PM: For Australian families, for working families, nothing's more important than the health and hospital infrastructure and services of our country. Australians legitimately expect to have first-class health and hospital services for their kids, for their families. One of the deficiencies in the health and hospital system over many, many years of neglect from previous federal Governments in particular, has been that we've had inadequate investment in proper integrated cancer care. What we've done for the first time is invest $1.2 billion federally, not just for this Chris O'Brien centre here in Sydney, but also for another major centre in Melbourne, and for a network of regional integrated cancer care centres right across the country.
Cancer is such a huge killer in Australia that we must do everything that we can to lift the research effort, to lift what we can do to help those families who are in distress, those individuals who are in distress. What is really good about this Chris O'Brien centre here in Sydney, is not just the man after whom it's named, but the work which will go on here, integrating the best scientific research, the best therapeutic applications, the best bedside treatment for those who are suffering from various forms of cancer. Including alternative therapies, including the best form of palliative care. That's what Chris O'Brien was on about.
Chris O'Brien wanted us to treat the patient as a whole human being. From the best possible new innovations in science, through to the best form of palliative care for those who are really doing it tough. And that's what this Chris O'Brien centre is on about. Over to you folks.
JOURNALIST: Mr Abbott today talks about a referendum (inaudible)
PM: Mr Abbott as Health Minister for five years ripped out a billion dollars from Australia's public hospital system. And this Government has put $5 billion extra back in. That's the basic difference between Mr Abbott and this Government.
JOURNALIST: Can you talk about a referendum though? Has that got bi-partisan support, would you support that?
PM: Well let's go to the question of what are the core policy differences here. Mr Abbott as Health Minister rips $1 billion out of hospitals, this Government puts $5 billion back in. Mr Abbott has five years as Health Minister to bring on a referendum, and does nothing about it - and this Government's long-standing commitment is if we can't get a co-operative outcome on long term health reform, that we'd seek a mandate from the people. I'd draw your attention to what Mr Dutton, the Shadow Health Minister, had to say this morning, when he confirmed that as of today they have no health policy. It's yet another exercise of policy on the run, and no clear content for the policy that they advocate.
JOURNALIST: Where are you up to with the idea of taking it away- health from the States (inaudible)?
PM: Our commitment to the Australian people is absolutely clear-cut. And that is that we said first we would bring down a Health Reform Commission report, which happened in July this year. It contains within it 123 recommendations for the long term reform of the health and hospital system. Secondly, we have spent the last six months consulting with nearly 100 public hospitals across the country- I've done 20 of those consultations myself. Thirdly, what we said to the States and Territories in the last Council of the Australian Governments meeting in Brisbane only a week or so ago, is that in the first part of 2010 we would bring forward our long term reform proposals for the health and hospital system for the future. Furthermore, what we said is that we will wish to do so cooperatively with the States and Territories, but I've reiterated to the States and Territories that if we can't get that cooperatively from the States and Territories we'd seek a mandate from the people.
So, in summary it's like this - Mr Abbott as Health Minister pulls a billion dollars out. We put $5 billion extra back in. Mr Abbott as Health Minister had ample opportunity to have a referendum with the people. He didn't do so. And we have said we prefer to work cooperatively with the States and Territories on long term reform, but if that fails, we'd seek a mandate from the people. You want to know what the differences are on health policy? That's it in a nutshell.
JOURNALIST: Just on Copenhagen, Gordon Brown says the Chinese hijacked the summit. What's your view?
PM: Well, the negotiations among many countries proceeded very effectively. And with various other countries, did not proceed effectively. There were many countries in the Copenhagen negotiations who wanted to land a deal on climate change which was comprehensive. We had some resistance from various developing countries against that. The important thing, however, is that the alternatives at the end of the day were this - the complete collapse of negotiations, and no deal whatsoever, or the deal that we were able to deliver, which provides three specific breakthroughs for the future.
For the first time we have a two degree Centigrade target. The first time that we have developed and developing countries agree to reduce their emissions to realise that target, and for the first time a system of national and international monitoring of what developed and developing countries do.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Would you consider a target of more than 25%?
PM: Absolutely not. And the reason is, as I have said consistently, that Australia will do no more and no less than the rest of the world.
JOURNALIST: How does the outcome of Copenhagen affect your ETS?
