PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning everyone, we have quite a bit to talk about today.
First of all defence pay, obviously, I have enormous respect for the professionalism, for the courage, for the tasks that our Defence Force personnel do. I don't think anyone would have more respect than I do for all of that.
All of us would like to see our Defence Forces paid more but what's possible with a $20 billion surplus is not always possible with a $40 billion deficit. So, I think we just have to be realistic about Defence Force pay.
Nevertheless, I can announce this morning that the Government is not proceeding with the changes to allowances that were announced with the Defence Force pay. We are not going to proceed with those changes to allowances.
I want to acknowledge that we are listening to the Defence community on this subject. Not only are we listening to the Defence community but obviously I have discussed this matter with a number of my Parliamentary colleagues such as Jane Prentice, Ewen Jones, Ann Sudmalis, Natasha Griggs and Teresa Gambaro because they represent seats that have the very large Defence component. They have lots of Defence personnel as their constituents and they certainly have been letting me know that it was important to offer this concession to our Defence Force personnel given the burdens they carry for all of us.
Now, I'd be the first to admit that last week was a bit of a ragged week for the Government – I'd be the first to admit that. I read with great interest some of the assessments that some of you offered of the Government's performance over the weekend. I'd like, if I may, to take some of those head on.
I do believe that by any reasonable measure, this has been a year of very considerable achievement for the Government. It's been a year when this Government has demonstrated guts, commitment and strength of character on a whole host of issues, whether it be MH17 or responding to the closure down the track of Holden and Toyota. On all of these issues, I think the Government has shown considerable courage and strength of character. I also think that, notwithstanding the political difficulties that we have had in the Senate, we have very significantly achieved the items that we went to the election on.
The carbon tax is gone. The mining tax is gone. The boats are stopping. The roads are building. The Budget is coming into better shape. The three Free Trade Agreements that have been successfully negotiated will set our country up for the long-term. So, I really do think that this has been a year of very substantial achievement. I know that appearances do count and I concede that the appearance last week was a bit ragged but, in the end, nothing matters more than performance and this is a Government which has a very solid year of performance under its belt.
Now, all of you will have your views. You'll want to put your views to me so the floor is yours. I will try to go round the circle and give everyone a go.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, a couple of budgetary questions; will the Defence allowances come out of Defence's existing budget or will you be topping up their budget? And on the question of the Budget, given the iron ore forecasts have dropped considerably, is your Budget in more trouble at the end of the year than it was at the start?
PRIME MINISTER:
The Defence pay and Defence allowances are paid out of the overall Defence budget. So, the $17 million that it will cost to restore these allowances will come out of the Defence budget. There won't be extra money put in so the CDF will have to find the money. That's $17 million he won't have for other purposes.
On the Budget overall, I think people sometimes forget exactly what a Commonwealth Budget is. The Commonwealth Budget is the result of the money we spend on Social Security, Defence, a whole range of services and the money we get in in taxation revenue. Obviously, when you've got all of our major commodity prices under pressure; the iron ore price, the coal price, the gas price – when you've got all of these prices under pressure, there's less revenue coming into major businesses. There's pressure on their profits. There's pressure on company tax. So, obviously, because of the cyclical factors, there is pressure on the Budget that wasn't there at the start of the year.
The fundamental difference, though, between this year and last year is that this year you've got a Government which is serious about Budget repair. Last year you had a government that talked about Budget repair but never actually delivered.
