PM: The Australian Government today is announcing a $10 million boost to the Personal Helpers and Mentors program as part of our initiative to reduce homelessness in Australia. This particular program provides support for Australians with a severe mental illness and provides greater access to one-on-one support.
Six new services will be established in communities with significant homeless populations in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia to help people with a mental illness who are homeless or who are at acute risk of homelessness. In addition, six new dedicated homelessness workers will be shared among the four existing sites in Victoria and Queensland to work solely with homeless clients in these areas.
In total, 36 additional personal mentors will be on the ground by mid-2010 to provide intensive assistance to homeless Australians with a severe mental illness. This program is designed to help people with a severe mental illness reconnect with the wider community and to live more independent and satisfying lives.
Personal mentors work one-on-one with participants with practical help to achieve their personal goals. These personal mentors will also connect participants with essential clinical and social services, including housing services and health professionals.
This initiative forms part of the Government's efforts to halve homelessness and to offer accommodation to all rough sleepers who seek it by 2020. Those of you familiar with the challenge of homelessness will know that the incidence of mental illness is a huge cause out there for people who are sleeping rough. You only have to talk to people who are sleeping rough on the streets to know for a fact yourself that many of our fellow Australians are suffering from a whole range of mental illnesses and that's how they end up on the streets.
Therefore, at a very practical level, this program aims to complement a series of other things were doing as a Government. The Common Ground projects are designed to provide emergency accommodation in inner-city areas. This service is particularly targeted on those with mental illness.
Could I add this on the question of homelessness - we are dead set determined to meet our target of halving homelessness by 2020. We are dead set determined to meet our target of ensuring that all those sleeping rough who want accommodation have accommodation provided to them. These are hard objectives to realise, but we are putting in place practical measures right across the country to give effect to it.
This for me is really important. It is something which any decent government should do, and we are determined to keep our sleeves rolled up and to do just that.
In that spirit, I would again appeal to Mr Abbott to back this on a bipartisan basis for the cause of homelessness in Australia. Mr Abbott's predecessor Mr Turnbull, did so. Mr Abbott so far, has refused to do so. This is really important stuff. It's about our decency as a community, our decency as a nation. For me this is core business. It is really important and I would urge Mr Abbott to come onside.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) today is one 25th of what you've given as freebies to the TV stations. How can this be considered as a serious down-payment on tackling homelessness?
PM: What I'd say to you Andrew, is that if you look at the investments we've made in building 20,000 units of social housing across Australia, the biggest, largest expansion to social housing in the country's history, with some 7,000 or so of those houses currently under way, a large slice of those will be going to people who are currently homeless.
If you look at the investment that we have made in the repairs to some 39,000-plus existing units of social housing, major repairs in order to much of that accommodation available again, these are very large investments.
If you look also at the investment we are making in purpose-built inner-city facilities, I've mentioned already Common Ground, so that when people front at many of the homeless charities which offer services in inner cities and physically there is no room at the inn, we want to be in a position where there is a room at the inn. That's why we're building it, and none of this is cheap.
If you look at the overall investment that we are making in the area of homelessness, it is some $1.2 billion over four years, a 55 per cent increase in investment in homelessness. These are necessary measures - helping the charities do their work, providing some places to go as emergency accommodation for people in inner cities, and also providing people with a place to call home by adding to the social housing stock of the nation.
So you ask 'what are we doing?' This is the biggest expansion of investment in the cause of homelessness in the country's history. We are proud of that. There's a long way to go. But I go back to the integrity of the commitment - it is really important. Mr Turnbull saw fit to back this on a bipartisan basis and my appeal to Mr Abbott is to do the same. It's one of those questions of decency in public life. We are talking about Australians who do not have a lot of defences themselves.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) Mr Rudd, you haven't raised this issue in the few months and suddenly Mr Abbott has come under some criticism and you've suddenly made an announcement.
PM: The roll out of the Government's measures concerning homelessness has been going on for quite a period of time, and the reason it has been done in that way is, we spent our first year in Government concluding our first white paper on area of policy, and that was on homelessness. We spent a lot of time with the Brotherhood of St Lawrence getting it right. In our second year in Government we've been out there rolling out the biggest investment in homelessness and social housing services that the country has ever seen. So on the question of consistency of policy in this, we have been there from day one. This for me, is really important.
