PM: This is an important day for Australia, for South Australia and for the Royal Australian Navy. There is no higher responsibility for the Australian Government than to ensure this nation's long-term national security. We have a vast coastline. We have a vast maritime space. We have a vast maritime trade. Therefore, it's of fundamental importance that we are investing in our long-term defence capabilities. That's what we're doing here today in partnership with the South Australian Government and with the ASC.
Secondly, we need to make sure that we are building the Defence Force we need for the long-term future. We've release the Defence White Paper. We have set in place the processes to build Defence Force 2030. We intend to get on with the business of building Force 2030 and a core part of that defence force, of course, is the construction of the Air Warfare Destroyers.
This will be an important part of our Navy's fighting kit and it is critical that it is done right, that it is done on budget and it is done on time. Of course, here in South Australia, this great facility is going to make this great defence project possible.
Also, we look to the long-term future or, the longer-term future, we look at the next generation of additions to the Royal Australian Navy, namely the next fleet of submarines. As Prime Minister of Australia I confirm, in absolutely clear-cut terms, that our next generation of subs will be built here in Adelaide. Therefore, it's not just the project that we are officiating at today, opening of the shipyard, the construction of the Air Warfare Destroyers - it's a long-term investment in the defence industry here in South Australia of which the next stage will be the construction of the next Australian submarine fleet.
We are determined to get this right for the future. Force 2030 needs it. Force 2030 includes within it a larger, more potent, more lethal, maritime capability for the Royal Australian Navy and South Australia and this facility is key to the construction of that force.
One final set of remarks. The other great thing about the State of South Australia, not just here but more broadly, is, of course, the importance of manufacturing and I said when I became Prime Minister of Australia that I didn't want to be a Prime Minister of a country that didn't make things anymore and I'm absolutely passionate about this. That's why we've been such strong investors in the new car industry for Australia.
The global economic recession has devastated the car industry across so many countries in the world. Here in Australia, our motor vehicle industry has emerged intact. It's taken some damage but it's emerged intact. What we've seen around the world is manufacturers falling over one after the other. Here in Australia we have been partners in that - strong, clear partners - through the Industry Ministers' $6.2 billion new car plan for the country.
I was disturbed to see reports this morning concerning the possible withdrawal of support for the car industry in the future. The Shadow Treasure's reported in the newspapers this morning along these lines. The journalist asked the Shadow Treasurer, "the Productivity Commission has given the Government some ideas as where to find big savings in the future by axing billions of dollars in subsidies to the car manufacturing industry and textile industry. Do you support that idea?" The Shadow Treasurer say, "This is now something that now needs to be looked at seriously if you're going to improve productivity in Australia."
Now, I think I know what everyone knows what that's code language for. That's code language for, a future Coalition Government removing support for the Australian motor vehicle industry.
There is a clear contrast here. We have said we are strong co-investors with the motor vehicle industry for the future. There are some 200,000 Australians employed in motor vehicle manufacturing and in the automotive parts industry. This is a lot of Australians, a lot of Australian jobs. Our position's clear.
What the Shadow Treasurer, Mr Hockey, has opened today is a clear area of policy difference with us. I think it's very important that we have a rapid clarification of the position of the Coalition on such a critical matter for the future of Australian jobs. Premier?
PREMIER RANN: Can I just say how much we appreciate this partnership with the Federal Government and, of course, in a few weeks' time we will be opening Techport. In this partnership we wanted to demonstrate that the South Australian Government would put its money where its mouth was in terms of defence and that's why we're committing and have committed more than $300 million to build Techport, which is a state-of-the-art facility - the best in the Southern Hemisphere.
Our commitment as a State Government, working with the Federal Government on defence, has meant we've now secured $44 billion worth of defence projects over the past six years. They are projects that are now gearing up, starting, have started and are coming. So it means that a sustainable industry over the next 20, 30, 40 years.
Now, we're already on target to reach our goal of 28,000 defence jobs by 2013, but this is critically important. This is about a whole range of jobs - skilled jobs, professional jobs, jobs for contractors. The reason that we invested in a common-user facility is that is not just for one company but for a series of companies capable of handling a series of defence projects simultaneously.
So we're very, very pleased that the Prime Minister has today reaffirmed the commitment that the next generation of submarines, 12 submarines, will be built here in Adelaide. That's, of course, been estimated as a $30 billion project and obviously it's about our intent in a partnership with the Commonwealth to make us the defence capital of Australia.
PM: OK folks, over to you.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did you receive advice from the Defence Department not to blame Japan for the 'Centaur' sinking and have you heeded that advice?
PM: Firstly, I can't recall receiving any such advice, but can I say, secondly, on the question of the Centaur itself, one) this was a hospital ship, clearly marked in 1943; two) the action to sink the Centaur by the Japanese Navy at the time was, in our view, a complete breach of international law. It was also a complete violation of the most basic international and humanitarian conventions. I'd also say that those were the actions of the war.
Secondly, can I say that the Japan of today is a vastly different Japan and I think it's important also that we continue to build our future relationship with Japan.
JOURNALIST: So you're not demanding an apology, that sort of thing?
PM: I think, if you look at the statements of the Menzies Government in the 1950s on the question of specific actions undertaken by Japan during the war, these matters were put to rest in the 1950s by the Menzies Government at the time. Therefore, our job is to get on with the future but let's be very clear cut about it - the decision to sink an unarmed hospital ship, clearly marked with Red Cross symbols, as it was, was a violation of international law and was therefore a complete violation of the most basic humanitarian principals. Let's be absolutely clear cut about that, as we should be equally clear cut about the fact that the Japan of today is a vastly different Japan to the one which went to war against Australia in the 1940s.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible)
PM: Well, I see reports in the newspapers that some advice had been prepared within Defence or within various government agencies. I'm sure there's a thousand pieces of advice on any given subject at any particular time. All I'm saying is what our specific position as a government, is and that this action to sink the 'Centaur', an unarmed, clearly marked hospital ship by the Japanese, Imperial Japanese Navy at the time, was a violation of international law, a violation of the most basic humanitarian principals. End of story.
JOURNALIST: Overnight Yvo de Boer came out and said that the Copenhagen talks didn't achieve what was needed. Do you agree with him that they were a failure?
PM: I'm you look carefully at the statements of the President of the United States, the leaders of the European Union and various other countries, we have achieved some considerable progress as a consequence of the Copenhagen Conference and the Copenhagen Accord. It is not, as I said that the time, everything that the international community wanted. It is not everything that the Australian Government wanted. However, it does represent progress on where we were before.
Secondly, what's the key measure of that progress? For the first time the States of the world agree we should keep temperature increases across the planet at two degrees centigrade. That had not been the case before in any such international gathering. That, therefore, guides policy actions for the future. So, this was not a perfect outcome in Copenhagen at all but it represents progress on what was the case prior to Copenhagen and that progress is specifically measured in the two degree centigrade target which was embraced, for the first time, by the various governments of the world.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the national EFTPOS scam-
PM: -Sorry, say that again.
JOURNALIST: The EFTPOS scam that's been (inaudible) more than $50 million in New South Wales. The advice of the police there was for everyone holding a credit card to change their PIN. Do you have a view on how secure EFTPOS and credit card facilities are?
PM: We're taking advice from our own authorities on this question at present in close liaison with various State authorities as well. It's a disturbing report, it's a highly disturbing report but I'm sure the relevant Minister, the Acting Attorney General, has further to say about it in the period ahead.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) what's your response to that and will you be open to (inaudible)
PM: Well, firstly, let's just be very basic about it. Here we are in South Australia, where the challenges of water a real. Part of the reason why the challenges of water are real is because we have this unfolding impact of climate change.
Two core facts - I spoke to the community cabinet in Norwood about this last night, community cabinet meeting with the Norwood community about this last night. The last 10 years, water inflow into the Murray-Darling is about half of it historical average. The last four years, it's one quarter of its historical average. This is a huge problem.
Secondly, part of dealing with this problem, long term, lies in acting on climate change and acting effectively on climate change. You are either going to be serious about the action you take, or, you are going to take these extreme positions, such as we've seen from Mr Abbott, which effectively deny that climate change is a problem.
Mr Abbott has said climate change is crap. That's what he said. Our position is that it's real and we need to act on it. That's the clear difference.
Now, specifically, on the proposal from the Greens, it's only just been released. I have not had an opportunity to examine it. But what I would say is this - firstly, that consistent with what the Minister, Penny Wong, has said for a long period of time, we are open to discussions with all parties within the Australian parliament on the proper passage of necessary legislation to act on climate change.
Secondly, that extends also to Mr Abbott were he to move from his current extreme position of climate change denial. Remember what he's said on the past on this, that it's absolute nonsense. We have a different view and I think most Australians have a different view as well.