PM: Well, the Minister, Penny Wong, has been very clear-cut about the Government's position, which has not changed. And that is, our targets - 5, 15, 25, are identical with the Liberal party. What is different between us and the Liberal party, is that we've put forward a concrete policy by which you get there. They have not. Our Emissions Trading Scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, does three things- puts a cap on total carbon emissions, it charges the biggest polluters in Australia, and it uses that money to compensate working families, so that 90% of families receive full or partial compensation.
What does Mr Abbott's alternative do? He doesn't put a cap on carbon pollution. He doesn't charge the biggest polluters. He doesn't compensate families. And hopes that a combination of a magic wand and magic pudding will somehow produce a mechanism to deliver his range of targets, which are identical with the Government's, 5, 15, and 25. It's a bit like health and hospitals. We have a clear-cut policy. We know what our plan is, and we're going about the business of implementing it. The alternative is frankly policy on the run, and a lot of it, simply, thin air.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: The undertakings that we made in the Government's statement in May of this year, in the range of 5, 15, 25, are entirely consistent with two degrees centigrade as a target. That is made absolutely explicit in the documents we released at the time. I draw attention to the fact of the commitments offered by other developed countries, consistent with that target as well.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well, the key thing is for the business community is certainty for the future. We offer the certainty of an Emissions Trading Scheme, a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which has been consulted with business now for the better part of a year. The alternative, under Mr Abbott, is, as I said, policy on the run. Policy which contradicts each every other day. Policy which is somehow magically funded out of a magic pudding. That's the alternative. What business has said to us loud and clear is that they want the certainty of business rules for the future. And that's what we have sought to deliver. Business certainty is what is critical here. We have a plan forward, it's clear-cut. Some will oppose it, others will support it. But it's clear-cut. The alternative, I've got to say, is a policy shemozzle, and that's the difference.
JOURNALIST: What do you think of the postal strike a few days before Christmas?
PM: I think all Australian families have a legitimate expectation that they can get their Chrissy cards on time frankly. If you're like me, you often post them late, and you hope they get through on time. Mind you, most people don't post them as late as I do. Therefore, I really do think it's time for calm heads to prevail, both on the part of Australia Post on the one hand, and the unions on the other.
JOURNALIST: You've had a couple of opportunities now to meet with Kristina Kenneally now, what is your reaction to how she is going and over the last week (inaudible)
PM: Well I've been out of the country, but can I say, the fact that the Premier is here today on a very concrete, important health project such as this - ask the people of New South Wales whether they want better integrated cancer care services for the people of New South Wales, I'm sure that they'd say yes. And that brings us back to the broader question of health and hospital reform for the future. You see for us, it's pretty basic. One, public hospitals got twelve years worth of neglect out of the Government in which Mr Abbott was the Health Minister. They had a billion dollars ripped out of them. Our first step in our first twelve months was to put $5 billion back in, extra.
Now, secondly, Mr Abbott as Health Minister for five years, had every opportunity under the sun to say to the people we need a referendum, and he didn't do so. And what we have said is that the long term health reform, if we can't get there cooperatively with the States, then we are absolutely determined to seek a mandate from the Australian people. It's very simple. That's us. That's them. We have a plan - they have a bunch of rhetoric. And that's kind of the difference. Both on this, I've got to say, and on climate change, being the subject of discussion here this morning as well.
JOURNALIST: Do you get the sense that this is the Premier that's going to go the distance?
PM: The Premier is working hard. I have worked with her hard through my office and our health agency on this particular project here at RPA. RPA is a very big hospital for New South Wales. Cancer is probably the largest killer in New South Wales. Getting better integrated cancer care is important for the people of New South Wales. What we're building here in partnership with the New South Wales Government is a world class cancer facility. That's practical action on the ground. As Prime Minister of Australia, I'm interested in results, what actually delivers results for working families in their desire to get a reduction in waiting times in accident and emergency. I want practical results for working families, so that we have a better supply of doctors and nurses for the future, which we have had monstrous under-investment in for so many years.
I want practical results for the people of Australia when it comes to better investment in medical research, in clinical research, in cancer research, but also in our hospital infrastructure. These are the sorts of practical things that the people, that working families across Australia want to see done. With health and hospital reform, what's needed? More money for public hospitals. We've put $5 billion extra in, while they've taken a billion dollars out when Mr Abbott was Health Minister. We've said here's our plan for the future, and if we can't do it cooperatively, we'll seek a mandate from the Australian people.
What Mr Abbott has said, having had five years to get his referendum with the Australian people and did nothing, here's another thought bubble for this morning. So, I can say to you again, the contrast is very clear.
Having said that folks, I've got to go.