As Access Economics were commenting this morning, Chris Richardson from Access Economics was commenting this morning, there is only one pathway back to a sustainable fiscal surplus and that's this Government's pathway. Yes, the Labor Party is doing its best to sabotage it but we will stay the course because we understand that, in the end, government does have to live within its means and this is the fundamental task of this Government – to get our public finances back on a sustainable basis.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, there was an article this morning that suggests your new departmental head has been charged with reviewing economic strategy, or taking an overarching role, what is your comment on this? Secondly, when are you going to announce the appointment of the new Treasury head?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm thrilled that Michael Thawley has taken over as the Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I have paid tribute to Ian Watt. Ian Watt is probably the finest public servant of his generation and he leaves his current public service role, rightly, full of honour and respect. Michael Thawley does come to the role with almost 10 years of private sector experience under his belt and I think that will give him a new perspective and I think that will give him a whole lot of insights that might not have been had by someone who had spent a straight 30 or 40 years in the public service. I'm very pleased that Michael is coming on board. He is the head of PM&C. He is not the head of Treasury. He will be an orthodox head of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He won't be taking over things that are not normally the function of the head of PM&C and he will be working very constructively and collegially with the new head of Treasury. There has been speculation on who that might be. I'm not going to comment on the speculation but I'm hoping in a few days' time, we will be able to make an announcement.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, you said that last week was a ragged week. Victorians lost the State election. How much responsibility do you bear for that loss?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, people will speculate endlessly over whether Federal factors had a role in a State election. I'm very conscious of the fact that the Labor Party certainly chose to campaign at times on them.
As far as I'm concerned, we made two very significant contributions to Victoria over the last few months. First of all, we absolutely, relentlessly, backed the East West Link. I continue to believe that this is a vital piece of infrastructure for Melbourne, Victoria and for Australia. I hope that the new Premier, who I spoke to this morning, might come round on East West Link and certainly the Commonwealth's $3 billion remains available for East West Link should he come round. The other big contribution that we made to Victoria in recent months was the Hayden Royal Commission because, by general agreement, there is a very serious problem of corruption and criminality in elements of the union movement, particularly the CFMEU in Victoria, and to his credit, when I spoke to Daniel Andrews this morning, he said to me that he certainly intended to continue full cooperation with the Hayden Royal Commission.
So, Matt, as for whether the Commonwealth played a part in the result, I think there are a whole range of factors at work here and I'm very satisfied that we did what we could to play our part in the prosperity of Victoria.
QUESTION:
Can you tell us what you talked to Daniel Andrews about? Did he give you any indication there might be any way forward on East West Link or is it over as far as he is concerned?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he is sticking by what he said during the election but obviously he is now in the process of getting his feet under the desk, consulting with public servants. No doubt he will be talking to the Government's lawyers about the contracts that have been signed. So, let's wait and see what happens. For my part, for the Commonwealth Government's part, we are absolutely committed to this project. It's vital for Victoria. Every time I go to Melbourne, I'm on Hoddle Street, I’m on Alexander Parade, I’m on Flemington Road, these are the clogged arteries of a great city and I want to unclog these arteries so that Melbourne can be the 21st century city that it should be. So, we are absolutely committed to East West Link and, as I said, I hope the Victorian Government may have a change of heart on this.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, leaving aside the question of blame in the Victorian election result, do you take any lessons from the repudiation of that Government, particularly given it did have a balanced budget? You talked earlier about substance being important, the Government was tossed out after one term. Are there any lessons you will be applying in your Government? Secondly, on the question of the GP co-payment, can you clarify for us now where that policy is with the Government and if that wasn't the policy barnacle you were referring to; give us some guidance as to what might be the barnacle?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure. Well, look on lessons, I'm not going to offer gratuitous advice to my Victorian colleagues. Denis Napthine was a fine Premier and I think history will be much kinder to the Napthine Government than the electors were on Saturday. So, I'm not going to offer any gratuitous advice to my Victorian colleagues. I am going to say, though, that whatever faults this Government has, no-one can accuse us of lacking courage. No-one accuse us of not trying to crack on with things. No-one can accuse us of not having a distinctive position; whether it's on the boats, whether it's on security, whether it's on budget repair, environmental policy – we have a very strong and distinctive position. I believe that when it comes to election time here at the national level, people will acknowledge all of that.
Now, as for barnacles, it's very important that we crack on with the task of Budget repair. As Chris Richardson said, there is only one major political party that has a clear pathway back to fiscal responsibility, a clear pathway back to fiscal sustainability and that's this Government – this Coalition Government. Plainly there are some things which are going to have a lot of difficulty in the Senate. We stand by them – we absolutely stand by them – but, if plan A is in trouble, obviously you contemplate a potential plan B. But as far as I'm concerned, I want Plan A implemented because that is the right plan, that is the best plan.
