MITCHELL: Mr Rudd, what is rich?
PM: Very interesting question. I think when you look across the country today, people are struggling each day to balance the family budget, we know they form the overwhelming majority of Australians. People way, way, way beyond that, I suppose fall within the category you're talking about.
Our concern at Budget time is to make sure that those who are struggling to balance the family budgets get some support.
MITCHELL: I see the Budget being described as a Robin Hood Budget, take from the rich and give to the poor. That's why I ask what is rich? I mean, what do you consider is the target area?
PM: Well, I think was headline news by a newspaper rather than a statement made by the Government.
MITCHELL: It certainly was, yeah.
PM: That's why I am responding in the way I am responding.
MITCHELL: But it does apply doesn't it? I mean, what is the area where you think people are sort of sufficiently comfortable that you can take from them?
PM: Well, I just go back to the question of balancing a family budget. If you're on median income, $50-60,000 a year, you're looking at putting your kids into childcare and dealing with their child care costs, dealing with the education costs, having to go to the doctor, particularly in winter, a couple of times a month, and paying the pharmaceuticals, and struggle with your mortgage. I mean they are the people who make up the vast majority of our country who we need to look after. People way beyond that -
MITCHELL: So what's that $100,000, $150,000?
PM: I don't put a number on it Neil. It's just that I think once you get right up there, there's the whole question about whether you need support from Government. People struggling with the budget, and I presume that the vast majority of your listeners today, they are the people who we need to try and help and they are the people we intend to provide support to through the Budget.
MITCHELL: So that is your Budget to hit fat cats?
PM: Well, we haven't used that term and I'm not intending to use that term, but I say people at the upper end of the income spectrum, don't actually need direct support from Government much.
MITCHELL: So will they lose things?
PM: Well, let's wait and see what the Budget outlines. But in terms of our commitments before coming to office, and certainly since then, we've said consistently that working families are under financial pressure.
Our first priority is to honour the promises we made to them before the election, to make sure that we provide some support to them, given the challenges that they are under.
MITCHELL: You have made it known that you're going to reverse share option deals for executives. Is that right?
PM: Yeah, that's one measure, that's in the public domain already and that deals with the taxation treatment of share options. Largely for corporate executives. And that's revenue measure worth something to the Government. If you make a saving there, you can use that to provide support for working families in other areas, that's important.
MITCHELL: Not a big saving though is it, $80 million over the course of the Budget, it's not much?
PM: Well if you've been through the process that I've been through with the Treasurer in the last several weeks and months, let me tell you, every million bucks counts. So, you go through it line by line, in fact we're down to the $100,000 lines of Government expenditure, to make sure that you've got enough overall to deal with the challenge that you face in providing support to working families.
MITCHELL: You really get down to that level, you have a look at the expenditure of $100,000 on something?
PM: Well, usually not much below because you're dealing with a heftily sized budget. Not usually much below the million point. But we have been down to smaller line items than that.
MITCHELL: Is it right that funding to nursing homes will be cut?
PM: When it comes to the Budget, let's wait for everything to be put on the table. We can go through a list of in and outs and we won't get very far.
MITCHELL: You're releasing some of it, you're saying the share options will be hit for example. You're talking about spending on migrant education. You're releasing some of it. It's a reasonable point to ask. Because it's out in the public domain that spending on nursing homes will be cut $150 million?
PM: Well, we take our responsibilities when it comes to people who need aged care services very seriously. This has been the subject of much, much discussion within the Government and we are confident that we are going to provide the levels of support necessary to give people proper care in those areas.
It's quite understandable that at this stage of the Budget process, Neil, you are going to have people from one industry group or another out there whacking out their press statements or ringing up media outlets and saying x, y and z - a, b and c are under threat, put some pressure on the Government and see what happens. That's standard and it's natural and it's normal. I understand that.
But our job is to produce a responsible budget for the overall economy and that means fighting the fight against inflation. We are waging a war against inflation at present and the reason for that is, if you don't, and you don't deal with reckless Government spending, some of which we inherited from the past, then you're going to place further upward pressure on interest rates and that's very bad for people.
So, priority number one is to produce a responsible Budget as part of responsible economic management. Honour our election commitments to working families and invest in those areas of neglect where the previous Government didn't act in health and education.
