MITCHELL: You're today helping to launch a campaign around youth violence in the city involving the AFL. What's being done about it? What else are you doing about it?
PM: Well, just on the 'Just Think' campaign, which the AFL Players association have got behind, it's basically a public campaign - TV, radio, and print - on this alcohol-fuelled violence, and to cause young people in particular, but people in general, to literally just think before you drink too much or before you get that crazy idea in your head maybe to have a go at somebody, because we know how tragic the consequences could be, and why there are organisations like Step Back Think, which I think you're associated with as well, Neil. I've strongly supported this initiative. Your question is 'what else are we doing?'
As a Government, we are working our way through, as part of our national health reform strategy, what are the particular health-related challenges occurring with young people today? Mental illness - how do we effectively identify mental illness conditions with young people. Some of the stats we see have said 65 percent of people go undiagnosed, and a lot of that's occurring at younger stages in people's lives. How can we equip our teachers with the skills necessary to spot it, to intervene early and to turn people around? This is one of the practical things, but there's a whole range which the Youth Minister and the Health Minister are working on at the moment.
MITCHELL: You're obviously concerned about it, as is the Premier here, but what's happened? Why is this sudden, kids have always got drunk, and there've been brawls, but there seems to be a new level of violence, like the one I described. What's happened? What's changed? Do we know?
PM: An honest answer is, Neil, I don't think we do. Part of the reason why I'm into the business of trying to find out is because we can deal with the external side of this, the manifestations of it, which is alcohol-fuelled violence, people being decked, it seems on a regular basis in brawls outside pubs, the terrible, terrible incident we saw recently with that young boy being killed-
MITCHELL: At school.
PM: At school. I think that just causes the nation to draw in its breath. So what's happening beneath all of that? Are we seeing - some serious questions in my own head - the ultimate, sort of, working out of breakdowns in family relationships over a long period of time? Are we looking at the manifestation, for example, of kids increasingly spending more time with their friends rather than their parents because their parents and families are too busy? Are we looking at the manifestation of kids spending more and more time online in a more anonymous social environment? Are we looking at an epidemic of, I wouldn't say an epidemic, it's probably the wrong term, but untreated mental illnesses or mental health challenges for kids, then at schools not being given the skills necessary to negotiate their way through their emotional lives? Is it a cocktail of all the above?
And also, we're in a state of great transition in terms of what once would be described as the traditional values of our society, into a new set of values being negotiated out there. All these things link together, but what can you do about it? The practical thing the AFL's doing I think is great. Other initiatives now, about encouraging and empowering our young people to become positively, constructively engaged in a whole bunch of projects out there, and a lot of good stuff going on out there in the non-government sector right now with schools.
MITCHELL: Is sentencing an issue, do you think we're tough enough in punishment?
PM: I think part of what we need to be on about as a nation, Neil, is, if you like, making sure we're providing support and empowerment of young people to build their own positive and constructive lives. The other part of it's the hard message of taking responsibility. I mean real responsibility, so that if you are endangering the safety of others and the community at large, that you know, up front, what the consequences are and those consequences are delivered by the law enforcement system. It's both these things, making sure young people have got the skills and showing where the line is as well.
MITCHELL: Are you a supporter of mandatory sentencing on certain offences?
PM: The criminal justice system, as you know, is largely run by the states and territories. I've always had a view, despite all its failures and all the controversy, that the combination of trial by jury and the discretionary determinations of the bench is the best way to go. Each set of circumstances is always going to be a bit different, and as you know, the criminal code actually deals with that, sets out a band of possible sentencing parameters, but I have been around long enough to see how variable some of the facts can be in individual cases.
MITCHELL: That said, are you surprised, we've got it here, a committed jihadist, a judge says, has got no remorse and is still violent, convicted yesterday. He's done three years waiting trial, but he's only going to do nine months.
PM: I'm happy to talk about this, probably in a later interview, once I've actually read what's been determined here, and I'm not equivocating on this, I'd rather actually read the judgment, know precisely whether or not there are any other elements to the legal process, and then I'll comment further, but in one of our later discussions on air I'm quite happy to come back to this.
MITCHELL: But you do intend to read the judgment? It has got your attention?
PM: It has, because of some of the matters you've just referred to.
MITCHELL: Now, you made a promise before the election no worker would be worse off under your system. The Industrial Relations Commission says you've got it wrong, and that Australian workers could be worse off and in fact bosses could be worse off. What would you do? Are you still saying no Australian worker will be worse off?
PM: We'll step back for a bit, and I'll come straight to your question, what we're trying to do with award modernisation? Basically modernise the industrial relations system - 4,000 plus industrial awards out there in the workplace at the moment, employers, unions, saying for decades and decades 'this thing's grown like topsy and it actually needs to be reformed, streamlined and modernized', and that's what Julia Gillard has been doing, and been doing a good job of it. And our objective all the way through has been that modern awards under the new system would not be intended to disadvantage employees or increase costs for employers, so what's the AIRC, the Industrial Relations Commission come out and said? There are two or three ways in which this can be achieved.
One is to phase in any changes over a five-year period. Second is, have transitional arrangements which can apply in individual award cases where this is an effect in terms of various individuals. Remember, we're often dealing with the least-paid members of our community. 20 percent of the Australian workforce are on awards, often the lowest paid. And the third thing is, under this system, how we've also got a capacity for Fair Work Australia to review these transitional arrangements in each case, so that if the problem arises midstream, there's a further opportunity, on application, to intervene as well, but the objective remains.
MITCHELL: So does the guarantee remain - no Australian worker will be worse off?
PM: What Julia has said, and I have said, throughout this, is that our objective is to have a system where employees and employers are not disadvantaged by this system.
MITCHELL: So it can't be guaranteed?
PM: Well can I say to you, that's always been our objective. We've set up a set of arrangements under the law through the Industrial Relations Commission with Fair Work Australia to provide three sets of mechanisms to bring it into effect. That's what our intention is, that's what our objective is. We've got five years to roll it out.
MITCHELL: Prime Minister, in Opposition you insisted that John Howard guarantee that nobody be worse off. Are you prepared to offer that guarantee?
PM: Well, I think what Mr Howard did, Neil, as you would quite well remember, was go out and say in a definitive sense that no Australian, that Australian working families had never been better off.
MITCHELL: You insisted that he guarantee that no worker would be worse off under his system. Can you make the same guarantee?
PM: We're consistent, absolutely, with what we said prior to the election, which is our objective as described.
MITCHELL: It's a big difference.
PM: Well, prior to the election, did we provide the language that you just described? We said we had this as an objective. We're conscious of the fact that we're dealing with hundreds of thousands of workers under, currently, 4,000 separate awards. We therefore have set up the best mechanism through Fair Work Australia, the AIRC and the Fair Work Act to bring that into being, where all these individual circumstances will be worked out through the system over time.
MITCHELL: Is it also your objective that no Australian employer be worse off?
PM: Well, the objective was twofold, because of the impact in particular of the global economic recession. That is, what do you do with employers, who are obviously facing a whole series of extra challenges given the downturn in economy and the global economy, is for them to be able to have a set of transitional arrangements for their costs as well, hence why these proposed changes to the awards are designed to be implemented over a five-year period.
MITCHELL: Sorry, you've lost me. Will no employer be worse off?
PM: The objective for both, Neil, for employers and employees, consistent with what we always said, is that when we introduce this modern awards system that it's not intended that there be a disadvantage for employees or employers in terms of increased cost.
MITCHELL: So we're talking about objectives and intentions.
PM: Exactly.
MITCHELL: Not guarantees.
PM: Well, we've been consistent about that. We've created one of the best institutional mechanisms to bring that to pass, and remember, the alternative is WorkChoices, and WorkChoices means stripping away people's basic protections in the workplace.
MITCHELL: Do you have any updated information on the Indonesian earthquake? Information will be emerging now as daylight breaks.
PM: The most recent information I got was first light this morning, which was 100 or so homes destroyed, I think 15 or so people who have lost their lives. As to whether that changes during the course of the day, we'll hear more. We've said to the Indonesian authorities we'll work with them in terms of any assistance that we can provide. We've had no request yet.
MITCHELL: Any suggestions of Australians involved, Prime Minister?
PM: Not yet, based on the brief I got at first light this morning, there are no Australian nationals involved.
MITCHELL: We'll take a break, come back with more from the Prime Minister. 9690 0693, 13 13 32.
[ADVERTISEMENTS]
MITCHELL: The Prime Minister is with you. One out of left field Prime Minister - is Kim Beazley going to be the next ambassador to the United States?
PM: Well, we haven't decided who's going to be the next ambassador to the United States.
MITCHELL: Is he in the running?
PM: Well, can I say that when it comes to Kim and to any other former politician of standing who's got something to contribute, I believe they should all be considered for greater use in public life, and of course, you'd be considering Kim and a range of other people for diplomatic appointments. Specifically on Washington, Stephen and I, that's Stephen Smith and I, haven't actually sat down to work it through. Our current Ambassador, Dennis Richardson, is due to be there until about November - we've just appointed him to be the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs - so we've got some time.
MITCHELL: And a great help he was to us when we were in Washington, too.
PM: He's a good Ambassador, he's very effective. He was my first section head in the Department of Foreign Affairs, 25 years ago. I used to do his photocopying.
MITCHELL: So he can ring, he can offer you free and fearless advice, can he?
PM: He used to bore it up me all the time.
MITCHELL: I bet he still does.
PM: He's actually good. The one thing with Dennis is you know where you stand.
MITCHELL: Hello Bill, go ahead please Bill.
CALLER: Yeah, I'm staggered as to why we keep avoiding the drug problem in relation to alcohol-fuelled violence that we keep hearing about. There's far more amphetamine-based drugs around in the community these days. All you have to do is speak to the young people and they'll tell you it's everywhere in the clubs and all over the place. And I've witnessed some of these young people out there, a young fella head butting a glass door. In their sixteens, three of them, way off their heads. Now they had a bit of alcohol in them, but there was something else making them extremely violent.
MITCHELL: Yeah. Are drugs part of it, Prime Minister?
PM: Absolutely, Bill's right. When it comes to amphetamines, and let's call it a whole range of other drugs beyond, of course, the challenges of alcohol, it's real, it's big, it's growing. You would've seen television campaigns dealing with 'ice' at present. This is huge out there, and Bill's right. We're going to deal with this problem systematically. Our earlier conversation today Neil, drugs are part of the equation, hard drugs are part of the equation as well.
MITCHELL: Prime Minister, are you changing your strategy on asylum seekers? The reports are that 10 asylum seekers have now been landed in Australia without visas, which is quite different to the Howard Government strategy of assessing them on Christmas Island.
PM: My advice, Neil, is that these are 10 unaccompanied minors, and therefore what's happened is that they've been transferred from Christmas Island to the mainland on 2 September because unaccompanied minors are given priority in processing. That's what's happening in the case of these minors. That's why they're treated separately.
MITCHELL: So there's no intention to change the policy?
PM: Absolutely not.
MITCHELL: Labor powerbroker John Della Bosca's resigned after admitting an affair with a young woman. Now I don't know anything about your Cabinet, but if a member of your Cabinet was exposed as having an affair, would you sack them?
PM: What a wonderful hypothetical question. My attitude to all that sort of thing is that people's private lives should be private lives.
MITCHELL: So you don't think it should've been reported?
PM: Oh no, you think I'm going to tell the media what to do? That's a matter for the media. But can I just say, people's private lives are their private lives. The difficult debate is always where they intersect with the discharging of public duties, public responsibilities, and that's always going to be a case for judgement in individual cases.
MITCHELL: What's your view on the Della Bosca case? Did he breach his public duties?
PM: You know something Neil, I actually don't know all the facts concerning this one. I've known John Della Bosca for a long, long time. I don't know all the facts concerning this case, but look, this is a really hard, sensitive, difficult thing for his family, his kids, his wife, and I think he's made his own decision, and it has been well canvassed.
MITCHELL: Could you see him coming back one day?
PM: That's a matter for Mr Della Bosca and the New South Wales Government.
MITCHELL: Another matter that has been private but publicly reported is one of your Members of Parliament, Jodie Campbell, allegedly assaulted by her partner. Will she be back soon? Is she okay?
PM: I spoke with- first of all, as you'd be aware Neil, I won't comment on the details of any case which may be the subject of any possible proceedings. Secondly, I did speak to Jodie within 24 hours of this incident occurring. She was in fine spirits. We're hoping to have her back very soon. Parliament resumes next week, but I've basically said to her, 'take some time'. She's a very good local Member, Bass in north-eastern Tasmania around Launceston, and she, I'm sure, will be back into the thick of it really soon.
MITCHELL: The economy - some are pessimistic about the future, even, I think, Paul Keating seems to be saying there could be a double dip here. Could there be a double dip?
PM: You know, when I say the economy's not of the woods yet, there are two things I've got in mind. And that's when I look at the US economy, and the wider, let's call it Western economy, including Europe.
One is what's still happening in the US and into the wash-through of personal credit card debt. The second is the wash-through in terms of what's happening with the commercial property market in the United States. Both these are huge. There are still factors at play there which haven't fully come through the system. Therefore, it's important to be vigilant.
There's one other fact which people should bear in mind as well, is that we still haven't seen the full and complete resolution of toxic assets within the European banking system - the European banking system represents at least one third of the global banking system, and that is impaired assets or damaged financial assets on the balance sheets of these big banks.
You put all those things together, it means uncertainty for the future. So when people like Mr Turnbull and Mr Hockey and the Liberals say, you know, 'end stimulus', can I just say, that's pulling the rug from under the recovery, which is by far from being certain-
MITCHELL:But the stimulus can't continue forever. Is there still a possibility we could face recession in Australia?
