PM: This has been a good day to honour one of Australia's leading science heroes. As the Chief Scientist said before, what we have here in Australia is someone who has won Olympic Gold for her achievements in science, and Professor Elizabeth Blackburn is someone of whom all Australians should be proud.
Of course, one of her stepping stones to achieving national and international recognition was that some time ago she was awarded the Prime Minister's Science Award. This is important annual recognition of the achievements in science right across our country. And today we are calling for nominations for this year's set of awards.
It's not just that we honour those who are at the absolute sharp end of scientific innovation, we're also honouring those who encourage young people in the teaching of science as well. The Prime Minister's Prize for Science is a prestigious award, it's worth $300,000. The Malcolm McIntosh prize for physical scientist of the year, $50,000. The Science Minister's Prize for Life Scientist of the year, $50,000. The Prime Minister's Prize for excellence in science teaching in secondary schools, $50,000, and the same for primary schools. And as we were reminded this morning, Dr John O'Sullivan, who received the Prime Minister's Prize for Science for his achievements in astronomy and wireless technologies, and we've heard also about his achievements in relation to Wi-fi.
Nominations close on the 21st of May 2010. This Government is passionate about the future of science in Australia. We want to build a modern Australian economy for the 21st century. We want to grow the Australian economy of the future. We want to protect the Australian jobs of the future, and build new jobs for the future - science is a cornerstone. That's why the Government has taken a range of measures to encourage science teaching in schools. It's why we've provided particular incentives through the HECS system to encourage our best and brightest year 12 graduates to pursue science at university, but why we also encourage our best and brightest scientists through the awarding of these prestigious national awards.
One other thing before I just take your questions.
There's been debate in recent days about homelessness. Can I just say this - I feel very deeply about this commitment. It's pretty fundamental. I believe it's a mark of any decent society, whether we tackle seriously the challenge of homelessness.
When the Government was elected, the Census data had something in excess of 100,000 people who were classified as homeless. That's far too many for a country like ours. That's why the Government, through its first White Paper, committed itself to halving homelessness by 2020. The Government remains deeply committed to that objective, deeply committed to that goal, and we're making progress towards the realisation of that goal. I'd urge Mr Abbott to join us in that ambition for our nation, to halve homelessness by 2020. It's an achievable goal. It's a worthwhile goal. And I would urge both sides of Australian politics to get behind this important goal for the nation, to halve homelessness by 2020.
JOURNALIST: Is homelessness-
PM: Many- just one or two concluding points and then I'll go to your question. Many practical steps we've taken- social housing, repairs of social housing, the Common Ground facilities now going up in most of the major cities of Australia, the recurrent funding under the Homelessness White Paper to all those who are providing services to the homeless out there in the community and charitable sector. Each of these is building blocks towards making that objective work. And we are dead serious about this. It is fundamental. There are pressures now, the global economic recession obviously is going to make things more challenging in the near-term, as many people lose their jobs, and many of those who can't afford regular housing find themselves homeless. But that should not distract us from realising this ambition for the nation. And we are dead set determined to do so. Over to you.
JOURNALIST: Is homelessness ever a choice?
PM: When you look at the number of people who are rough sleeping in the country, and the figures I last had on that were in the- well into the thousands and beyond, plainly, in the time that I've spent with many of the homelessness service providers, there are some folk that are very, very hard to help, okay, very, very hard to help. But overwhelmingly, the problem that all those service providers say to us, is there's not enough places to offer on a given evening. It's the lack of public housing which is available to those who are homeless, that's why we are building 20,000 new units of social housing under the national economic stimulus strategy.
That's why we've undertaken repairs to 39,000 or more units of public housing, major repairs, in order to make them habitable. But you know, in inner cities, where this problem often arises, it's having facilities like Common Ground facilities where people, the emergency service providers, have some place where they can put immediately. And I go to each of these centres around the country- and I've done it regularly over the last couple of years - they often say to me on a given evening, when they have 30 to 40 people present at 8pm that evening, they will then do the ring-around in their city to find there may be 20 places available at best. What's that mean? It means that there's a stack of people who want somewhere to stay, who can't have a place to stay. So we're wrestling with those practical challenges.
JOURNALIST: How much has homelessness come down since the Rudd Government took office, and what are the interim targets to 2020?
PM: Well, we spent our first year in office developing the homelessness White Paper. That's important, because we're determined to get the policy right. We just can't lurch at this and do a whole series of things which are not properly coordinated.
In our second year in office, we've begun this massive building program for social housing, 20,000 units, a large slice of which we've made available to homeless people. Secondly, that huge maintenance and repair program, to make existing social housing stock more available.
My understanding is that the first data on the current state of homelessness won't be out for a month or two. I fully expect that what we'll see- but I haven't seen any data myself- is that you will see an increased number of people seeking housing, and emergency housing, because of the impact of the global recession.
