PRIME MINISTER:
My Press Office has provided you with the two statements I've put out which incorporate the arrangements for the new Ministry and also the new arrangements for public service positions. I have a number of comments to make and then I'd be very happy to answer questions. The first observation I'd make is that there were major changes to the Cabinet and to the Ministry in the year or 14 months that led up to the election and as such I did not see a case for disturbing what was essentially a very strong and as it turned out in the eyes of the Australian people a very competent team and therefore there has been no change to the personnel of the Cabinet although there have been some alterations in relation to particular departments affecting individual ministerial responsibility. There is one new Minister from the Liberal Party contribution to the Coalition and that's Peter Dutton, the Member for Dickson. And the National Party Minister who comes in to replace Larry Anthony is De-Anne Kelly who's currently a Parliament Secretary. There have been some changes in relation to Parliamentary Secretaries and the details of those changes are explained in my press statement.
The second observation I'd make is that there has been a number of changes, there have been a number of changes in relation to the focus of particular departments that reflect many of the Government's priorities for the coming term. Importantly, they relate to a strong focus on technical and vocational education. You'll be aware of the high priority I placed on this during the election campaign and the strong commitment I have to doing something very significant and long lasting about the skill shortage that this country faces. And in the education, science and training portfolio the junior Minister who will be Gary Hardgrave who's done a very good job over the last three years in his current portfolio, he will have under Dr Nelson's guidance of course he will have a very strong emphasis on getting to work on our plans in relation to technical and vocational education.
The other two areas that I particularly mention are workforce participation and human services. The newly restructured Department of workplace relations and employment or should I say Employment Workplace Relations will take a number of the working age programmes currently administered by the Department of Family and Community Services and it is more natural and logical given our focus on getting people off welfare and into work to group them with a number of the departments now within employment and workplace relations and bringing them all together and having a junior Minister styled as the Minister for Workforce Participation and that junior Minister will be the newly appointed Mr Dutton, who will bring a particular focus and a sharpness to that responsibility.
The final observation I'd like to make is that the fourth Howard Ministry will simultaneously be able to point to the largest number of women in the Cabinet since Federation as well as the largest number of women heading Government departments. The number in the case of the latter will go from two to six and if you look at the appointments in the public service area. They've all been promoted on merit, we don't have quotas, we don't believe in them. But I just think it's just worth drawing attention to that meritorious double. And it is quite an important and significant development. I'd like to congratulate all of those who've been appointed, I'd like to thank those who have served in particular positions in the past, I'd particularly like to record my sadness at the defeat of Larry Anthony, the Minister for Child and Youth Affairs in the last Government. He was a good Minister. He was a valued colleague and friend and I am particularly sorry that he was defeated. I also want to extend my political condolences and regrets in relation to both Trish Worth and Ross Cameron, both of whom made their own distinctive but different contributions to the Parliamentary Party. I never like to see Liberal colleagues defeated and although the overall result has been pleasing for the Liberal Party, it's a great shame that Ross and Trish have been defeated. Trish was something of a political miracle since she held a capital city seat in the Liberal interest longer than anybody since Federation and I am especially sorry on that account that she's been defeated. Are there any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can you explain the rationale behind the new Human Services Department, particularly why bring together agencies such as say Centrelink with the child support agency given they serve very different...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, the... it's fair, it's a good question. The rationale is to have a focus on service delivery. You might call it a department of service delivery. I think one of the things we lack in the public service both at a Commonwealth and a State level is a consolidated focus on the efficient and timely and sympathetic delivery of services. We tend to look at service delivery as an afterthought rather than as a policy priority and I would want and I will expect the new Minister responsible for this to see service delivery as the efficient, timely and sympathetic service delivery as a policy goal in itself and not as some kind of bureaucratic incident of the performance of the policy.