PM: Well, as I said, we're not out of the woods yet. The reason we have structured the stimulus this way is that it is at its strongest in '08/'09-'09/'10, and deliberately then comes down. That's the way it's structured, in three phases. Strong, medium and light in terms of its effect on the economy, so that as the private economy recovers, you draw down the level of Government engagement.
But on the question of the pathway to our own economic recovery, it's still going to be very, very rough. But bear in mind Neil, we've managed so far to produce through the combined efforts of business and Government working together, the only economy of the OECD, that's 30 advanced economies around the world, to have produced positive growth in the last year, second lowest unemployment of the major advanced economies, the lowest debt and the lowest deficit.
MITCHELL: Do you accept pressure's now on interest rates to go up?
PM: Well I wrote, pretty up-front and frank about this, in a-
MITCHELL: A 7,000-word essay.
PM: Which I'm sure you've memorised - the essay on the future directions of the Australian economy, a month or so ago. Which is, as you begin to see some evidence of recovery, it follows that interest rates, which are now at 50-year lows, what the Reserve Bank Governor describes as emergency lows, will begin to go up. I think it's important to be frank about that.
But you know something? What's governed my thinking in all of this is how do you actually maintain strength in the Australian economy, providing work for tradies, work for small business, and that means a stimulus strategy which is targeted to cushion us from the worst impact of the global recession.
MITCHELL: Speaking of stimulus, how does a one-child school in the outback get $250,000? That kid must be partying.
PM: Well on the details of individual schools, I'll defer to both the Minister responsible and the Education Minister, because you know how many schools we've got in the country? About 10,000.
MITCHELL: Sounds a mistake though, doesn't it? $250,000 at a one-kid school.
PM: You know something Neil, there's always going to be problems in the implementation. 10,000 schools in the country, 7,500 primary schools, but when I go to primary schools right across the country, and their P&Cs, their P&Fs, their parent bodies, the principals, the kids - these are schools which have often not had a decent library ever, and what they're saying is now we've got a decent chance for our kids to have a new library, a new multi-purpose hall, a new language centre, a new science centre, this is great for education for the future.
MITCHELL: I may have read your 7,000 word essay, but I imagine you haven't had time yet to read the Preventative Health Taskforce report, which is 350 pages.
PM: Well spotted.
MITCHELL: If you adopt half of this, you'll be the Supernanny. It really is, what's your reaction to what you know of it? It really is paternalistic in some ways.
PM: Well, these are health professionals who are going to come up with their own conclusions about where we should go for the future. I have never shirked a public debate about these things. There's a whole lot of quite radical recommendations out there at the moment for the future of the health and hospital system. That's out there. This is out there on preventative health.
MITCHELL: Would you use tax as a measure in this?
PM: I'll just go to one point - you said, 'what are they on about?' Currently, on preventative health, the nation spends, I think, two percent of our total expenditure on health and hospitals on preventative healthcare. Big problem - we've got an explosion of chronic diseases, which have, frankly, the capacity to cripple our health system, and health costs out for the decades ahead, so we've got to act.
Now, how do you do that most effectively, in terms of changing people's lifestyles? You know, the problems in terms of the obesity explosion in Australia, what's that going to do in terms of Type 2 Diabetes? There's a whole range of measures which they've put to us. We don't know what the best landing point is, but you can't just push this problem off-
MITCHELL: But you wouldn't rule out tax as a weapon?
PM: Well, we've said that we're going to have a mature debate about this in the context of what Henry does, Ken Henry does, in the future of the tax system, and secondly, where we land finally on the future of the health and hospital system, and that'll be in the first part of next year.
MITCHELL: Now also on health and hospitals, last time you were here, there was an emergency doctor, I think, at one of the Melbourne hospitals, who'd written anonymously a letter about his concerns in accident and emergency. You've now met him?
PM: Yeah, I had a chat with him yesterday and one of his colleagues and we ran through the particular challenges of accident and emergency at a number of hospitals here in Melbourne. And the story is as we would find in many other parts of the country, and that is so many of our accident and emergency specialists under huge pressure, and that is often not enough beds in which to admit people, too many people coming to accident and emergency who could possibly go elsewhere if you had flexible hours for GPs outside the system, and a lot of challenges, too, in terms of enough, shall I say specialist accident and emergency doctors being deployed to the range of hospitals beyond the metro area as well.
MITCHELL: Thank you for your time. You haven't had a quick word to Tiny Tim Holding have you?
PM: No, but I tell you what, we're all delighted that he's back, safe and sound in one piece. I hear John Brumby wants him back in Parliament today. John, give the guy a day off.
MITCHELL: Thanks very much for your time. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, thank you for coming in.