The other thing I'd say, though, is what has changed, and changed most recently, and the reason I am bringing this to national debate is that for the first time the Leader of the Opposition has not backed that as a bipartisan measure for the nation. I want that to be the case. I really want that to be the case.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd with regard to the home insulation program, you've made clear that Peter Garrett did everything he could at every point when things were raised with him about problems with this program. If we accept that then shouldn't we accept that the real error was yours in that you unleashed large amounts of money into an area which you knew, by your own comments recently, was not regulated properly? Did you have any advice from your departments not to roll it out so quickly because of their safety concerns?
PM: As you know, the decision to expand or to roll out the home insulation program was taken as one of a number of measures to support employment in the economy at a time of considerable stress. The advice that I have been provided by the Minister is that on the detailed implementation of that program that he worked his way through, first of all, the relevant product safety standards. The one for the use of this particular material had been in existence since 2002.
The Minister took further measures -
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible)
PM: Hang on, hang on. I'm talking about the measures which the Minister was having to deal with, and therefore for the implementation of the program.
Secondly, on the occupational health and safety standards which are relevant to this industry, and thirdly, the training standards which, nationally, did not exist, which the Minister sought to bring into effect.
The Minister was charged, as you would expect with any such program, with the implementation of the decision taken by the Cabinet to go in this direction, and the way in which it's been implemented has been done by the Minister based on the best advice available to him and the Government. That, of course, is a subject of continuing debate in the community, as it should be and as it will be, that's right, but I'm saying to you that's the sequence of events as I recall it.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) Peter Garrett has described this program, the ceiling insulation program, as a success. Would you describe it as a success?
PM: Well remember that we have 1,055,000 homes out there in Australia who, a year or so after the introduction of this program now have ceiling insulation, and a lot of those households have said to us that they have benefitted greatly from the program. Secondly, there've been some 7,500 businesses engaged. In fact, I had a story from one of them just the other night when I was in Queensland, indirectly, about the fact that this program kept his small business afloat and his livelihood intact in that period.
No-one is suggesting that there have not been significant problems with the implementation of this. I have reflected that in some earlier comments that I have made, but I simply go back to the point that the Minister, in implementing the program, has sought to be responsive to the advice from his Department and his officials on the key elements of safety standards concerning the product itself, the 2002 national standard, occupational health and safety, and thirdly the proper training of those involved in the actual roll out itself.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on Monday (inaudible) rare gecko instead of attend an emergency meeting of unions, electricians, installers and department officials. Is that appropriate firstly, given that the unions and installers complain bitterly that the Minister couldn't be there and do you expect Mr Garrett should actually attend the meeting of electricians, installers and unions so they can actually express their views directly to him?
PM: What I'd say is that my advice is that the meeting that you refer to had been organised as a technical level meeting and that the relevant technical representatives of the Department and associated agencies of the Government were there. That's the advice that I have received. I have no basis not to accept that advice.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did you, your office or your department receive any warnings or concerns or have them raised with you about levels of formaldehyde in the batts?
PM: On the question of formaldehyde, that's a question best directed to the Minister. I'm unaware of the details concerning that.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) yourself or your office?
PM: I'm unaware of anything concerning that matter. Can I suggest you direct that question to the Minister himself.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, like you Barack Obama's cap and trade legislation faces uncertain passage in the Senate, but unlike you he has said America must develop nuclear power. He says it is that simple. It is the only way to avoid climate change. Australia, obviously, we have multiple sources of energy, not necessarily clean sources of energy. Should we at least have a sensible debate about the issue?
PM: People in this country are free to have a debate on anything they want, but I think what they expect from this Government is for us just to be clear cut about our policy. Our policy is that Australia has multiple other energy sources and we will not be heading in the direction of civil nuclear power. The Coalition has a policy which I understand embraces that possibility. That's the difference between the two of us. But on the question of the debate in the community, people will happily debate this until the cows come home. Our views as I just described.
JOURNALIST: What's the latest information you have on the terror threat against Australian athletes in India, and also can you confirm that a senior Taliban bomb-making mastermind has been captured in Pakistan?
PM: On the question you raise in general, we are following these developments closely concerning any possible threats to Australian athletes in India. We are aware of a reported threat by Al Qaeda against international attendants at three upcoming sporting events in India - the Hockey World Cup, the Commonwealth Games and the Indian Premier League cricket competition. The Government security agencies are working closely with their Indian counterparts on this and are closely examining these threats and updating assessments accordingly.