JOURNALIST:
Does this make Mr Hockey the sort of punching bag for consumer complaints about Commonwealth services basically, protecting other senior Ministers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I wouldn't like to say that for a moment. I think he'll have a lot of work. But I believe in giving young men and women a lot of work to do and I wish him well. I think he will do the job well. I have confidence in him. It's a challenge. Many of the responsibilities that people have for the first time are challenges and I am sure he'll do it very well. But it's a different focus. I do see service delivery and the quality of it as an end in itself and not just something that is the end product of having taken a decision. And I've seen too many examples over the last eight and a half years of a good policy being compromised somewhat by inferior service delivery.
JOURNALIST:
... an example of it.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not saying Centrelink's a good... I think Centrelink has done a good job. This should not be seen as a reprimand to agencies, it will be seen... it should be seen as a positive focus on the quality of service delivery in different areas because the policy driving Centrelink, the policy driving the Health Insurance Commission, that will remain in the policy department and that's why you will you see... I've put it in the Department of Finance and Administration area and Mr Hockey will in a portfolio sense be reporting to Senator Minchin, he won't be reporting to me. It's not in my department. There were some reports suggesting that he was reporting to me, I mean, all Ministers report to me but in a functional sense, he'll be reporting to Senator Minchin.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) any change in income support arrangements, for example, any rationalisation of current income support arrangements or do you envisage any change in service delivery mechanism for example moving job network model into other forms of service delivery?
PRIME MINISTER:
It doesn't of itself presage that, I never rule out changes in that area but it does not of itself presage that. It does in the case of the Human Services Department mean that the quality of service delivery, the way it's done, the efficiency with which it is done, that is going to be elevated. In relation to the workforce participation responsibilities, certainly there's going to be a much greater emphasis placed on as the name of the junior ministry implies participation. We do have this challenging paradox in Australia of low unemployment but very low participation rates in certain age cohorts. Now we've got to do something about this and there are different ways of doing something about it. I'm not saying that in any threatening way but I don't think it is good for the country for us to just rest idle with the fact that we have reduced unemployment and think well there's no more work to be done. We still have too high a level of non-participation by certain age cohorts, they're very high by OECD standards. I'm not sure that the solution of the tax credit solution is really the answer, we've looked at that before, it's not only horrendously expensive but it has a certain blunderbuss effect in itself.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister Howard, would you be envisaging a tougher approach to people on welfare...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I would never use the word tougher... it's a sensible approach. And I mean, we do, even by comparison with countries like Sweden, we have very, very mild rules. I mean, this has not been a tough government when it comes to supporting low income people and we never will be because I have sympathised with them and the NATSEM report that came out a few days ago commissioned by ACOSS and the Brotherhood of St Laurence reaffirmed what I've been saying for a long time and that is the greatest proportionate beneficiaries of our new family benefit system have in fact been the low income families, the single income families. The single income families and the sole parent families at the lower end of the scale have proportionately done better. Now, I don't want to alter that but I do want to find some new ways of encouraging engagement in the workforce by people who've been out of it for a long time and I'm sure we can find a way that sympathetically encourages participation, which is not brutal. I do not want to abandon the traditional Australian approach in this area. We are not America but we're also not paternal Europe and we've got to find our own special ways of dealing with these issues but I don't want people to construe from that that we're going to adopt some kind of blindly ideological approach. We haven't done that in the past and we're not going to do it in the future but I am concerned about the low levels of participation and we've got to find ways of doing something about it. And I understand from the other side of politics that there's broad agreement about the undesirability of this, so we oughtn't to have too many political debates about it, oughtn't we.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, will you be asking Joe Hockey to iron out the debt problems in the family payments...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm sure he'll be having a look at that but there'll continue to be a policy role for the Minister in relation to that. But look, I think you've got to be realistic about that. I mean, there will always be cases where some people are overpaid and where they're overpaid they ought to pay back the amount they've been overpaid, just as people who've been underpaid should have their payments topped up. But obviously the extent to which that can be minimised, all the better.
JOURNALIST:
Given the type of portfolio, why wasn't Joe Hockey brought into Cabinet [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think, compared with the policy responsibilities of the other positions, that was needed.
