Commonwealth assuming
financial responsibility for TAFE, Victoria was
supportive of that, NSW is examining and considering it
in the context of the change I mentioned in relation to
Financial Assistance Grants for compulsory education
and other States are similarly considering their
position, though there is a propensity on the part of
the smaller States to wish to have a joint funding
model. Moving now to electricity generation, which was another
' One Nation' topic we had on the agenda, we did secure
agreement in principle to the separation of power
generation from transmission. This is the key point in
this issue that the providers of power are not the
transmitters of power with a view to establishing an
East-Coast electricity grid, a network which would be
represented by a structure yet to be agreed, upon which
the Grid Management Council will give us advice by the
end of the year. In other words, that the transmission
assets of the East-Coast States would be part of an
East-Coast grid, a body, a corporation, the design and
structure of which we are yet to be advised upon. But
the principle of separation is agreed.
On roads we've agreed to untie $ 350 million of
Financial Assistance Grants of a Specific Purpose
Payment for Roads which were formerly paid for, well
the specific purpose of road funding. We have yet to
agree on how that untieing is distributed because, if
it is distributed by way of Financial Assistance
Grants, the weighting of the distribution is different
to the weighting of the road monies which were formerly
paid under an SPP a Specific Purpose Payment. You
understand, under the equalisation formulas, money is
basically, on the horizontal equalisation, shifted off
to the smaller States, but given the fact that the old
Specific Purpose Payments for roads were concentrated
where the roads were required, more of the money went
to NSW and Victoria under the Specific Purpose Payments
than would go under Financial Assistance Grants. So
naturally, whenever these positions arise there is
always an argy-bargy about which distribution formula.
We are going to have another one of those between now
and the next Premiers Conference.
The other important point was, I think, we had to seek
to agree on the delineation of road funding
responsibilities which is the Commonwealth
Government's and which is the States so that we can
define. Now that the Commonwealth is going to move
$ 350 million out of identifiable roads spending and
give that to the States we want to be clear that we
don't have constituency interest coming back to us to
say, you are now not spending enough on roads. We say,
well hang on, we were spending it, we've just untied
it. It's not shown, so it will be important for us to
get that delineation of what's a Commonwealth function
and a what's a State function clear.
On Aboriginal affairs we endorsed the report of the
AAAC and agreed to, I will just check with John this,
to examine the operation of Section 18 of the Act the
funding powers of ATSIC. The States have had some
difficulty relating to ATSIC as the primary negotiating
point for the expenditure of Commonwealth funds and so
therefore Section 18 of that Act and its financing
function is going to be examined. But the States have
acknowledged that ATSIC is the body they have to deal
with where formerly they were seeking simply a deal
with the Commonwealth.
On rail, several Premiers' expressed satisfaction with
the way things were going in the ' One Nation' rail
program and we are moving to try and negotiate an
enterprise agreement for the National Rail Freight
Corporation but while that's happening, we're in the
process of getting contracts together for the provision
of passing loops, extensions, bridge heightening and
all the other things and Premiers told us that they
were satisfied with progress on that score.
I think that's about it in terms of resume, the
communique will go more expressly to the points but I
think we can conclude by saying that it was a good
meeting and there was an atmosphere of co-operation and
we've now formalised, if you like, this discussion by
the Council of Australian Governments so in the future
there won't be just simply a Financial Premiers
Conference but there will be as well another forum for
national agenda discussions.
I think I will leave it at that and just invite the
Treasurer and see if he wants to add anything to my
remarks in any way.
J: On 1 May the Minister for Finance said that the revenue
collections were moving towards the February budget
deficit target of $ 6.8 billion. What has happened in
the last ten days to so dramatically change that
outlook?