But you know something, that's a product of what's happening in the economy now on the demand side. Our challenge is to add all this on the supply side. And it takes time to build 20,000 units of social housing. It takes time to undertake all those fundamental repairs. But we are determined to head in the right direction on this.
Last point on this one, this is something I am deeply committed to, personally. And I am determined that this objective, by 2020, be realised. I am determined that we put in place all the building blocks for it to happen. And I would urge Mr Abbott to get behind this important goal for the nation, to halve our homelessness by that time. I believe it's really the right thing to do.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, if Peter Garrett received a letter on October 16th calling for foil insulation to be banned, warning twice that it could cause more deaths, do you regret that your Government waited three more deaths- four more months- to act on that?
PM: My advice is that the Minister in response to various recommendations he's received, has sought continued improvements in the delivery of the program. Remember, first of all, the building standard relating to foil has been in existence since 2002, that's the national building standard. Secondly, the initial representations from the industry, that they needed to have people who were properly trained, the Minister's response to that as at the middle of the year was to bring in the first nationally consistent training standards for people to be employed in this industry. That is, in the insulation industry.
In terms of the particular point that you raise, that those representations were made in relation to two matters, one I think was the use of metal fasteners in subsequent- and also the use of foil. As you know, the decision on metal fasteners was taken very soon after, in October/November, that on foil, later. And that was the product of a detailed, internal technical investigation.
JOURNALIST: But it's regrettable that it took three more deaths to act on that?
PM: Can I say, the Minister has sought to respond to the advice that he has received on the way through. Firstly, to make sure that the building standard which had been in existence in 2002 was applied, and, where possible, enhanced. Secondly, the other part is, the proper application of occupational health and safety standards to the industry, the third was, the training qualifications for those to be employed in the industry- none existed nationally before. He introduced that and defined what it should be. In the subsequent implementation of the program, further recommendations were obtained from industry. As I've said, these were acted upon in sequences, based on the technical advice which the Minister was receiving.
JOURNALIST: I've got a question about health and tax, but I don't want you to tell me- because you can't, yet- what is in your two reports, okay. However, you can- can you undertake that you will make structural change to the health system and that you will act to make whatever reforms you can plan to make to the tax system before the next election, or, are you going to campaign in the next election to deliver a promise that you made in 2007?
PM: Well let me take both those in sequence, because they're both major challenges for the nation going forward.
On health and hospitals, we, from the middle of last year, received a report from Christine Bennett, 123 recommendations for the future of the health and hospital system.
Stage two, we spent the subsequent six months road testing each of those recommendations with more than 100 hospitals across the country, the Minister, myself and others supporting us. Thirdly, since the beginning of the year, we've now been involved in detailed discussions and negotiations with State Governments on those recommendations which have been road tested. Let me say this very plainly. When it comes to the future of our health and hospital systems, this Government is dead set determined to implement fundamental reforms to the system. We intend to get those fundamental reforms underway.
JOURNALIST: Before the election?
PM: We'll get those reforms underway during the course of 2010, and we are dead set determined to have our sleeves rolled up, making sure that those reforms to the system occur. The Health and hospital system has been kicked around like a political football for decades and decades, as everyone sought to shirk responsibility. This Government won't be doing that, this Government will have its sleeves rolled up. We will have a concrete plan of action. As I said, if that's rejected by the States and Territories, we know what the consequences of that will be. But our intention is to bring about fundamental reform to the health and hospital system, and to get that work underway in 2010.
Just to answer the second part of what Matthew asked, which is about tax. On the question of the tax system, we are still working our way through the report by the independent review of the taxation system. In terms of where- what landing points we've reached on it and what implementation period for any of the recommendations contained within it, we haven't worked that through yet, I just wish to be completely transparent with you on that. Can I also emphasise what I said before, and that is, I'm sure there are recommendations in that report which we might be able to live with, and a whole bunch that we can't. That's why we commissioned an independent review of taxation. So on the second one, we're still working-
JOURNALIST: So it's probably that your reforms- your tax reforms- will be part of your election campaign, possibly.
PM: We are still working our way through the details of it, I don't wish to mislead you. But I have answered your first question, in the specific terms that I have.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, Mr Abbott has said today that the money you gave to the television stations amounts to an election year bribe. Why did you give that money, and will radio- commercial radio stations- get the same deal?
PM: First of all, I haven't seen the text of what Mr Abbott has said on that. Can I simply go to a couple of points as far as the Minister's decisions on this matter are concerned. Firstly, the Minister's decision in relation to the future of television licences is designed to ensure the continuation of Australian content in the program-
JOURNALIST: There's no-
PM: Can I answer the question you've asked and go through that - is firstly to ensure the continuation of Australian content through the commercial free to airs. The second is that, within that, more than half I'm advised of the programs have to be Australian, and that these requirements extend to drama, documentaries and children's programs. The other measure that I would refer to is the fact that, as far as costs being imposed on the industry through digital switchover, this represents a considerable impact on the industry which is being imposed by regulatory change. I've already been asked in the Parliament about the impact on the long-term security of delivery of free to air services across Australia.