At this stage we have no immediate plans to amend our travel advice for India, which currently advises that Australians exercise a high degree of caution in India due to the high threat of terrorism. Indian authorities have pledged to implement strong security procedures for all upcoming sporting events in India, including the three mentioned. We however, will be following this very, very closely.
We all know what has happened in Indian in recent times and the acts of terrorism which have occurred there. We are therefore in the closest possible liaison with the Indian authorities now.
JOURNALIST: On Mark's question, don't you think that your refusal to embrace or even sensibly debate nuclear energy for Australia is going to leave us behind?
PM: Well, in Australia we are currently leading the world in carbon capture and storage. You might say on the whole question of climate change and the future of energy and energy policy, what is the relative order of priority? That'll be subject to debate as well. But let me tell you, roll the clock out to 2020, 2050, in terms of the role of coal in total global energy production, it's huge. Therefore, when I sat down with leaders around the world and they have a discussion with me about how do we, in practical measures, bring down greenhouse gas emissions, first and foremost on the list is what can we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity generation?
That goes straight onto a debate, then, about the effectiveness of carbon capture and storage. That goes on to a debate about how do we make it commercially applicable in large-scale projects. It may be a surprise to you here in Australia and in the press gallery but together with the Norwegians we are the two leading nations in the world on CCS. This is really important stuff. We have funded, through the budget, a very large initiative on this under Minister Ferguson - in excess, I believe, of $2.5 billion. Our objective is to realise two or three projects at scale by 2020. Detailed implementation work is underway.
So your question is about what's important for the future in terms of energy policy, energy security and bringing down greenhouse gas emissions. If you're looking at the role of coal, 2020, 2050, the reason why this Government is in there with its sleeves rolled up on CCS is because doing it properly is not just important for our country, but frankly, China and India - it's massive, and so that's where I see a core part of our responsibilities, which is why the Government, a year or so ago, launched the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. We have every major economy now as full members of that institute. We have every major energy company of the world now members of that institute. We are funding it significantly. We are rolling out technologies for possible use in various countries around the world, regulatory settings for who you actually go about doing sequestration, offshore and onshore, together with other measures associated with CCS.
So can I just say, in the global energy debate and how you actually bring things down at a practical level, leaving aside the debates about emissions trading schemes and the rest.
This is core business for energy technology for the future.
JOURNALIST: On homelessness Prime Minister, just on a practical side as you say, can you give us an estimate of how many people have actually found homes since you started rolling out your program?
PM: The question Dennis will probably be best answered in the next month or so when the first set of data comes out. But what I expect, though I don't have anything concrete before me to back it up, because of the increase in unemployment since the global financial crisis is that numbers may well go up initially. That's my expectation. I don't have anything to back it up. But the key thing is to have the physical buildings for people to go to. You need to have a place at the inn. You need to have, you know, an inner city apartment block specially designed for homeless people. You've been to New York and seen Common Ground and seen what it does there.
Therese my wife, is patron of Common Ground in Australia. They're rolling these things out, adding all this capacity for homeless people in the inner cities. As well as then, a more permanent place to call home, which is why we are engaged in this huge expansion of the public housing stock of the nation. But on the numbers you'll see, I think, those produced in the next month or two. I wouldn't expect anything flash from them just now. Remember, we are one year into the implementation of the policies that we have set. It takes a while to build buildings and to key all the services, but that's what's underway now.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, do you think it's a good look for your Communications Minister to go skiing with a TV boss in Colorado, weeks before the networks are given a $250 million windfall? And secondly, can the radio industry expect similar licence fee cuts?
PM: Let me go to the heart of this matter, the absolute heart of it. Mr Abbott, in the last twenty four hours, has effectively accused the Australian Government of corruption, and of Channel Nine, Channel Seven, and Channel Ten, as being party to that corruption. Let's be very clear about the allegation that's been made. Let me quote what Mr Abbott has said: "it looks at this stage, unless the Government can justify much better than it has so far, you've got to say that it looks like an election year bribe". Asked if the Government was bribing the media so they'll be nice to the Labor party, Mr Abbott said: "absolutely right, that's what it looks like".
This is a serious, most serious allegation to make against the Government and a most serious allegation to make against the commercial television networks. Given that he has made this allegation, Mr Abbott has a responsibility now to produce his evidence. Mr Abbott has-
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible)
PM: I'll come back to that in a minute. I said the core of this goes to the allegation that has been made, and I'll return to the matters that have just been raised by the question. These are most serious allegations that have been made and if they are to be made by Mr Abbott, he has a responsibility to provide his evidence. That is a responsibility which he has today.