T: Well let's go back a bit further. I mean there was
some suggestion back in January/ February that the
revenue estimates wouldn't hold up. We undertook some
specific enquiries as far as that was concerned and we
were reassured at that time that the revenue estimates
were likely to be sustained during the rest of the
financial year. It wasn't really until the December
quarter National Accounts figures came out in the
middle of March that we began to realise that there may
have been an error in estimation, or the estimations
may not hold up because of the lower growth in earnings
because the higher level of unemployment that then was
anticipated at the time, the fact that you had lower
interest rates. All these things only became a
question after that and that coupled with the actual
experience of collections in, I think, April and May
really revealed the scope or the nature of the
deficiency because it was confined largely to this area
of provisional tax paying individuals, which is of
course based on their 1991 income and what had happened
was that there was an over-estimation of that inc~. e at
T: I think the point is that the deficit, you said that we
were back to where we started. i mean when we started
we had a budget deficit of some 4 per cent of GDP.-
Even with this position it is about 2 1/ 2 per cent of
GDP. So, whilst the numbers, the absolute numbers
might look large when compared back to 1983/ 84 we are
talking about a budget sector which has grown from
about $ 40 billion to nearly $ 100 billion, so it is a
much different equation than we were dealing with back
in 1983/ 84.
the time of the budget. But that wasn't actually
revealed in terms of payments until those provisional
tax payers started actually paying in April and May.
So it was really of recent origin. I was first alerted
to the fact there may be a problem only a matter of a
couple of weeks ago and I indicated that at the time.-
I sent the Tax Commissioner back to confirm his figures
in the context of the May review because we don't give
running commentaries of the revenue side of the budget.
We have a normal process in the context of the May
review. I brought forward the May review, asked for
the revenue figures to be tightened up as much as
possible for the May review and decided that that
should be released in the context of this Premiers'
Conference so that they had an understanding, not only
of our budgetary position this year but also our
prospects for next year as well.
J: You were scathing at the time about those private
estimates which now turn out to have been pretty spot
on, at least in the total. Are you concerned that the
collection of official data or the making of official
estimates is not perhaps what it should be?
T: Well this area which has been the subject of the
greatest volatility has an experience at being
volatile. I mean on this occasion it is down by a
figure of $ 1.8 billion; a year ago it was down by
$ 300 million; the year before by $ 1.1 million; the year
before by $ 1.5 million; the year before by
$ 300 million; but the year before that it was an underestimate
by nearly a billion dollars. So there is a
high degree of volatility in this provisional taxpayer
area. of course, it has been covered up on other
occasions because revenues have increased under other
categories. As far as the Access estimate or
prediction in January, I think, of a $ 9 billion
deficit, they may have got it right but for all the
wrong reasons. The components of their estimates were
wrong, they under-estimated the size of this deficiency
and they wildly over-estimated the size of what they
predicted was going to be a massive deficiency in the
PAYE area. So they got it right by accident.
J: What's the difference Mr Dawkins of getting it wrong
for all the right reasons?
T: Well what do you mean by that?
J: Well you said that Access got it right for all the
wrong reasons.
T: Look there is a world of difference between a budget
deficit blowing out because expenditure is out of
control that is not the case. Expenditure has hardly
contributed to this question at all other than the
planned expenditure that we made in the One Nation
context. This has been a deficiency for all the right
reasons. For the reasons in the way in which the Prime
Minister has described it. We have had lower
inflation, lower earnings growth, lower income from
investments because of lower interest rates and a range
of those kinds of things.-So this is not something
which could have been accurately predicted at the time.
The other point is that the Tax Office' s estimates of
company tax are made on the basis of a private survey
that they make, I think, in June of a particular year,
helping them to estimate for the next year and it just
turns out that survey happened on this occasion to
overstate the company tax collections.
J: Mr Dawkins these ficures were last updated in February,
not so long ago, surely they should be more accurate?
T: At that stage they were all on track and it wasn't
until the later evidence came in, and I am telling you
I actually asked the question before that, I asked that
these matters be confirmed and they were at the time.
It was only when the National Accounts figures camne in
in March and when we had the record of the actual
collections being made in April and May that the
magnitude of this problem became clear.
3: Prime Minister, can you still deliver the One Nation
tax cuts?
PM: Yes. They are solid as they were when they were
published. And again, we will have the Budget back
into surplus in 1995-96.
3: But doesn't that imply that you are going to have some
spending cuts, Mr Keating?