JOURNALIST:
You've left some pretty talented people out, Prime Minister, why didn't you select the best team possible on merit?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't accept your conclusion. I mean, I have so many talented people that it's impossible to accommodate them all.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, [inaudible] the role of a health [inaudible] change Commonwealth-State relations...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he's going to chair a taskforce that's made up of my Department and Treasury and the Department of Health and Ageing to look at the operation of health policy. It doesn't mean automatically that we're going to propose dramatic changes. I've indicated in the last 24 hours that I am prepared to look at particular proposals in the context of the Commonwealth-State interface, if I can put it like that. I do not think the holus bolus transfer of public hospitals to the Commonwealth Government is going to solve anything. I don't believe that the Commonwealth bureaucracy is inherently more efficient than the State bureaucracy. I think there are some areas of the interface where I'd be open to change and I've said that and part of the role of this taskforce would be to advise me in relation to that. But in all of these areas the objective should be to get a better outcome for the public. I'm not hung up about States' rights, as you know. I'm a nationalist. I believe in good outcomes for the Australian people and I'm not really very patient with arguments that are related to theoretical divisions of power. A division of power is only good if it serves the overall national interest and it's a good idea to recognise that in many areas States and local communities are better able to deliver programmes than the Federal Government but it's also, I think, a fact that sometimes in the delivery of services the States can fall between two stools. They're not national enough, in other words, they're a bit to parochial for the national outcome but, equally, they're not local enough to recognise the sensitivity of a local community.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, did Peter Costello's public backing of Senator Robert Hill, his position influence [inaudible] Senate Leader and Defence Minister, would you expect him to stay in that role for the term of the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hadn't contemplated moving him from either position.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you did.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he's done a very good job in both roles and I always have.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, [inaudible] of the bureaucracy but [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't, I think it's just a recognition of...I mean, tokenism is unnecessary in the face of the reality of achievement and promotion. I mean, why keep, you know, I just see no point in that. I mean, that sort of thinking, with respect, is a product of the old paradigm where you felt you had to make special arrangements. I don't believe in that. I just think you promote people on ability and in the natural order of events more and more women get promoted because they're just as able as men.
JOURNALIST:
Is Danna Vale still a big fan of yours, PM?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, she did a very hard working job. She hasn't been included. I want to thank her for her services. She remains a very good friend and a very good colleague and, can I say, a very spectacular converter of marginality into safety when it comes to political contests.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can you explain what [inaudible] downgrade [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think it's downgrading it because the overall responsibilities of that Department are going to be significantly less and, therefore, I see no, there's no case for having both a Cabinet Minister, a Junior Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary. So the responsibility won't be downgraded. I mean, the Senior Minister will have a greater focus on children and youth services and the Parliamentary Secretary will have a specific responsibility of assisting her but in a way, because many of the working age programmes have been shifted out of that Department and put into employment and industrial relations she will have a greater opportunity to focus herself as the Cabinet Minister on those roles and responsibilities.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, one of the areas where they interface is in relation to nursing homes and...
JOURNALIST:
...possibility of transfer...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no look, I think it's premature to talk about transfer. I mean, I think the proposal of the New South Wales Premier is borne more of political tactics than long-term policy thought. I mean, it was only a couple of weeks ago that he was lining up with Mr Latham proposing all sorts of different things.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, political parties sometimes struggle with how to deal with fallen leaders but do you feel any sympathy for the plight of Simon Crean who has been forced to stitch up a deal with [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to talk about that. I bear no ill will towards Simon Crean any more than I bear any ill will towards Mr Beazley but it always sounds self-serving for somebody in my position to talk about somebody in that position.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Would the Podger taskforce have input from the States or representatives from [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, look, it's a taskforce to have a look inside the Commonwealth Government. I'm not in favour of having yet another inquiry.
JOURNALIST:
It's not about [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I know that, well, they'll have input from the Commonwealth bureaucracy and if people want to make submissions to it, they can, but it's what you might call a fairly high profile IDC.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just ask a question about the FTA. Are you resigned to having to amend that to get the...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not resigned, no, I'm not resigned to that all. I hope that will be unnecessary but I do gently remind you that when the Labor Party opportunistically moved its amendment a couple of months ago I said it was unnecessary and I said it might cause difficulties. I hope in the end we can persuade and we are talking to the United States that there is no fundamental incompatibility and we'll continue to do that and I hope it's not necessary to propose any amendments. But it was never needed. There was never a threat to the PBS. It was all political and I did mention at the time there could be a difficulty.
JOURNALIST:
Are you confident that the FTA will still start on the 1st of January?
PRIME MINISTER:
We are working to that objective.
JOURNALIST:
Did you consult the Americans before producing an announcement that would reduce the benchmark price of generics by 12.5%
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] as well as the labelling [inaudible] isn't a 12.5% drop...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think there is a particular concern in relation to the amendment.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can I just ask, the Chief Executive and financial officer of Hardies have resigned. Do you think the board should follow suit?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't seen the reasons that they've given. I don't want to give a running commentary on how a company should run its affairs. I don't think a Prime Minister should give a daily commentary on the internal operations of a company.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard when you were in Jakarta did you have any formal talks with the Malaysian Prime Minister at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very informal. We just chatted about the Malaysian economy and I...
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I know him quite well. He did come to Australia representing Malaysia at the CHOGM meeting in Coolum a couple of years ago and I've seen him at a number of APEC meetings and also Commonwealth meetings. I know him quite well. He's a very friendly man. I expect to have a longer talk to him at the APEC meeting in Santiago next month and also at the ASEAN meeting at Laos at the end of next month. I think his leadership is very positive and I look forward, in a cautious way, to relations that are at the high political level getting better. The relations on the ground have remained very good. I think I'm right in saying that proportionately Malaysia has the largest alumni of Australian universities of any country in the world, apart from Australia of course, and I think it's quite significant that that has helped keep the relationship going.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, now that Senator Hill is confirmed back as Defence Minister will you be encouraging production of a new Defence White Paper (inaudible) four years on from the last one?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll think about that Geoffrey, I haven't decided that it should happen but I'll think about that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you said on radio this morning that the last thing you were thinking about was leaving politics...
PRIME MINISTER:
The last thing I was thinking about what?
JOURNALIST:
Leaving politics.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, that's true.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) implications of what that statement are?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'll leave that to you people to speculate. Look it is just a natural expression of how I feel, full stop.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) savings from these bureaucratic changes. Are there any rationalisations as a result of these?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I would expect there to be some over time, and I'm not going to try and quantify them, some efficiencies through the location of all of these agencies under the one umbrella. But I'm not saying that that's the principal reason, it's not. The principal reason is to deliver services better to the Australian public, that's the goal.
JOURNALIST:
Just getting back to workforce participation ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
... you mentioned, what specific age cohort do you want to improve participation in and have you given your new minister any...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the age cohort of 55 through to 64-65, I think that's one. I think there is a case for further helping sole parents when their children are getting a bit older to be better prepared for the workforce, they're two areas I would mention.
JOURNALIST:
And as part of that would you seek to introduce the budget measures from a couple of years ago on the disabilities support pension?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we remain committed to those proposals, we think they are fair. They are also proposals that were strongly supported by the Leader of the Opposition when he raised rather more broadly, and rather more positively, about policy.
JOURNALIST:
... re-introduce them with Parliament resumes?
PRIME MINISTER:
No look I haven't given any thought to that, you asked me would we consider and I just made the obvious point that we still support those proposals. There's nothing revolutionary radical or threatening about a government that says if we have the opportunity of passing legislation that we have long argued is desirable that we should go ahead and do so. And in relation to that, that's all we're talking about.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you've unloaded some of Kay Patterson's portfolio, do you still confidence in her as a minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I do, very much.
JOURNALIST:
Why do you...
PRIME MINISTER:
I just think the rearrangements which are unrelated to the individual are desirable. Those programmes, given the emphasis I want to place on workforce participation, those programmes are better located in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. That is a very big and busy department now, but so it should be because it's at the sharp edge of trying to lift participation in the workforce which is our big challenge. If we don't get increases in participation over time it's going to threaten productivity gains and the areas where you can get more productivity is through greater participation and also further industrial relations reform and of course further changes in relation to skills.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, would you consider giving any assistance to Qantas if the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Assistance to Qantas?
JOURNALIST:
In terms of...
PRIME MINISTER:
Financially?
JOURNALIST:
No, no in terms of the problems they're facing or confronting.
PRIME MINISTER:
No more or less than any other company. But this is a matter for Qantas to work out, they're big boys and girls, Qantas is managed by a very able Chief Executive and the Chairman of the Board is an outstanding person. So you know I'll leave it to them to handle it. I can understand why they want their operation to keep going over Christmas, if you're running an airline it's a good thing to have it running at Christmas.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, the Senate legislation that's been blocked that's now in prospect of getting through, are you going to have another try with any of this legislation before June 30 or will you just wait until after?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't given a lot of thought to that Michelle, I'll just wait and see what emerges, I just assume people who've voted in a particular way in the past will go on voting in that way. If there were any indications to the contrary then obviously we might have a different view.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you have any comment to make on Justice Kirby's speech today where he's attacked critics of the national arbitration system for industrial relations and accused some critics of being industrial ayatollahs?
PRIME MINISTER:
Industrial what?
JOURNALIST:
Ayatollahs?
PRIME MINISTER:
Who used that expression?
JOURNALIST:
Michael Kirby.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh did he? I haven't seen the text of the comments, but I note that, was that delivered as part of a judgement?
JOURNALIST:
No, that was a speech he gave today in Melbourne.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I note that.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Can you just repeat that question, my hearing didn't quite catch it.
JOURNALIST:
Would you have pushed for a single income support payment (inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Am I critical of it?
JOURNALIST:
Will you push for it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Will I'll push for it? No, I'll push for what we have indicated so far we'd push for.
JOURNALIST:
With the public service reorganisation, is this a follow on from the Uhrig report last year.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's been influenced by it, yes. I thought Uhrig had a lot of very sensible things to say.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, are you planning on privatising some of these delivery of government services?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Interesting suggestion, but no I'm not, no. No we're not planning on privatising things like Centrelink, no, no, no.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) Health Insurance Commission remain?
PRIME MINISTER:
The Health Insurance Commission remains and its policy role will still be in the Health Department.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what do you say to those backbenchers who are today perhaps a little frustrated that they didn't get promotions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would say to them that I gave honest and careful and genuine and sympathetic thought to the claims of everybody. But I also would say that the quality of the team I lead has played a major part in them all being returned. If we hadn't have had such a strong united team we wouldn't have done as well in the election and it's also against the principles of the party I lead and the Government I lead to keep on expanding the size of the ministry.
JOURNALIST:
What will Malcolm Turnbull and Andrew Robb have to do to get into the Ministry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they've only just arrived.
JOURNALIST:
Can you see them there within a year or...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look how they further progress depends on the contribution they make. I'm sure both of them are very happy to be here, very happy indeed. Certainly given the challenges they both faced in different ways, I think they're both delighted to be here, I'm very glad that they are here but I indicated before that I felt it was a good idea for them just to have a little time to get used to the new things and the new arrangements, I mean I don't recall going way back into the Menzies period when people like Barwick and Bowen came into Parliament with massive and well-deserved reputations, I don't believe or recall that they went straight into the ministry, I think there is a case for people, especially when you're in government, there is a case, unless you've happened to have been a former president of the ACTU, but of course in the Labor Party that is a separate thing altogether and we must you know bow in awe of that, but when it comes to our side of politics I don't think it's a bad idea that people just have a few months to get used to the system. But we have a different culture in relation to these things, there are no automatic entitlements but can I say I'm glad to have both of them as part of my team, I think both of them have the capacity to make a very big contribution in the future.
