CANNANE: The Prime Minister joins us from our Canberra studio, Prime Minister good morning.
PM: Good morning Steve.
CANNANE: What will determine whether this 2020 Summit is a success or not?
PM: Well in putting this Summit together, the idea was pretty simple, which is, we are a new Government, we have set out some strategic directions for the nation, how to boost productivity, the need to lift our national infrastructure, prepare for climate change and the problems for Australian water, what should be Australia's future role in the region and the world. There are others as well.
But we can set a strategic direction. We also need to get the Australian nation, businesses, non government organisations, the community at large, our academics and others, around the table and say ‘in this direction, what are some good ideas to take the nation there'. And what I have learnt in four months or so in the job, is that Government and political parties, and the bureaucracy, don't have a monopoly of wisdom.
So it is a pretty basic as that. So to shake some new ideas loose from the tree in the way in which the nation can go in the future.
CANNANE: If there is no final policy outcomes out of this Summit and I don't mean by Monday morning, I mean, you
PM: I think if we had no outcome from the Summit, within the time frame that you are saying then that would be a real problem.
What I have said is that, we have got 10 major working groups dealing with the future of the economy, population sustainability, long term national health care, strengthening communities, the future of Indigenous Australia and others as well.
If in each of those areas, we don't get new ideas for the future I would be disappointed. But what we have committed to as a government is by years' end, to respond to each of the ideas put forward by each of those working groups for Government to consider and I have said that by years' end we will say what we can embrace and why. And what we can't and why.
But I am not about to say beforehand that there are right and wrong answers because that just discourages peoples preparedness or willingness to stick their hand up and have a go.
CANNANE: What kind of response will that be, whether you like it or not, whether it will happen or not?
PM: You mean by year's end.
CANNANE:Yeah. That's right.
PM: It will be formal written response. Which is to say, we think that in terms of the nation's future strategic direction, which is: How do you build a modern Australia capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st Century. And they are huge challenges, that, within that framework, we would then make decisions about, does the policy proposal work against the objectives set? Can it be funded and responsibly implemented, and can we sustain its implementation long term?
They are the sort of criteria we will bring to bear.
But in fairness to people who are spending a weekend of their own time with us, these proposals, when they come through the working groups and those put to us at the end of the day by these 10 working groups, chaired by Government and non government co chairs, we owe them the respect to come back and say what we were prepared to take on board and what we weren't. But we need some time to do that.
CANNANE:How will the Summit work, what will be the structure, how do you manage 1000 people and 1000 ideas on one weekend.
PM: Well it is challenging but I think we can do it. You see, what we did originally was, I asked the Vice Chancellor of Melbourne University, Professor Glyn Davis to help us put together a Steering Committee of 10 out there from the community, including, David Morgan and Roger Beale, Michael Good, Tim Costello, Jackie Huggins, John Hartigan, Warwick Smith, Tim Fischer, Cate Blanchett and Michael Wesley.
And those in turn, together with Professor Davis have worked up one hundred people for each of those working groups. So those working groups will be working together during the course of Saturday and Sunday morning on questions we have put to them specifically and how they would respond to those questions.
For example, if we are building a long term sustainable national health strategy, how do we get preventative health care right? How can you do it differently? What should you be investing in it? And how can you measure its success?
Now we imagine that during the course of Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, that they will sit through their proposal through debate, of their group of 100 and they will be brought forth then to the plenary session by the end of the entire Summit.
CANNANE: One of the proposals put forward this morning in the papers is an idea of reconstituting a kind of ATSIC, a peak body group for Indigenous people. Do you have an open mind when it comes to a proposal on that one?
PM: Well as I said before, we don't put forward, you know, right and wrong answers. I mean the Government's stated position in terms of ATSIC's future is pretty clear. But if people want to debate future representative bodies for Indigenous people, given that we have established a full working group on future directions for Indigenous Australia, then they should be free to express their point of view. I am not in the business of censorship.
CANNANE: Warren Mundine says we don't need it. Are you ruling it out or not ruling it out?