PM: We've, the Treasurer and I, have been involved with
putting together of more budgets just about, certainly
more economic statements, than any other pair of
individuals in the history of the Federation, 17 of
them in fact, and we always have been able to meet our
objectives, and we will again.
J: Does it throw any of the one Nation measures out of
kilter?
PM: No, it just means that the financing task is bigger,
and it means the starting point next year is larger.
But again, there is a lot of volatility in these
revenue estimates, and you can see this in the election
by provisional taxpayers to obviously self-assess
themselves. That will change.
J: But isn't the point about these figures today that
while they might be only just emerging, you are arguing
that their source is from low inflation, what you argue
is that there is a structural change in the economy.
If that's the case, shouldn't we be assuming that
there's not going to be any huge surge again in revenue
if low inflation is locked in?
PM: The revenue will come from growth/ activity profits etc.
Business is now in a position where it is moving to a
mode of higher productivity. The high level of
unemployment is evidence of that. So as soon as there
is a pick up in volumes, the prof its will go straight
on the bottom line. They will all be picked up under
tax collections a year later.
T: Of course with higher levels of employment as well.
PM: With higher levels of employment and activity. But the
initial effects of low inflation are going to be,
obviously, some burden to the budget.
J: Your tax cuts are based on bracket creep, but if
inflation is lower how are you going to fund your tax
cuts?
PM: Well the brackets will be creeping less, won't they?
J: Yes that's right and you'll have less money to pay
back.
PM: And therefore, well we'll see. We've got forecasts in
there. At the moment we've been undershooting those
forecasts with inflation, which is a good thing.
T: Of course the other point to bear in mind is that with
lower inflation you've got the prospect of maybe
growing a little faster.
PM: That is, the confidence effects.
T: Mr Keating, do you reserve the right if those forecasts
turn out to have to be revised to revise the tax cuts?
PM: All governments automatically have a right of
discretion, but we've made our position clear on this.
J: Is that position absolute?
PM: Yes, absolute. Because we have in the past delivered
very large tax cuts over quite long time frames and
they've all been delivered. At every point, the ACTU
has always said the Government has always delivered on
its commitments. Never have we made arrangements which
we backed away from.
J: Mr Keating, in the past you've said it gets harder
every year to keep cutting and there's less and less to
cut. How tough an assignment will it be to actually,
in the past you've been able to cut expenditure, how
tough a task will it be now?
PM: That assumes one has to cut expenditure.
J: Well, didn't you say earlier that you would be looking
at that to reign in the deficit and to deliver the
promised tax cuts?
PM: We'll look at the production of a budget which has got
lots of things to it. We've now got a relatively small
public sector in OECD terms, not withstanding the rise
in unemployment benefits and the outlays coming from
the natural stabiliser in the budget. But invariably
when we put the budget together we've always had a
housekeeping task on outlays, and we probably will
again.
T: And the best way to deal with outlays is to not let
them grow too fast. So what it really means is that
our colleagues might have a dent or two placed in their
new policy proposals.
J: Do you think a $ 10.5 billion deficit is an acceptable
level for next year?
T: Well that's the starting point deficit. This is the
kind of beginning of the budget process. We all have
our discussions about what we think the appropriate
parameters are for the budget and obviously we'll bear
in mind the starting point deficit in that context.
J: What impact is the Government's bond raising program,
now that this deficit figure has appeared, likely to
have on interest rates?
T: Not much I wouldn't have thought, if the response from
the market is anything to go by. The Treasury put out
a statement today talking about, I think, another $ 1.3
billion borrowings in June, and I think we'll wait and
see what the reaction to that is but I think the market
will take it in its stride.
J: All this indicates, despite the spirit of cooperation
today, the States next month clearly cannot expect
anything much in the way growth in real funds, surely.
T: Well interestingly they didn't put in a bid for any
lavish claims. They recognise that, certainly after I
revealed the state of our Budget, they acknowledged the
fact that this was not going to be the year in which
they could get a major correction in what they consider
to be their budgetary circumstances.
J: Someone said it was a role reversal.