He has made these allegations without a skerrick of evidence, not one skerrick of evidence. And so based on a hunch, what we've had is Mr Abbott go out there and say that Laurie Oakes, Mark Riley, Paul Bongiorno can all be happily bought for their comment in some sort of grubby, cash for comment deal. That's what it's about. Can I just make some further comments on that and then I'll come to the elements of your question concerning radios and Senator Conroy.
So last week what we had was Mr Abbott make an allegation of manslaughter. This week we have Mr Abbott making an allegation of corruption- both without producing evidence. What does this say about the judgment of Mr Abbott?
More broadly, can I say, myself as Prime Minister, Senator Conroy, other Ministers, I am sure other Ministers as well, formally and informally would've met with the heads of commercial television networks on many times over the last couple of years concerning a whole raft of commercial interests relevant to them. That is entirely normal. As it's been entirely normal for me to meet with the head of News Limited, for Senator Conroy to meet with the head of News Limited, and for other Ministers to meet with News Limited representatives, to meet with Foxtel, to meet with Rupert Murdoch on commercial matters relevant to their businesses as well. Just as it's entirely normal for myself and other Ministers and Senator Conroy to deal with the management and the executive of the ABC. We meet thousands of businesses in a given year, representations are constantly made about the interests of particular commercial operations. That's what being in Government is all about, listening to what people have to say.
On the question of the decision on the licence fees for the networks, can I just say this- it partly, simply repeats what I said yesterday. One, the commercial television stations are faced with the challenge of digital switchover. This measure, together with other measures concerning the digital switchover package are designed to make that possible, so that viewers out there don't lose reception.
The previous Government made a policy decision on digital switchover. Nothing was done to make that work, in practice. I've been asked in the Parliament already, can I guarantee that X, Y, and Z, Auntie Nellie out there in the back lots of wherever, is going to have their TV reception interrupted. Well I don't want Auntie Nellie's television reception to be interrupted, so it takes practical and frankly expensive measures to make that work. That's the first point.
The second is to maintain Australian content. Now, I think Australians want to see Australian content maintained. They want to see the continuation of programs like Underbelly, programs like MasterChef, programs like Packed to the Rafters. They like these programs, they want them maintained. They want the Australian content standard maintained in the future.
The third thing I'd say is in terms of licences, if you were to compare the licence regime in this country for commercial televisions against that which pertains in other countries like the United Kingdom and elsewhere, they are vastly larger. To give you an example, against the UK, the licence fee arrangement here is something like nine per cent on revenue, in the United Kingdom it's about 1.45 per cent on revenue. These are the factors which shape the Government's decision on this, and we stand by those decisions.
To go to your two points before I just had over here, Senator Conroy has conducted himself in an entirely proper manner in dealing with representatives of the commercial television stations, representatives of News Limited, representatives of Foxtel, representatives of the whole range of other media interests, including the commercial radios. On the question of commercial radios, I suggest you refer that question to Senator Conroy himself.
JOURNALIST: So are we to take it then that you've been given guarantees by the networks that there will be Australian content continued at the same or a greater level? That there'll be no broadcast knockouts because of what's happening, and that you think that the taxation regime-
PM: (Inaudible)
JOURNALIST: That there would be no dropouts in broadcasts, so you've got those two guarantees - and that you believe that the taxation regime now for them is too high, so this will be permanent, that you will- when you compare it across the world, it's too high, you're going to lower it forever?
PM: I got the thrust of the question, let me take them in sequence. On the first one in terms of the content standard, the Minister advised me that is the undertaking and therefore the guarantee the commercial networks, which is the maintenance of the Australian content standard. On the second point that you raise, which was concerning -
JOURNALIST: Whether or not there will be (inaudible)
PM: Look as far as we can make it work, every practical measure, and I'm very worried about Auntie Nellie out there at the back of some mountain somewhere, but every practical measure - and they are expensive, it's reflected in this package and the digital switchover package - to provide as best a guarantee as we can that people's reception is not affected. I'd draw your attention to the detail of the answer I gave in a question in Parliament on this from a National party Member, I can't remember who now, in the Parliament in the last week or so. On the third point that you raise, in terms of the future of the licensing fee regimes, as we made quite plain in the statement by the Minister, these will be subject to review at the two year point, and we intend to do that.
And having said that, I've really got to zip. Thanks folks.