JOURNALIST: Just on the EFTPOS scam, will you be changing your own PIN number (inaudible)
PM: I want to see, first of all, what all the facts are, secondly, to be properly briefed through the relevant Minister or acting Minister in the Commonwealth Government, and then thirdly we'll take necessary actions or take necessary actions in concert with the State and Territory authorities for all Australians. In terms of my own interest I think they are, personal interest, I think they are fairly marginally relevant to what's necessary for all Australians.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) The dirty tricks campaign (inaudible) What's your views on that?
PREMIER RANN: I'm not involved in any dirty tricks campaign at all so I have no comment.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Labor Party's been involved in-
PREMIER RANN: -I haven't seen one. I haven't seen the item that you're referring to.
JOURNALIST: Premier, there's a plan for a city stadium delivered to you by the SA Forum but you stopped it?
PREMIER RANN: What I have done is said to all elements, I've been very, very upfront about this right from the start. Every single group came into see me with different plans. There was a group from soccer came into see me which looked like the World Cup stadium from Germany.
What I said to all of them is this - 'you know, the Liberals might be reckless and unready enough to promise everything to everyone.' I said 'go away and come back to me when you've all got agreement.' So I said to all of the different groups what I want to see is people come into my office and I want the AFL, the SANFL, Crows and Port Power and the cricket to come in with a common position and then we'll look at backing it, and that's exactly what we've done and that involves the Adelaide Oval upgrade which that means we have an iconic stadium in world terms, an iconic sporting venue, but one that is capable of hosting football and cricket, as opposed to the Liberals, who are prepared to offer billions of dollars here and there.
I mean, these are the same Liberals who yesterday said that they would not take on Victoria in a High Court challenge, just as they wouldn't and didn't take on the Howard Government in terms of having a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. I guess the message from the Liberals, their slogan, is to run up the white flag on South Australia's future. That isn't my policy and that's why we fight to win contracts, that's why we fight to win water and that's why we are going to take on Victoria.
JOURNALIST: If the SANFL or the SACA come to you with a proposal for the stadium-
PREMIER RANN: I remember the SANFL talking about a range of different options. However, I wasn't interested what their different options were from every different group that wanted something silly enough to hand out a billion dollars to anyone who came in the room, which is what the Liberals were doing, which was to promise everything to everyone, totally un-costed. They still haven't costed their development.
What I've said to all the different sports bodies is when you can agree come and see me so that we can do something together and then we'll back you in and that's exactly what we've done. Thank you.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PREMIER RANN: They had, I understand they came to me with three different options.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, can I ask, the Indian Foreign Minister has plugged the idea of a travel ban or a travel advisory for Indian students if there is any further violence involving Indians in Australia. What's your view on that?
PM: I was in New Delhi myself only a couple months ago and had extensive discussions with the Indian Prime Minister and the Indian Foreign Minister about these matters. Obviously, these are difficult matters in India. They are difficult matters in Australia. We are working our way through them in a practical and effective way over time. Decisions of the Indian Government are a matter for the Indian Government.
The truth is this: the vast majority, the vast majority, of Indian students in Australia are embraced entirely by the Australian community, get on with the business of studying hard, getting on with getting their qualifications and going off to do whatever they want to do with their lives. This has been going on for years.
Regrettably, there have been some incidents recently. Let's accept that, but let's put it into context. My last figures, I stand to be corrected on this, is that we had something like more than 100,000 Indian students in this country, and so we've had a number of incidents, but let's keep this into context and also in context of, let's call it the broader incidences of violence to students of other ethnic backgrounds, acts of violence against Australian students, acts of violence in particular parts of our large cities at any given time of day. I think it's important to keep all of this in its context, but what the Indian Government does is a matter for the Indian Government
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what do you read into reports that Malcolm Turnbull is back from holidays feeling refreshed and very likely to recontest the next election (inaudible)
PM: Well, that's a matter for Mr Turnbull entirely. What I could say, however, is this: Mr Turnbull, as leader, and with the majority of support of the Liberals and Nationals, supported the Government's decision to act on climate change through a carbon pollution reduction scheme. Then, a day or two later, they decided to get rid of Mr Turnbull. I think the Liberal party, on climate change, is split right down the middle.
This Governments' position on climate change is absolutely clear cut and the reason it is clear cut is because we know that climate change demands action.
Can I say this folks, I've got to fly off to Perth because I've got a reception I need to attend at a particular time so I'm going to have to zip. Thank you.