MITCHELL: Okay. So that obviously means cuts in some areas doesn't it?
PM: Well we've never hidden from that, and all will be revealed on Budget night. But if your going to honour your election commitments to working families on tax cuts - $31 billion worth for low to middle income earners, then things have got to give elsewhere, if your going to produce a Budget which is responsible in overall economic terms.
MITCHELL:Okay. Is it correct, as reported, that the surplus will be between $20-$21 billion dollars?
PM: Well, again we have to wait until budget night for that. We set in January the target of producing a surplus of 1.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. The reason we set that target was because we believe it's is necessary to produce savings overall, into the economy so that you don't fuel the fires of inflation through government spending. And that is the target we've been working to. The absolute final landing point will be revealed on budget night as well.
MITCHELL: Fair enough. It would it be fair to say, everybody in the country will be touched by this budget?
PM: Well because the budget represent such a huge slice of national economic activity, it will affect everybody. Through the tax scheme, through the proposed approach that we take in health and education and across the board. I think if you are serious about a national budget, setting national policy priorities for the long term future, then yes people will be affected, either immediately or over time.
But our big commitment, our big commitment, given the increases in mortgages and groceries and petrol and the rest, is to make sure that we do whatever we can to support families under pressure.
MITCHELL: So if it's not a Robin Hood budget, what is it? You write the headline?
PM: I think that will be written subsequent to it. But can I say, number one: responsible economic budget. That means, fighting a war against inflation, to make sure that we don't provide further inflationary pressures which provide further upward pressure on interest rates. That is number one.
The number two is: working families are under financial pressure - what can we do to support them to balance the weekly family budget? And that is really hard. That is why there is $31 billion already in announced tax cuts for them. But also critically, increase the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent.
If you are on $50,000 a year, and if you have got a child in childcare, my advice is that you will be about $1000 a year better off. That is a significant addition to people trying to put together the family budget.
MITCHELL:Can I also suggest this is the first big test for you isn't it? I mean, there have been a lot of other things, and some of them symbolic, some of them not, but this is really nuts and bolts government, you have got to get it right.
PM: Oh look, no one hides from that Neil. Budgets are tough, we have spent days, weeks months sitting in that room. And going through it, as I said, line by line. And you know something, it won't be perfect, there will be people who complain, we believe the overall thrust will be right. Responsible economic management, helping families under pressure, and critically investing in those areas of neglect for our long term future, like health and education, you have got to get things right.
MITCHELL:Sorry, 96900693 or 13 13 32, speak to the Prime Minister direct, give us a call now. 96900693 or 13 13 32. Are you planning to focus on motor bike riders?
PM:Well Anthony Albanese, the Minister for Transport has put out some pretty stunning statistics on this and I was unaware of these myself. Motorcyclists now account for almost 15 per cent of all road deaths.
That's huge, last year 240 motorcycle riders were killed and 5000 hospitalised, these are huge numbers, so.
MITCHELL:What do you do about it?
PM:Well we are now working on a national road safety strategy through the Australian Transport Commission. We are going to look at a whole series of practical measures from the community about how we can bring this appalling fatality and injury rate down.
MITCHELL:Just can I ask you quickly too, gay marriage, would you ever allow it?
PM:Oh look, we have said right from the beginning that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I made that commitment before the last election. We will honour that commitment. We support the removal of discrimination from same sex couples and from de-facto heterosexual couples when it comes to basic, basic arrangements in terms of tax, superannuation and the rest, and also a nationally consistent relationships register. But when it comes to civil unions, as it is described, civil unions mean the effective amendment of the marriage act, and that is something we don't support.
MITCHELL: If the ACT attempts to go ahead with it, will you block it?
PM:Oh we are still in discussions with the ACT Government in terms of their proposal. No such other proposal is being advanced by any other state government that I am aware of. And the ACT has some views. We will discuss that through. But we have got a responsibility to honour what we said to the Australian people before the election. And that is, remove all practical levels of discrimination, as they impact on same sex couples. A move towards a nationally consistent registration, register, as they have in Tasmania. I understand now in Victoria, there is one proposed as well.
