E&OE..................
Well thank you very much Bob, to Richard Colback the President of the Tasmanian Division, my Federal Parliamentary colleagues, my fellow candidates, my fellow Australians. This is a very, very important election. Prime Minister';s always say that on the campaign trial but it does have a special resonance on this particular occasion. Because we do face my dent on the circumstances that Bob referred to in his introduction, we do face a more uncertain future. We must neither ignore that nor be overwhelmed or daunted by it, it';s important to see through some of that concern and so that unease to a time and a circumstance where we can look back on these very difficult challenges as a period in our history. But that is still a while into the future and in the meantime what Australia needs to do is to alliance herself with those forces in the world that are prepared to stand up in the things in which we believe. Shortly before coming to the dinner tonight, I was a little delayed because I had to make comment at a news conference on some remarks that had been made by the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad at a news conference earlier today in which he vindicated that the jihad would be extended to include Australia. That did not come as a surprise to me and indicated that the sort of heightened alert that was clearly necessary was implemented immediately after the attacks on the 11 September.
I made the point in that news conference and I make it tonight at the beginning of my remarks that it is not the Americans, it is not President Bush, it is not me, it is not the British Prime Minister or any foreign leaders who are injecting religion into this conflict, it is in fact those who harbour and relieve and protect the terrorists. Because this is not a struggle between the religions of the world, what we are opposing is something that should be repugnant to the true principles of all the great religions of the world, be that Christianity, Islam, Judaism or indeed any of the other great religions of the world. And we should never loss site of the fact that many people of Islamic faith died on the 11 September, they were equally innocent victims of a vile attack as were their Christian and Jewish and indeed non-believing fellow citizens of the world.
What we face here is a very clear and challenging responsibility as part of the civilised world to stand against something that if it is allowed to go unchecked will undermine the very basis of the kind of society we believe in. the objective is not only flatten people in a physical sense, but it is also to undermine the economic infrastructure of the industrialised world. And there';s no doubt that the American economy has suffered some severe blows as a result of what happened in September. And while the Australian economy is in very good shape and better able to withstand the after shocks of the 11 September than most other economies we can';t hope escape completely unscathed. So we do need to see ourselves as making common cause with our friends in the Unites States and other around the world because the attack was as much in a sense an attack in what we believe in and what we stand for as it was on what the United States believes in and what the American people stand for.
And it';s also very important that we maintain to the full measure our own record of tolerance and inclusion and harmony within our own society and we should reach out to those of our fellow Australians who are of Arab and Middle Eastern background and of the Islamic religion. This is not their fault, they shouldn';t carry any distain of this, they should not be gathered up and be the object of any of our rage or our rancour. They should be treated with the respect and decency which is accorded to all the citizens of this country because on the great things about Australia is that we judge people according to their passion for this country, for what they stand for, what they can contribute and not according to the country of their birth or their religion, their race or their nationality.
Now I';ll just simply say again on this before I move onto other issues, it is not the people of the United States, it is not the people of Australia, not the people of other like minded countries that seek to define this conflict, this struggle in religious terms, it is others. And that of course is where part of the evil lies. It is true as Bob said in very kind introduction that from time to time during this election campaign people have said it ought to be fought on domestic issues rather than international issues. Can I simply say to you that this election campaign should be fought on all the issues that are relevant to Australia';s future. And can I say to Mr Beazley I (inaudible) this election campaign fought on my economic record and have it compared with his economic record when he was the finance minister of this country. I';m also very happy to have his record as defence minister and his presiding over the extraordinary blow out in the cost of the construction of the Collins submarine and all the other things. I mean he keeps talking about his record as a defence minister, when you examine it, it doesn';t bear up very well under that scrutiny. But truly this is an election campaign where I have to be accountable both in relation to the international and national security issues and also the issues of economic management. And all the other policies, be they in the areas of education, or health or the environment, or law and order, all of them flow in a sense from the overarching impact of those two areas, because unless you run a strong economy you don';t have the resources to improve health and education provision within our society. Unless you are prepared to undertake economic reform you can';t offer to a population which will increasingly age because of our demographic into the future the wherewithal to fund the growing number of services that an aging population will require.
I';ve heard a lot from my opponent about education and health, let me say but two things about those issues. It is said of me and it is said of my Government that we are hostile to Government schools and to public education. Can I say in reply to that that we stand for freedom of choice, we believe that the parents of Australia have a right to decide the type of education that their children should receive. And that they have a right to decide which school educates their children. But in case anybody believes that that translates into some kind of discrimination against government schools let me give you but one statistic, in the five and a half years that we have been I government we have increased commonwealth provision, commonwealth payments, commonwealth funding of government schools around Australia by 43 per cent. And during that period of time the enrolments in Government schools in Australia have risen by only 1.8 per cent. So if you fund an increased enrolment of 1.8 per cent with a 43 per cent increase and when you bear in mind that historically whether we';ve had a Labor Government or a Liberal Government the states of Australia have picked up the funding to the tune of about 88 per cent of the operation of government schools. And in relation to the remaining 12 per cent there';s been a 43 per cent increase and enrolments have only gone up 1.8 per cent. It can barely be argued with any credibility at all that we have discriminated against Government schools. And can I say that I support a dual system of education, I';m a product of the government school sector myself, I believe in it. But I also believe in choice and I';m also very proud of the fact that it was Sir Robert Menzies who ended the discrimination against the independent school sector, particularly the Catholic school system of Australia when he introduced direct assistance for government schools in the early 1960';s. and it was the Liberal Party under the leadership of Menzies that ended that discrimination and we are the only party that stands unambiguously for freedom of choice. Mr Beazley talks about talking money away from privileged schools, his hit list includes a lot of schools that aren';t by any measure privileged and what he';s proposing now is the thin end of the wedge, it will that group of schools one day, it will be another group of independent schools the next. So if you believe in freedom of choice in education the only party, the only side of politics that';s going to guarantee fair treatment of both is the Coalition.
But the same sort of argument is raised in relation to health. there are weaknesses in Australia';s health system. It could be improved. But can I say to you that it';s infinitely better than the health systems of most other countries, infinitely better. And if you';re in modest circumstances it is far more likely that you will be well treated in the Australian medical system than say in the medical system of the United States or many of the countries of Europe. And we';ve set out to do a couple of things very importantly in health. we have resuscitated private health insurance. When I became Prime Minister the number of people in private health insurance was about 33 per cent and falling. It is now 45 per cent and stabilised. And that is the result of the $2.5 billion subsidy, via the tax system, that Labor voted against and we only got through with the vote of Senator Harridine in the Senate, but the Labor Party opposed it, they voted against it, even though we had a mandate after the 1998 election. So those of you who might wonder about where they stand on private health insurance, can you please do what I';ve asked all audiences to do whenever they look at what Labor says it';s going to do, don';t listen to what they say, remember what they did. And what they say about private health insurance is that they';re going to keep the tax rebate, but what they did when they have an opportunity was to vote against it. And now of course they say they';re going to keep the budget in surplus if they become the Government, they want to believe that they are sort of born again believers in fiscal purity, but when they were last in Government they left us with a $96 billion Federal Government debt, and not only left us with that debt but every single time we tried to wind it back they voted against that as well. I mean I regard that as a (inaudible) political crime, to leave your successor with a debt and then try and stop him repaying it. And that is essentially what they did. But despite their worst efforts we have repaid $58 billion, we will have by the end of this financial year, $58 billion of that $96 billion of Government debt.
And yet for the record can I remind you on public hospitals that under the current Medicare agreement, the health agreements, we';re providing to the states 28 per cent more in real terms than was provided under the Keating Government';s health care agreements with the states. But what we';ve done in the health goes further than that and I think Michael Wooldridge has done a fantastic job as a health minister oevr the last five and a health years. And one of the things he's been particularly successful at is implementing the old adage that prevention is better than cure. When we came inot Government the immunisation rates for children in this country was at a third world level of 53 per cent. In a few short years he';s lifted that figure to over 95 per cent. In many other areas of preventative health he';s prioneered changes and reforms. So I would say in relation to health I can always be an area where you can make additional provision. But those who argue that in some way the health system has been weakened by this government, those who argue that Labor offers a more viable alternative are ignoring the facts and ignoring the reality of the last five and a half years. And can I just say one other thing in relation to the whole question of government services. Introducing tax reform was not easy, we were opposed by the Labor Party, they tried at every turn to score points of the inevitable challenges of introducing a new system. And their whole political strategy was erected upon the edifice of hoping and praying that tax reform would be so unpopular that it fall over and the government with it, they would have to offer no alternative policy and they would coast to victory. And there was a famous Caucus meeting at the end of 1999 when the Leader of the Opposition was asked about policy development and he said look, don';t worry about that, we';re going to surf to victory on the fact of unpopularity with the GST. Now that was their philosophy, and they probably thought to themselves that that was a very canny, but negative, but nonetheless likely to be successful policy. What of course they didn';t bargain on is the common sense of the Australian people. Because over time the new system has been bedded down, it';s had it';s problems and I appreciate the way in which many in the small business community have accommodated. And we have tried to response and we have in a number of areas where they';ve expressed their concern, particularly the Business Activity Statement and a number of other areas. But there have been a lot of benefits of tax reform, $12 billion of tax cuts, a company tax rate down to 30 cents in the dollars, effective halving of the capital gains tax, the taking of tax off exports. All of which together have strengthened the Australian economy. But there';s one other great virtue of tax reform and that is that all of the proceeds of the GST, every last dollar from the GST goes to the states. Every last dollar. What that means in practice is that as time goes by, it will start to happen probably the year after next with Queensland being the first cab off the rank, and then as time goes by the other states also, as that time goes by the states will receive increasing amounts of revenue from the GST because the GST is a growth tax, it grows with the economy. It';s guaranteed to grow with the economy, that';s the nature of it, it';s a broadbased indirect tax. And that means the states of Australia over the years ahead will have more money to spend on things like public hospitals and government schools and police services and roads. And if we do face as a nation the challenge of an aging population, which we do, and the need to fund the services for that aging population, you need a growth tax, you need a growth revenue in the indirect tax area. And the old indirect tax system did not provide that and one of the great virtues of the GST is that it does provide that growth factor.
Now I have to acknowledge there have been some challenges and they';ve been criticism, no great reform is ever without criticism and without some implementation friction. But if I had my time over again I';d have still pursued tax reform with the same vigour because in the end what you have to do if you have the responsibility of Government is to implement reforms that you know in your heart are in the long term interests of our country.
And one other reform area I know is very important to anybody in business and certainly very important to our small business supporters, as well as of course larger corporations, and that';s the area of workplace relations reform. Of all of the reform causes with which I';ve been associated in the various positions I';ve held in the Liberal Party over the last 15 years, none has received in a sense more of my energy and commitment than industrial relations reform. I believed years ago that unless this country could break out of the old union dominated industrial relations straightjacket we would never realise our full productivity and growth potential. That that straightjacket represented a massive speed limit on our growth potential and it manifested itself in so many areas, the award system, it didn';t allow enough flexibility for people to negotiate workplace arrangements according to the circumstances of their own industry. That the awards system induced uncompetitiveness in our exports industries where world economic conditions and globalisation required great flexibility. And that was very apparent in many sections of the mining industry. And of course as all of you will know, particularly people working and living in an island state for years one of the great industrial relations scandals of this country was the monopoly of power held by the maritime unions of Australia on the Australian waterfront. (inaudible) and I tell you of the number of times I';ve been to business lunches, business dinners, received delegations from the business community of Australia who said to me sooner or later somebody will have the courage to do something about the monopoly of the MUA and the waterside workers federation as it used to be called on the Australian waterfront. Now finally that person did arrive in the form of Peter Reith in April of 1998. And that struggle was a struggle for the further economic competitiveness of this country, it wasn';t easy, we didn';t receive assistance from some quarters we';d hoped to receive assistance from, but that';s how things work out. I don';t know that the performance of all of the state governments around Australia on that occasion, I';m not talking about here at the time but others was all that it might have been. But in the end reform was achieved and when we set out to implement that reform we had a container movement weigh of 16.9 per cent per hour on the Australian waterfront. And we set ourselves a target of 25 and the cynics said it couldn';t be achieved, that it was impossible dream. I can tell you that last month the report of the independent assessor indicated that that rate now sits at 27 an hour, which is a massive increase.
And that has meant delivery on time, exports on time, it';s meant millions and millions of additional dollars of export earners for Australia. It';s been a wonderful outcome for Australian farmers because their produce no longer runs the risk of rotting of the wharfs of Australia because of the inefficiently of the waterfront. Now they my friends are some of the reforms that we';ve implemented. And can I assure you, I assure you of many things, but can I empathically assure you of one things in particular and that is that if we loss this election the area of reform that will the first casualty of a Beazley Labor Government will be reform of our industrial relations system. Because we will then have a Labor Government at a national level and we';ll have Labor Government's in every state unfortunately expect South Australia. With a Labor Government in the Northern Territory and a Labor Government now in the ACT you';ll have coast to coast, wall to wall Labor Governments and that is a ready made circumstance for the trade union bosses of Australia to reassert their authority. Every former living ACTU President will be on the frontbench of a Beazley Labor Government with the exception of Bob Hawke, and he';ll be in there somewhere giving a bit of advice on the side.
Now that';s the scenario, I exaggerate not one tiny bit because if there';s one thing that they will rollback in earnest, they haven';t rolled back the GST at all, they';ve kept the GST, after all the huffing and puffing and everything they';ve kept the GST, they';ve kept 96.8 per cent, that's a pretty good vote, that';s all I can say. If you keep 96.8 per cent of the GST you';re keeping it. But they won';t keep 96.8 per cent of our industrial relations reform because it';s cultural, it';s part of their history as a party, they are still dominated by the trade union movement and they will roll that back 100 per cent. And all of the productivity gains that have accrued as a result of industrial relations reform will be at risk. And don';t everybody imagine that this is some anti-worker clarion call from me, because the delicious irony of this debate is that under my Prime Ministership the wages of average Australian workers have risen at a much faster rate than they did when Mr Hawke and Mr Keating were Prime Minister's of Australia, they really have. Real income has risen by about nine per cent over the last five and a half years, they raised by about three per cent in the previous 13 years. And when you add to that the fact that interest rates are lower, throughout Australian the average homeloan repayment is $350 a month less, that we';ve generated 825,000 more jobs, then you really harping at a situation where this has been a government that has sought to protect the interests of the working men and women of Australia.
Just two others things I want to say and then I';ll sit down and let you have your main course. And that is this, that I will be making a number of policy announcements tomorrow that are of particular relevance to the state of Tasmania. We';ve always had a Tasmanian package and I';ve definitely very proud of that because there are economic disadvantages inherent in the physical separate in terms of this being an island state, Tasmania, from the rest of the Australian nation. And there has always been a case for some additional measures, and I';ll be making some announcements in relation to that. But there';s one thing that I can indicate to you tonight that I think will be good news, although there';ll still be a number of things that will need to be done by the Tasmanian Government and that is in relation to the Duke energy
[tape break]
$650 million, pipeline will run from Bellbay power station to Port Larder in the North-West of Tasmania with an extension of the pipeline from near Rosevale to near Springfield. The Commonwealth environmental approval includes conditions to ensure that that protection of threaten species such as the Swift Parrot, the Wedge Tailed Eagle, the Spotted Tail Mole and the Giant Freshwater Crayfish, we are a government, we are concerned about industrial development and we are concerned about environmental preservation and so that should be the case.
Can I say that the Duke Energy project is the first project assessed under the bilateral agreement on environmental assessment signed by the Commonwealth and Tasmania in 2000 and this bilateral agreement ensure that a rigorous but streamlined assessment process is followed, reducing delays and providing a high level of certainty for proponents in Tasmania. So can I say in relation to that very important project that so far as the environmental issues are concerned we';ve done out bit, we';ve given it a tick, that';s been approved today and we hope that any further action that';s required at a state level will come speedily so that the project can be bought to fruition.
Very finally can I say how very proud I am of all my House of Representatives candidates here in Tasmania. And I';m very proud of our Senators too. But they're in office, we want to get our House of Representatives, we want to transfer them from being candidates to being members. Now we do have a big challenge here in Tasmania, we don';t hold any House of Representatives seats, we've got to do something about that on the 10 November. And we have some great local candidates, we have some great issues, we have a population that I think is listening to our message, we have people in the Tasmanian community who are responding to the determination we';ve displayed in relation to quite a number of issues. Can I say to all of you we have a great opportunity if we can win again on the 10 November to really bed down the changes to Australia that we';ve introduced over the last five and a half years. Two terms is not enough, you need more than that to really bed it down. I think of the analogy of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, it was too late and too many years had past and he was not abler to rollback the reforms that had been introduced by the Thatcher Government which transformed the face of Britain and improve her economic strength many fold.
The same thing in a sense applies here. We need at least another couple of terms, (inaudible) things are bedded down and we must win some seats here in Tasmania. We';ve got the issues, we';ve got the candidates and we've got the opportunity and I sense tonight in this room a great amount of enthusiasm and a great commitment. Please work your hearts out between now and the 10 November, and see if we can deliver as many as possible of the House of Representatives seats so that I can look around in Question Time and see some shining Tasmanian faces behind in the House of Representatives, instead of having to look (inaudible). And you know get the odd (inaudible) from our political opponents over there. So can I just ask all of you to work very hard, there are great (inaudible) to be won, there';s a lot at stake and this is a very important election for us to win for the sake of our country and of course for the sake of our party.
Thank you.
[ends]