PM: Normally they come with a tale of woe, this time they
came to find that there was a change in the
Commonwealth Budget, a deterioration of the
Commonwealth Budget balance, which may have taken some
by surprise.
J: Who said that?
PM: Well I can't remember exactly which one.
J: It was certainly very fortuitous timing, wasn't it
Prime Minister?
PM: There was nothing organised, it was a natural time to..
T: We actually brought it foreword.
PM: Good point.
T: We thought it would have been particularly odd for us
to send the Premiers away from Canberra and then a week
later make this revelation. And that's why I brought
foreword the announcement of this position. Because
they had been making the point frequently and loudly
that their budgets were knocked around by the recession
and ours was not. That's what they said. And it was
important for them to be advised that in fact our
budget is much more knocked around because our budget
is more dependent on income taxes and with fewer people
in the workforce, that affects the revenue, and it also
affects the outlays as you have to pay those people
unemployment benefits. Because ours is the budget that
provides the kind of stabilisers to the economy under
these circumstances.
PM: The States revenue this year is still growing. I think
on average it is about 1.5 per cent. Commonwealth
revenue is declining by about 3.8 per cent.
T: Now more.
PM: Now more.
J: Are you as confident about the growth and investment
forecasts in One Nation as you were two months ago,
particularly for 1992-3?
PM: I think there is a mood change coming from the
consolidation of those low inflation numbers and the
interest rate reduction, which the Treasurer announced
last week, had 1 per cent taking cash rates at 6.5 per
cent is starting to take a substantial effect upon the
outlook for growth activity, investment. We're
starting, I think, to see people really accepting the
fact that inflationary expectations are down, inflation
is down in a trend way and we are going to have lower
interest rates for the foreseeable future. That's an
important part of the investment equation and it is
coming good for Australia.
J: Did the question of the Superannuation Guarantee Levy
come up with the Premiers?
PM: Only in passing.
J: Prime Minister, in the deficit figure today, do your
growth forecasts in One Nation have to be exceeded for
you to meet your timetable of a return to surplus
without spending cuts?
PM: We're talking about 1995-96, we're not talking about
tomorrow morning. We're looking at, obviously, the
economy now moving into a recovery phase on the upswing
and we've, in the past, set ourselves sort of medium
term outcomes for public policy, for fiscal policy, and
I don't really think that, notwithstanding that $ 1.9
nearly $ 2 billion shift, that is an insurmountable
problem for us.
J: Mr Dawkins, can you explain how the Tax Office got its
estimations on the impact of the tax file numbers so
wrong? Is it the case that there is fewer dishonest
people out there, or are they just more clever than the
ATO?
T: I'm not absolutely sure about that. They made some
predictions particularly about interest income and the
effect of having the tax file number as a means of
having a more accurate record of interest income. I
think it was more partially a fact that people probably
anticipated this and made their own arrangements ahead
of the TFN. It was also a fact that interest rate
payments were lower than anticipated. But I can get
you a more detailed response to that if you want one.
J: Mr Keating, do you still think the States are basically
irresponsible financial managers?
PM: The States have pulled back on their spending somewhat,
but between the period 1985-6 and 1991-92, that is in
the period when fiscal consolidation became a national
imperative, Commonwealth outlays rose by 5.9 per cent
and State purpose outlays rose by 12.9 per cent. So if
one takes outlays growth as a measurement of restraint,
the Commonwealth's 5.9 per cent real over that period
1985 to 1991-2 is an indication of fairly stringent
levels of restraint. The States did have bigger
spending programs. These in part were camouflaged by
the big pick up in receipts coming off the boom,
particularly in property and stamp duties, that's
declined a bit. But the underlying level of their
outlays and expenditure programs are obviously not as
tight as the Commnonwealth's.
J: Mr Keating, in terms of their confidence as financial
managers, though, given some of the things that have
happened in Victoria and in South Australia, I mean
they're really fundamental problems that need to be
addressed. what sort of things can the Commonwealth
do?
PM: Well they've certainly got problems with management of
financial institutions and PTEs, and I think they're
are obviously now painfully aware of those.