But on the question of marriage, for us that is sacrosanct, between a man and woman, under the Marriage Act, our position hasn't changed.
MITCHELL:Similar area in terms of a territory being involved, but I know the senate is reviewing the decision to overturn the Northern Territories euthanasia law. Do you support euthanasia?
PM:No, it is a conscience vote. But my view has always been clear cut on this. And I say that as someone who has, like many of your listeners, I am sure, has been in family circumstances where you have seen people very near and dear to you, in the case of myself, my mother, who died of cancer. And it is not pretty to watch.
But my own personal view, and these are matters for conscience vote and people can, if it becomes a matter for vote in the federal parliament, people exercise their conscience differently, but you asked me directly what my view is, that's it.
MITCHELL:Would you oppose a vote, would you oppose the concept of it being voted on in the parliament?
PM:Well on the question of the euthanasia, it depends entirely on what proposals are put forward across the country and how they impact on the federal parliament. All these life matters, including euthanasia, have historically been the subject of a conscience vote on the part of our government's members and I think I can say the same in relation to the coalition. And if one came forward from whatever quarter, then that would be my approach.
The reason for it, it is not some sort of abstract sort of ideological point of view, it is just, my own personal view is that if you change the laws in this area, I do become concerned about the way in which these things can drift over time. Particularly in the attitude taken by older people themselves, or people with terminal illnesses, who then conclude that they are being an increasing burden to their families and then conclude, that it is in other people's interests not their own best interests to seek euthanasia.
MITCHELL:That's true, but do you agree it is happening already? It's fairly, it's commonly practiced in Australia already. It's just not legal.
PM:I don't have data on that, Neil. I couldn't comment. I know that palliative care practices are difficult and complex areas of medicine. And, again I just go back to my own personal experience with my own Mum, who was provided with palliative care at home. And people providing that palliative care were terrific.
Complex area, really hard, and people going through this trauma right now listening to your program, I don't apply any judgment to anybody whatsoever. But, you ask me a direct question what my view is, that's it.
MITCHELL:Thank you, we'll take a break and come back with calls and more questions for the Prime Minister.
[AD BREAK]
CALLER:Good morning Neil, and Mr Rudd.
PM:G'day David, how are you?
CALLER:Very good thanks. Now, I live in Gippsland, in Victoria. You've brought these taxes in for the mixed drinks to try and alleviate the problem that we have with the binge drinking with the young children.
PM:Yep.
CALLER:But, these prices are also affecting the prices that adults, that have paid taxes like myself for 30 years, we're just an average family, and mixed drinks like Johnny Walker and cola or Jim Beam and cola have all gone up.
PM:Well, we've got a real problem when it comes to teenage binge drinking. Talk to any police commissioner across the country and they'll tell you that. Difficult to deal with this. Some of the data we've got from the National Household Drugs Survey says we've now got 30-40,000 teenage girls aged 14-19 and 23,000 boys the same age, consuming alcohol at a level that puts them at high risk of long term harm. And if you look at what they're drinking, take girls for example, in the year 2000, 14 per cent of female drinkers aged 15-17 were reported drinking these ready to drink drinks -
MITCHELL:But is it fair that David pay the price for that?
PM:I'll just finish this one other point - and by 2004, that had increased by 60 per cent. So there is a big linkage between binge drinking on the one hand and these forms of drinks.
David, sorry it's hurting you. It's a blunt instrument. I understand that. But, we've got a responsibility to act when it comes to young people, and police commissioners across the country are crying out for action.
And on the linkage, if I could just add this, there is a report which I draw your attention to, came out about two or three years ago, it's called ‘The Prevention of Substance Abuse, Risk and Harm in Australia', a review of the evidence, this is by the National Drug Research Institute, and Centre for Adolescent Health. It says, it is established beyond serious doubt, that all other things being equal, increases in the price of alcohol usually leads to an overall reduction in consumption.
It's a blunt instrument, I'm sorry it's affecting you, but I'm really, really worried about what's happening with our young people.
MITCHELL:Hello Lyn, go ahead please, Lyn.
CALLER: Thank you, Neil. Good morning, Prime Minister.
PM: G'day Lyn, how are you?
