HOST: This morning Kevin Rudd is in Launceston. Good morning to you, Prime Minister. Thanks for joining us this morning.
PM: Good morning. Great to be in Tassie.
HOST: Yes, I'm sure. NRL scandal, we were just chatting about with the guys. What do you think? Do you think the Storm's penalties are just too tough, or are they OK?
PM: I'm a bit like the rest of the country, Mel. Yesterday, when I heard about this down here, you actually stop and it takes your breath away. You think 'how on earth could this happen?' This is a huge, huge event for the game.
Look, I think, as others have said this morning, if you're a Melbourne fan you'd just be devastated. I mean, I looked at Molly's face just before and I've seen Molly in the Storm dressing room many times over the last couple of years. Molly's face, I think, says everything about how all Storm supporters would feel. I think they feel gutted, but you know something? I think the action taken by the NRL is right. They've gone out there, taken a very tough and hard decision. I know some Melbourne Storm fans may think it's been harsh, but you've got to defend the rules of the game.
All Australians, whatever game they play, whatever code of football they follow, they expect the teams to play by the rules and this seems to be the worst possible breach.
HOST: Yeah, exactly, no, we all know there are rules involved.
Alright, let's talk politics this morning. Yesterday afternoon you left Greg Combet to do the dirty work, basically announcing the Government's second home insulation rebate scheme would be scrapped. Can I ask why you or Peter Garrett didn't front up and face that music?
PM: What I was about to say, Mel, he is actually the minister responsible, Minister Combet, and-
HOST: -Sure, but you'll acknowledge Peter Garrett started it and you're the Prime Minister. It was a pretty big announcement.
PM: Well, we've said all along that we'd commissioned a Hawke Review into the problems arising in the implementation of this program. It had concluded and therefore it was important that the minister who I appointed responsible for dealing with these problems, Greg Combet, explained its contents and the actions which the Government was taking in response to them, and the bottom line is, for everyone who's been affected by the problems with this program, putting safety first, and that's what the Hawke Review's recommendations were about, but Greg Combet, a person of great experience who I appointed some time ago for this, is the man to answer it and I'm answering your questions about it this morning.
HOST: OK, well, pretty scathing, then, the Allan Hawke Review. He basically said it was rushed, it was inadequate. If I can quote, Grant was just chatting to the V8 boss a moment ago about the Indie and he said just as long as you do something, it takes just as long to do something badly as it does to do it right so you may as well do it right. You've got to admit this whole insulation scheme has been a massive bungle. Are you disappointed?
PM: What I've said all along, Mel, is that there has been real problems with this. Of course we're disappointed with the problems which have arisen, but we're also-
HOST: -Did you rush it? Was it just too rushed?
PM: We've also said that it's important to put safety first. That is why the Government is following the recommendations contained in the report, and that's what we intend to do.
Remember the circumstances at the time, which was that the Government, acting in response to the global financial crisis, was dealing with a real challenge of making sure that we kept the economy going, kept people in jobs, kept people in employment. That, of course, makes no excuse whatsoever with problems in implementation, and that's why we're serious about acting on the Hawke Review's recommendations. It's the right thing to do and Greg Combet's the right minister to be out there doing it.
HOST: OK, alright, can I bring a viewer question to you - Alexandra Fawly is in Sydney. Alexandra, good morning. What's your question for our Prime Minister?
CALLER: Good morning, Prime Minister.
PM: Good morning, Alexandra.
CALLER: My grandfather is an 86-year-old veteran who served in the Northern Territory during World War Two. He drove in convoys carrying ammunition, bombs, fuel, supplies and contributed greatly to the defence of Australian borders, but because of where he served in the Territory he does not qualify for the service pension. Is your Government willing to recognise my grandfather's contribution and others like him to the World War Two campaign by making them eligible for the service pension and if not, why?
PM: Sure Alexandra, thank you for your question, and can I say you are rightly proud of everything your grandfather has done during the war, and there would be many like him who actually served onshore in Australia rather than offshore in direct theatres of war, but you know something? There have been rules around on all this since about 1920, supported by all sides of politics and by the RSL which define what they call as 'qualifying service' - that means being in a theatre of war, by and large, and under danger of direct enemy attack.
Can I just make sure, though, that your granddad's receiving all that he's entitled to, and can I really strongly suggest that you might get onto the Department of Veterans Affairs yourself to make sure that he's getting everything he's entitled to, but they are the reasons why we have that principle, it's called qualifying service, usually offshore in a theatre of war and it's been around since 1920, since the RSL actually came into being.
CALLER: Yep, the thing is, though, like, the people who served above Katherine are actually entitled to this, they have what they call qualifying service, but he contributed to the supply chain that kept Katherine going. You know, he volunteered his services for this country just the same as any other veteran has and he did not choose where to be stationed. I just don't understand why the Government doesn't deem his service worthy of Commonwealth support?
PM: Well, can I say anyone who has served their country in uniform deserves our respect and that includes your grandad. I think the other thing to say is just to be clear about the difference between, frankly, a service pension and the regular pension, it's about the same amount of money. What changes, though, with it, is that those entitled to a service pension get it, say, or become eligible for it, five years earlier at the age of 60, rather than 65, but look, on the details of your grandad's service, can I strongly suggest I'll get the Office of the Minister for Veterans Affairs onto you, Alexandra. Let's make sure he's getting everything he's entitled to, but I wish I could say I could change the rules like that, but they've been around, really, since 1920 and they are very detailed about what theatre you have to be in, what active service you have to be in, what threat of danger - usually people who are offshore in the line of fire - and I'm sorry if there's been a decision which doesn't include your grandad's service, but we should all honour his contribution for Australia and we'll be doing so again on Anzac Day.
HOST: We certainly all do. Alexandra, thank you for your question.
Prime Minister, I've got another one for you from Jason in Perth. Hey, Jason.
CALLER: Morning, Mel. How are you?
HOST: I'm really good, I'm really good, alright. The PM's got your voice. Go for it.
CALLER: Morning, Mr Rudd.
PM: G'day Jason.
CALLER: My question is where's the incentive for people that choose to work harder and have a second job, as they're penalised more tax? Why isn't it charged at the same as the first rate job or at a lower rate?
PM: Well, first of all, Jason, if you're working a couple of jobs and out there contributing to the economy, you're doing absolutely the right thing and particularly over in the West we're having an emerging skills shortage. I just say people out there, working hard - the economy depends on you.
On the question of the tax system, though, let's just go to how it's structured. What we have is what we call a tax-free threshold. I think, from memory, it's about $12,000 or $15,000. That means for that first $12,000 or $15,000 that you earn you're not taxed, but that applies to all of your income, whether it's from, not just, it depends on all of your income, irrespective of whether you're working, say, two or even three jobs. So here's the reason that the Tax Office, I think, would be making the decisions they do about what tax rate to charge you up front - if they didn't do that upfront, what you'd be hit with come the end of the financial year is a huge tax bill, and I think that would be wrong and that would be an even worse incentive for going out there to work. They try to do that calculation upfront, and it's all based on you getting that, as it were, $12,000 or $15,000 tax-free amount for all your income wherever you earn it.
HOST: Jason, thank you very much for that question. I hope that answers it.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, thank you for your time this morning and we'll check in with you next Friday.
PM: Thanks, Mel. Good to be back here in Tassie. You should come down.
HOST: I can't make it today, but we'll be there soon.