PM: Well as I said, the whole point of a Summit is not to say before hand, there are right and wrong answers. We have an open mind on these questions generally.
Jenny Macklin has already indicated our overall direction on Indigenous policy and we are working through the question of future representative bodies. But it completely contrary to the spirit of the Summit, which brings together 1000 from among the countries brightest and best, to say, sorry here are some no-go areas before you even begin.
I am not in that business.
CANNANE:Ok, let's talk about your idea that you have raised. The idea of the one stop childcare system, with also health services there for zero to fives. It is being likened to a Blair Government initiative, back in 1999, is that where you got the idea from?
PM: Oh look my interest in early childhood education came out of reading sections of a book by Heckman on early childhood development which I read over the summer of 06-07. And that you may or may not recall, lead to myself as Leader of the Opposition in early 07, putting forward some policies on early childhood education. In fact as the first policy announcement of the newly constituted Federal Opposition.
I have had a deep interest in it since then. Why? Because the conclusion of Heckman and others, in the field, and those who study, sort of, the formation of a young child's brain is that the more you invest in early childhood education, that zero to five bracket, the better the long term developmental prospects for the kid through school, primary school, high school and post school education and training, and then their future employment.
It is better for the person, better for the family, better for community, better for the economy. And I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming. So that is the basis of putting forward already, a set of policies in early childhood education.
The idea I put forward the other day takes it a step or two further.
CANNANE: Prime Minister, critics of your proposal have said that there should be no role for private enterprise when it comes to educating children of the age zero to five. But this is such a crucial stage, we don't have private enterprise when it comes to infants primary and high school, why should we have it for zero to five.
PM: Well you know, I think there is a danger of putting the cart before the horse here. I have put a proposal forward to be developed, to be debated, to be added to, subtracted from, canned or panned or supported by those who will be participating in the relevant working group in the Summit.
What I would like to see from the Summit is people debate this among other proposals, purely on the merits.
Does this sort of proposal produce the results long term that we would hope in terms of a boost to productivity, a boost to young people, pursuing fulfilled and productive lives?
The second question which then arises is that if people believe this is a good way to go on the merits, then you look at different questions like as, how do we then cost this and what are the different modes which are possible for delivery.
And that then opens up the whole debate of private, public, mixed etcetera.
But I just think there is a danger of getting ahead of ourselves before we actually debate the merits of the intrinsic proposals.
CANNANE:Yesterday your Environment, Peter Garret failed to get a simple outcome on what many see as a simple issue, getting rid of plastic bags. If we can't resolve something like this, the issue of plastic bags, how are we going to get resolution to these bigger issues.
PM: Well I am sure the Environment Ministers will continue to (inaudible) that one through and it may take a bit of time.
I am not fully across the detail of the various proposals which were put on the table by the Environment Minister's when they met yesterday. One of the critical things we need to do is to develop a national litter management strategy and that is what we at the Commonwealth would like to work with the states on.
Plastic bags are a challenge, they are a problem. We will work our way through these. But you can't produce a solution to every problem over night. I am not in the business of holding out some mirage that you can wave a magic wand and say, problem fixed, move on.
It is harder than that. Overall what we are trying to do through this Summit is encourage and develop new ideas for the nation's future, take the country in a new direction. And evolve hopefully through this a new way of governing which actually involves the whole community rather than just politicians among themselves.
I think that is necessary. What I said in the Sydney Institute speech the other night, about a new tradition of the reforming centre of Australian politics, so many of the classical ideas of the classical left and the classical right no longer really apply to the challenges of the future.
And when you are looking at climate change and water, the rise of China and India, global economic turbulence, some of the old formulas are not working and we need to open our minds to new approaches for the future.
Because if we want a strong Australia for the 21st Century, a competitive Australia and Australia still where everyone has a fair go, I think have got to take a new approach to the way in which we govern the country as well.
CANNANE:Prime Minister thanks for dropping in this morning on breakfast.
PM: Thanks for having me on the program.