CALLER: I'm well, thank you. I'm just wondering why it is that you and your Government always refer to the working families as the only ones under financial hardship.
There are many single people, there are many elderly people, who are not in a family situation, who are also under financial hardship.
PM: Well, families we use, in just a very broad sense. I mean, if you're a single person who is a pensioner or a self-funded retiree, or someone who is being provided cared by a carer, everyone is part of a broader family. So, when we say working families, we're not talking about some nuclear family of Mum, Dad and two kids, it's people who are out there in a set of family relationships either under one roof or beyond one roof, who are under financial pressure. And that means our senior Australians as well.
MITCHELL: Prime Minister, you've explained the increasing dangers in Afghanistan and we've had an injury and a death this week. Yet, only two weeks ago when the 70 troops came back from Afghanistan, you had no representative there to meet them. Why?
PM: Defence, have a practice, the Department of Defence, have a practice in the past, as I'm advised, which is when you have smaller groups of soldiers arrive home from either Iraq or Afghanistan, they don't normally advise either the Minister or the Government.
What happens is, when they bring home smaller groups, like that 70, that at a later stage when all the troops from that particular deployment are back home, often on many different flights, they then are brought together for a general welcoming home parade.
We've had three of those in the last six months. But you know, in the last six months there have been 82 separate flights carrying people to and from Iraq and Afghanistan alone? But in the future, I actually think we need to do it differently. And that's why we've told Defence that when we have any group of troops returning home, of any size, what we'll do is make sure that we've got a Minister there to meet them as well. But that's a change in practice from the past.
MITCHELL: Why have you decided to suppress documents on the inflationary effects of workplace reform? Isn't it reasonable that we know that?
PM: I'm unaware of the details of that. I saw a report on it this morning. FOI decisions are made by our FOI decision markers within individual departments. But I'm really uncertain of the details in that particular case. I wish I could help you, but I can't.
MITCHELL: John Brumby has suggested that he might, the State Government might buy you a house in Melbourne. Now, I know you said that if it was privately funded then it would be okay. Would you take one from the State Government?
PM: Oh, look, Neil you're on a hiding to nothing in Melbourne however you answer this question, aren't you?
MITCHELL: Oh, I think it's a bit silly - I don't think you need it, do you?
PM: Can I just say, my overall view is, if the private sector down there want to provide something like that, and there is absolutely no cost to the taxpayer, then it's something we'd look at.
I was in Melbourne the other day, stayed at a hotel. That was fine. Got around, spoke to people, went down to Geelong, and went to the local shopping centre, talked to a lot of people. That wasn't affected one way or another in terms of where I stayed the previous night.
MITCHELL: Do you know how much the Summit cost you? I see $250,000 to Melbourne University, $60,000 to a PR company, which is owned by one of the Government staffers. How much did it cost all up?
PM: All of those facts will be fully documented once we get to the Senate Estimates process, and they'll all be fully disclosed. I think on the precise details of the individual amounts, I don't have that in front of me. But, we'll be completely transparent about that. The other thing to say, though, is, remember, we had all of these people, senior executives from around the country, coming free of charge and dedicating their time free of charge. If you're running a Summit for a 1,000 people from across the country, doing it as inexpensively as we have done it, I think is a very important achievement of itself.
As for the company you referred to, as I understand it, you're referring to CMAX Communications. It's a Canberra based firm, listed as the preferred media partner for Federal Government business under the previous Howard Government, and been awarded numerous contracts by them in the past over the last four years.
MITCHELL: Yeah, but it's owned by one of your staffers.
PM: As I understand it -
MITCHELL: And there was no tender.
PM: As I understand it, the tendering arrangements were consistent with Government tendering guidelines. The Prime Minister's Department deemed that within the time frame necessary, they would go for what is called direct source provisions. As I said, all of those things will be fully disclosed at the appropriate time through Government Estimates when all the numbers are in. And it will be completely transparent on that point.
MITCHELL: Thank you for your time. I read today, that according to Time Magazine you are one of the most 100 influential men in the country, and according to someone else, you're groovy.
PM: Well, I can say absolutely no to the second point. And, if you ask any of my family to give their view on that, and they'd probably agree. Grooviness is not one of my virtues.
MITCHELL: Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd