PM: It's good to be at the City of Hume today here in Melbourne with the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and the Minister for Social Inclusion, for this first meeting of the National Social Inclusion Board.
The objective of the Government is to ensure that the great Australian tradition of the fair go for all has practical application for those Australians who are not getting a fair go. Whether we're talking about those suffering from disability. Whether we're talking about those suffering from disadvantage in other forms. Whether we're talking about indigenous Australians. Whether we're talking about those who are struggling to make ends meet from retirement incomes.
We need to be a Government for all Australians. We need to make sure that we bring all Australians with us. And that all Australians have access and opportunity when it comes to the nation's prosperity. Of course, Canberra does not have all the answers on this, never has had, never will have. That's why it's important to engage fully those in the Australian community who have a life long passion and commitment in this area. That's why we're pleased to have this first meeting of our social inclusion board today. And I welcome the participation of each member of it, because they are giving of themselves to assist us in this task.
People like Eddie McGuire; Dr John Falzon, who's with St Vincent De Paul; Ahmed Fahour, who is with the National Australia Bank. Also we have Dr Chris Sarra, an Indigenous leader from Bundaberg in Queensland; and Professor Fiona Stanley, given her work in Indigenous and child health, from Western Australia - to name just four or five.
This is an impressive board, and they have an impressive job of work ahead of them. One of the challenges that the board will be addressing is a national mental health and disability employment strategy. The relevant Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries have released already a discussion paper in this area. But the National Social Inclusion Board will be themselves providing input into the Government's final policy conclusion in this critical area.
Mental Health, those suffering from mental illness, and its impact in terms of the quality of people's lives, their access to proper health care, and their access to proper employment opportunities is a critical challenge of social policy for modern Australia. The Government's mission overall - to build a modern Australia capable of dealing with the challenges of the 21st Century; to secure the nations future, but critically within that, to ensure that we secure a future for all Australians and not just some Australians. And that means those Australians suffering from disadvantage. The Government has been active in a number of areas already, whether it's homelessness or whether it's aspects of disability policy, whether it's aspects of Indigenous policy in closing the gap. But much, much more work is to be done.
The National Social Inclusion Board is one part of our armoury to deal with these challenges into the future and I look forward to their contribution to the nations efforts.
I might ask the Deputy Prime Minister to add to my remarks and then take your questions.
GILLARD: Thank you.
This is an exciting day to have our Social Inclusion Board meet for the first time. As the Prime Minister says, it will be working with us to make sure that the promise of a fair go is realised for all Australians. Here we are in the City of Hume. This is an area that has historically battled disadvantage and there are areas like this right around the nation. We want to make a difference for these sorts of communities. We want to make a difference for those who battle disability, mental illness, for those Indigenous Australians, for those who come from migrant and refugee backgrounds.
The board is going to be providing advice to Government across the full range. There is a lot of work to do and I'm very keen to see the board get on with the job. This will be the first meeting. It will be an intensive process. But it's about joining Government services up to make a difference for Australians who do face disadvantage and who we want to be included in the mainstream of Australian life.
PM: Thanks Julia. Happy to take your questions.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, during your address to the Social Inclusion Board you alluded to corporate executive salaries. Nicholas
Moore is going to be taking home $26.8 million for his year's work next year. That's 80 times your salary and 453 times the average salary. Is there something to be done? Do these need to be reined in?
PM: Well, we're not in the business of regulating. But I would say to all corporate executives today, it's time that corporate executives showed restraint. All Australians are finding it tough. Working Australians, working families are finding it tough to make ends meet. And they do look to our corporate leaders for an example. So I'd ask them to show restraint, more restraint than we've been seeing.
JOURNALIST: Another kick for battlers, we understand the Reserve Bank could be leaning towards another interest rate rise. What would your advice be in that area?
PM: Well, the Government's policy has always been to accept the independence of the Bank and not to comment on specific interest rate movements. However, the job of the Budget, and the job of the Government, has been responsible economic management, to put downward pressure on inflation or to put downward pressure on interest rates. That's what we have sought to do through this Budget which has yielded a $22 billion surplus. To bring about downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. That's responsible economic management.
Irresponsible economic management of the type prescribed by the Liberals, seeks to conduct a $22 billion raid on the surplus, thereby putting upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates. The contrast is clear. A responsible economic strategy, which seeks to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. In contrast to an irresponsible strategy embraced by the Liberals which does exactly the reverse.
The challenge for Mr Turnbull today is if he's going to conduct a $22 billion raid on the surplus and put upward pressure on inflation and interest rates, he must therefore detail his savings which will make up for that $22 billion raid.
JOURNALIST: Do you think Mr Turnbull will be being dishonest if he comes out and backs the proposal which has been made to cut the excise?
PM: Well, what we've seen in the last period of time is the Liberal party not knowing whether they are Arthur or Martha on economic policy, and certainly not knowing what the ingredients of responsible economic strategy should be for the nation. Remember, Mr Turnbull has said inflation is a fairy tale. Mr Turnbull has said that there is no economic case to reduce Government spending. And Mr Turnbull is party to a $22 billion raid on the surplus, thereby putting upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates.