We are determined to honour those commitments, but it's wrong to assume it can be done cost-free. That's the second reason. The third is, I'd draw your attention to the relative standing of Australian television licences for commercial televisions against the fee regimes or licensing fee regimes which apply right across the rest of the world, whether it's in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada or New Zealand. These are the three sets of factors, I'm advised, which informed the Minister's decision concerning the future of the television licensing regime. I also note from the Minister's decision that this will be subject to review after a period of implementation as well.
JOURNALIST: Can I get your reaction to the stabbing, this high school in Brisbane (inaudible)?
PM: Just horrified. Yeah, just horrified. I think Australia's not the sort of place where this should be happening in a schoolyard. Just horrified, completely horrified for the parents concerned, the unspeakable grief that they must be going through at a time like this. In answer to your direct question, horrified and left speechless.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Opposition says that they're making ground in the polls because voters are finally seeing through Labor's spin. What's your reaction to that?
PM: I'd say this will be a very tight election, and the polls will continue to tighten. The second thing I'd say is that if- is that, this is a tight election, and if two or three Australians in a hundred change their vote, then Mr Abbott will be Prime Minister, and Work Choices will be back. If two or three Australians in a hundred change their vote, Mr Abbott will be Prime Minister and penalty rates will be cut. That's what follows from this.
Very interesting statements on Work Choices given that you've mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, and what they have said. Remember, Mr Abbott has said that - just after he became Leader of the Opposition- he said, 'well, the phrase Work Choices is dead'. The phrase Work Choices is dead. What is really interesting is his speech of just last Friday, where he says, and I quote him "at four elections running, we (referring to the Liberal party) had a mandate to introduce statutory non-union contracts, and we will seek to renew that mandate". That is a clear-cut commitment to bring back AWAs, a clear-cut commitment to bring back AWAs.
Julie Bishop said this only yesterday: 'bringing back inflexible working conditions such as penalty rates regime is costing employers more, it's making workers worse off', and then goes on to say 'the fact is that there are workers now who are suffering under the new Awards system because it's bringing back penalty rates on weekends, and inflexible working conditions'. You want to know one of the things that are achieved by AWAs and Work Choices? It's complete open slather on cutting penalty rates for working Australians. So, can I just say this, that what we've had from Mr Abbott and from Julie Bishop, is a clear-cut commitment to bring back AWAs, and to scrap penalty rates. And also to scrap protection for unfair dismissal. The fact that Mr Abbott wants to bring back Work Choices, bring back AWAs, is a risk to the family budget. It is a risk to the family budget.
JOURNALIST: Is that surprising though, given how you- I mean, this is a vote-winner for you, you've proven it before. Does it surprise you that the ideology of the Liberal party takes them back there?
PM: It is, what this demonstrates is that Mr Abbott and the Liberal party are out of touch with working families. Out of touch with working families who depend on penalty rates to make the family budget add up.
How out of touch can you be when you say penalty rates aren't important, when you say protection from unfair dismissal is not important, and that bringing back Work Choices and AWAs by another name is somehow unremarkable.
I'd go back to the core point, in response to your question. If two or three Australians change their vote at the next election, a tight election, Mr Abbott would be Prime Minister, and he would bring Work Choices back. And that is clear-cut in what he has now said.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, was the problem the Rudd Government had that it failed to manage expectations in what the public believed you could deliver by the end of this three year term (inaudible)?
PM: The challenge for health and hospital reform is to be fair dinkum about it. You know, we have 763 public hospitals in Australia. Millions of presentations at hospitals each year. Millions of Australians using General Practitioner services each year. We make no apology whatsoever for getting this fundamental reform right. Working families across Australia depend on us getting it right. I go back to what I said to Matthew before- we intend to make sure that these reforms are begun to be implemented during the course of 2010. That's our intention. That's what we intend to get on and do. Because there's just been far too much cost-shift, blame-shift over such a long period of time. And I've said before, before I go, and I've actually got to be somewhere, is I welcome this debate on health and hospitals.
We have Mr Abbott, whose ripped $1 billion out of the public hospital system, and already we've put a lot more than that back in before we get to the future of what we'll do for long-term reform. We've also had Mr Abbott saying that he has given the Australian people a rock-solid, iron-clad guarantee on the Medicare Safety net, something fundamental to the family budget, and he simply reneged on his deep, fundamental, iron-clad commitment - second point.
Third point, GPs. He froze the number of GP training places at a time when the system was under massive pressure. We've increased the number of GP training places already by 35%. This is what we've done in two years in Government, after twelve years of our predecessor, four years of which Mr Abbott was Health Minister. I look forward very much to the debate on health and hospitals, fundamental to the country, and we're determined to get the detail right.
Got to go folks.