JOURNALIST:
Who do you want to see as Speaker, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Who do you want to see as Speaker?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a matter for my colleagues, I leave that to my colleagues. I have one vote and I'll, when I know the full field I'll make a decision as to who I'm going to support. But that is a matter for my colleagues, I choose all the other positions but the Speaker is chosen by the Liberal Members of the House of Representatives.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think David Jull has a good claim to the job?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I'm not going to start publicly talking about people.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) media ownership, can you outline what you see as the goals, are the consolidations of the media sector in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have always regarded the cross media rules as bad policy. I mean I had to go along with it at various stages in my career because I had no alternative, but when they were first mooted back in 1987 and I was Opposition Leader and I said they were a bad set of policies and they were designed to then, ironically enough, undermine the old Fairfax empire which then of course stretched as far as the eye could see, and included the Macquarie Broadcasting Corporation and Channel Seven and...
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm just making the observation that it was a very big empire and then you had the Herald and Weekly Times. Now I think there was a fair amount of political payback and political bile involved in the decisions taken by the then government and I think with convergence and the way in which the whole media has changed, those rules are increasingly out of date. I don't live in fear of foreign ownership, equally I don't think we should inhibit the capacity of our indigenous media companies to grow.
JOURNALIST:
Would it be acceptable for PBL to John Fairfax (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, look I'm not going to personalise this, that's a big mistake. I think Richard Alston said we shouldn't talk in mogul specific terms. What we should do is decide what is a good set of rules and then whatever works out as a result of that we live with.
JOURNALIST:
But Prime Minister there would only be two beneficiaries (inaudible) Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Packer.
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't automatically say that at all. What about the possible entry of other foreign media organisations?
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) cross media they'd be the only two (inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well hang on, we're talking, I mean I always see the two together, I don't see getting rid of cross media rules as being in isolation from foreign investment, I've always made that very clear, the two work together. So it's a package as far as I'm concerned.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) both.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well people will speculate about this, but others could come into it. But look can I also say, I know you all get excited because you all work for the media, about this issue, but it's not as important for me as all the other things I've talked about this morning. I mean it's there, I think the current prohibitions are silly, I always have, and I would like to see change. But I'm not going sort of perish politically in relation to this, I can assure you of that, it is not that important to me.
JOURNALIST:
Do you have a share price in mind Prime Minister for Telstra (inaudible) optimum price would be?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't, I don't.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the right price is the one I have in mind but I can't tell you what it is and I don't follow it every day because I don't, of course, own any shares in anything.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, why is there a parliamentary secretary for western Sydney but not for eastern Melbourne or northern Tasmania or anywhere else?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he's not primarily the...
JOURNALIST:
Didn't you specifically say that that's one of his responsibilities?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well I did because I think there are some particular needs and opportunities in that part of Australia. That doesn't stop me having people with specific portfolio, specific responsibilities in other areas but many of the other regions of Australia, of course, are directly represented, if you'd like to put it that way, through people...I mean, for example, Far North Queensland, you might say, has a voice through Warren Entsch, North Queensland, through Ian Macdonald, and so the list goes on. I think we can have one more and then we might go.
JOURNALIST:
Just getting back to the health review by Mr Podger, I mean, how high a priority are savings going to be on this...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not primarily a savings exercise. I'm not saying that we would ever turn up our nose at savings, we never do, but that's not primarily the point of the exercise.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] Dr Shergold's term expire, in the way that other secretaries...
PRIME MINISTER:
He is doing a very, very good job, very good job.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
When does his term expire? I was not aware of when it expired.
JOURNALIST:
So would you anticipate him continuing on after his term expires?
PRIME MINISTER:
When does his term expire?
JOURNALIST:
It's either early next year or early the year after.
PRIME MINISTER:
Early next year, I don't think so.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, well I don't think he expires early next year because I'd have been aware of that. But look, I have great confidence in him. I've been well served in the time I've been Prime Minister by the two heads of my Department. They're very different people. They've brought different styles. I think the style of each of them was appropriate for the time and I think Max Moore-Wilton did a great job at the time and I think Peter Shergold has done a first class job and his advice to me in relation to the public service changes has been very good, it's been very balanced and very timely and I have great confidence in him.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
He played a strong part in all of this, I take it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he gave me advice but, as is appropriate, in relation to the public service but I naturally took the decisions. Thank you very much. Good to see you all back and we'll see you later.
[ends]