The challenge for Mr Turnbull today is either to embrace his $22 billion raid on the surplus and nominate the savings, which he has to make in order to make up that amount of money, or to abandon the $22 billion raid which they have articulated since the Government brought its Budget down.
JOURNALIST: Access Economics have predicted private health premiums could rise 10 per cent, five per cent on top of a five per cent rise. Is that (inaudible) send thousands of people back to an already groaning public health system?
PM: In the Budget the measures we announced in relation to the Medicare levy surcharge were this, in a nutshell: In 1996-97 the previous Liberal Government introduced a tax on income earners earning more than $50,000 whom they described as high income earners, and as a consequence of that, that tax has remained with us ever since. They failed to index it. They failed to take any measure to adjust it for inflation. And so 11 years later, they are still describing those earning $50,000 as high income earners.
Well, our Government does not believe that people earning $50,000 are high income earners, even though the Liberals seem to regard that as the case.
What's the effect in terms of individuals or couples? Basically it adds up to a tax of between $20 and $30 a week. Now that's what the Liberals are saying. They want to impose that on these working families and working Australians. We say, that's not fair because this amount has not been adjusted for 11 years for inflation.
And on top of that, I'd also draw your attention to a comment from one of the heads of one of the private health insurance funds, the CEO of Westfund, Mr Graham Danaher. Who, in describing some of the products provided to people in this particular income bracket, described them as, quote, ‘they are a tax dodge product, these products do not take any pressure off the public hospital system'. I'd simply draw your attention to his comments, referring to the particular services being offered by, I presume, various private health insurance funds, to those who are seeking to avoid paying that particular surcharge.
The key thing is this, remember, when it comes to health policy and the public hospital system, the Liberals pulled a billion dollars out of the system and basically said public hospitals are purely a responsibility for the states into the future. Our response is, no, we are putting a billion dollars back in now, as well as $600 million to deal with elective surgery waiting lists. That's where real action lies on public hospitals and public health policy in Australia. Rather than what Mr Turnbull and the Liberals are trying to say, which is that this tax on people earning $50,000 a year should be retained forever into the future. That is their position.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: I haven't seen those remarks. The Government, from January of this year, has made absolutely clear that we regard the fight against inflation as one of the first responsibilities of responsible economic management. And the reason is simple. If you fail to fight inflation effectively, it puts upward pressure on interest rates which affects businesses, which affects working families, which affects working Australians everywhere.
Therefore, fiscal policy, budget policy has got a role to play, as well as of course, other elements of policy including what you can do to add to skills and infrastructure across the country to remove those supply side constraints in the economy. What I am disappointed about, in the debate on inflation is that the Liberals, in irresponsible economic management mode, have said that inflation is a fairytale, who have said that there is no economic case to reduce government spending and have instead conducted a $22 billion raid on the surplus as if that is irrelevant. Well, it's not irrelevant. It is time Mr Turnbull woke up to himself.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well I think on the question of retirement income policy, it is important to place into absolute context, that which we have done. First of all, on the question of pensioners and carers, what we have done is provide further measures in the budget itself. For seniors we are providing an additional $5.2 billion over the next five years.
Secondly, in the case of seniors, they have been provided with $900 per year more than they were in the previous budget of Mr Howard and that represented in fact, some $400 per year more than Mr Howard himself offered in that budget. That's for seniors.
When it comes to carers, if those carers are in receipt of the carer payment, and the carer allowance, they would be $2100 per year better off than the previous budget under Mr Howard. Or in fact some $500 better off than Mr Howard himself offered in that particular budget. Now these are important figures to bear in mind. But for the future, we have got to make sure that we've got a properly considered system for retirement incomes. That's why, prior to the Budget, we indicated that retirement incomes policy would form part of the Henry Commission of Inquiry for the future. It's got to be done thoroughly and systematically.
But to overcome, in five months, the problems of retirement income policy which have been building over the last ten years or more, is a very difficult ask. We have got the job ahead of us. We have a commission of investigation underway. We've made positive moves in the Budget, as I've just described. But beyond that, we have this Henry Commission to report in the period ahead.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Brendan Nelson's campaigning (inaudible) by-election (inaudible)
PM: Well, we will be campaigning in Gippsland, of course. We want to make sure that we run as strong a campaign as possible. Gippsland will be an almost impossible seat for us to win. But, we intend to put our best foot forward and try as hard as we can.
Of course, the question which the good people of Gippsland will need to ask themselves is whether they've received effective representation for their local interests from the National Party over all these years. I'm sure the good people of the area will have their own answer to deliver on that score.
But, as I've said before, it's going to be a difficult task for us, and we need to make sure that we provide an option for the local people, but recognising that this is one hell of a task for Labor to win. This is a very, very difficult seat for us.
JOURNALIST: What do you think about the suggestion from Bruce Chapman in regards to maybe a HECS funding system, payback system, for athletes at the AIS or (inaudible)
PM: I've seen the report of that today but I haven't actually seen the full text of Chapman's recommendation for our athletes. I'd rather examine that in further detail to see what precisely has been recommended.