J: But is there some sort of stamp that the Commonwealth
can put on
PM: I don't think so. In the end if you want own the State
Bank the buck stops at the shareholder's door. You can
have all the independent boards you like and you can
have everything else, but in the end you've got to take
an interest in it.
J: Was the position of hospitals discussed?
PM: Only briefly.
J: What about the implementation of the Aboriginal Deaths
in Custody Royal Commission?
PM: Well again they will be responding to that and relating
their response through ATSIC.
T: That was the significance of the endorsement of the
AAAC Agreement that that's the thing that underpins
these mechanisms for the future. So we made progress
on that.
J: So what's the effect of that?
T: It now means we've got a mechanism, a Commonwealth-
State mechanism for dealing with the response to the
Commission' s report.
3: While the Premiers were meeting with you, their
officials were telling the Senate Committee on Super
that they basically rejected what the Federal
Government's been saying about the effect of the SGL on
wages outcomes, on jobs, and on national savings. This
13
SGL looks like it's in a fair bit of trouble with the
Senate. Are you prepared to modify it dramatically or
change the date of its implementation?
T: No. I don't think it is in trouble. I've been having
discussions with the Democrats, they haven't given me
the impression that they're about to reject it. What
would you expect the States to say. I mean, the States
see this as a bit of an inconvenience because it's
going to cost them money. But the alternative is that
they would be up for higher wages costs. The fact of
the matter is that the States have been major
beneficiaries of wage restraint. Wage restraint has
been achieved at a great cost to the Federal budget
through tax cuts, wage-tax trade of fs, and the like.
And this was a point that the Prime Minister made to
them today. So you don't expect them to be throwing
their hats in the air about this arrangement, but it is
basically an arrangement whereby people who don't have
superannuation, or who have very little of it, will get
access to it to improve their prospects in retirement.
J: They're making the basic point which is that the SGL
means that for a lot of people there will be what is
effectively a wage increase on July 1, in terms of the
cost to employers, which would not otherwise flow
through with the economy in the state it's in.
PM: Yes, but the superannuation 3 to 5 to 6 per cent
outcomes are the product of wage restraint from 1985-
1991/ 92. And the years when we've had falling real
levels of wages, the States have been given an enormous
bonus for years in succession. Look at their wage
costs wage costs are 60 per cent of their outlays and
what's average weekly earnings this year? 3.5 per
cent. I mean, they've been the major beneficiaries of
the Accord processes. They can't take all of the
benefits and then say sorry, but the bit at the end of
the section, the superannuation, we're not going to be
paying that. You know.
J: Do you envisage that this new Council is actually going
to be able to make decisions and reach agreements, or
is it just purely as you've put in your Statement for
discussion?
PM: No, if you look at today today is really a precursor
for this, a forerunner for this. It was a decision
we ' ye made today on a whole range of important things
such as mutual recognition of standards, what we're
deciding to do about electricity. It is a very large
principle getting the States to agree,
notwithstanding the presence of electricity
commissions, for the principle of separation of power
generation and transmission assets is a very large one
to get at a meeting like this. I've always said to you
I've thought these Premiers' Conference meetings were
very efficient. And they have been by and large.
Whether they be in the financial guise or in the nonfinancial
guise. And I think this Council could do a
great deal.
J: Mr Keating, in terms of the way you see these
Federal/ State relations going, is there a particular
theme you can point to as to where the reform is going,
I mean through that Council?
PM: All of the areas where national policy, since the time
of Federation there has been a more national outcome.
Be it in terms of the economy, macro-economic policy,
education, roads, the Commonwealth Government has been
involved and there has been a national movement of
policy. Having a place to discuss those things other
than simply Ministerial Councils where it is the
preserve of the respective Minister and not the broader
discussion between States and the Commonwealth, has
been a limited factor. I think to now be in a position
to discuss these issues in the longer haul, that is to
find this sort of delineation between State and
Commonwealth responsibilities and to talk about them in
the broad, so that Premiers in all States at the one
time are all part of the same conversation and know
which way the system is moving, is I think important.
The cooperation in the last few years has been quite
profound and a lot has been achieved. A great deal.
And I think this Council does hold great promise.
Thank you.
ends