Now, when something goes before the Senate, you might decide that rather than having the best, you've got to have something which is better but not quite as good as what you wanted. That's the kind of thing that I was alluding to when I said we would be taking the barnacles off before Christmas.
QUESTION:
You mentioned earlier how you had to live within your means and you reflected on the big fall in commodity prices. Doesn't that then behove you to look at spending cuts so that you are living within the financial envelope that the commodity markets are giving you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, that's a good question. We are always looking for reasonable efficiencies when it comes to government spending. I know there has been a lot of controversy over the ABC but no-one who is in the media could say that efficiencies and savings in the ABC are impossible. All of us who have looked at the ABC and I respect the ABC's work, even if I sometimes take issue with some of their judgments, but no-one who has looked at the ABC and compared it with some of the other media operations would say that there was no room for efficiencies. We are always looking for efficiency.
What we did with the Budget was get the fundamentals right. That's what we did with the Budget – we got the fundamentals right. That's why I believe that confidence is returning to our economy and our country because, for all the static, for all of the difficulties over individual measures, people know that there is a government there that is determined to get the fundamentals right. So, are we going to be looking for massive additional savings because of the downturn in the terms of trade? No. But we are always looking for sensible efficiencies and for as long as this Government lasts, you will be finding us searching for sensible efficiencies.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, you were talking about parts of plan A being in some trouble in the Senate. How long do you persist in trying to get those measures through somehow or other? If they are not through by the end of the sittings, will you still include those savings in the mid-year forecasts? And when do you give up on them, and if you give up on them, do you then have to find alternative savings to make up? Is that part of plan B?
PRIME MINISTER:
Ok, the general rule is that we persist with the budget measure as announced until such time as an alternative is agreed in the Senate or an alternative way forward is established. That's why we are totally committed to the Medicare co-payment that was announced on Budget. Now, I know it may well have trouble with the crossbenchers and let's see what, in the end, we come up with. We are committed to the policy that we announced until we decide that there is an alternative way forward which, under all of the circumstances, makes sense. The circumstances obviously include the particular composition of the Senate at the moment. But on the subject of a co-payment, I don't think anyone would say that a co-payment is bad in principle because if a co-payment is bad in principle, we should all be campaigning against the PBS co-payment which has been in place for 40-odd years. So, there is nothing wrong with a co-payment in principle. What's happened is that there has been a ferocious campaign against it by the Labor Party which is determined to sabotage every reform, every budget repair measure even though at different times under more responsible leadership, it's had a different approach to most of them.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, you mentioned that appearances do matter in relation to last week but wasn't last week about more than appearances? For instance, your handling of the issue of a broken promise. Do you regret the way that you have handled that? Do you regret the broken promises because they do seem to have made it harder for you to make progress on your agenda? And a second one if I may – you just said no to massive additional savings but won't you have to come back in the May budget next year and do some fairly large pruning?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not sure that you should assume that. Yes, the terms of trade are declining today. We face declining terms of trade. For most of its life the Rudd-Gillard government faced terms of trade at record highs. So, I accept that the terms of trade are declining. But these are cyclical factors, they are not structural factors. I think it is far too soon to say that they have moved from cyclical to structural. So, while we are always looking for sensible savings, I think that the fundamental decisions were made in this Budget and this gives us the foundation on which we can build.
Now, on the subject of broken promises, I accept that what we are doing with the ABC is at odds with what I said immediately prior to the election but things have moved on, circumstances are different. Going into that election, the then government was telling us the deficit for that year would be $18 billion; it turned out to be $48 billion. I think sensible governments are not only entitled but, indeed, expected to change when the circumstances change.
Now, as for other things that have been claimed to be broken promises, we haven't cut health spending. We haven't cut education spending. We haven't increased taxes other than the surcharge on higher incomes and given that when you are engaged on a major exercise in budget repair, if the burdens are to be fairly shared, given that the principal beneficiaries of budget spending are low-income earners, if the burdens are to be fairly shared, something has to be done in respect of high income earners. The point about the levy on higher incomes is it will apply to less than three per cent of taxpayers. So, yes, you could say that that's not in compliance with our pre-election commitments, but again, under the circumstances, I would say it was a perfectly reasonable and fair thing to do.
QUESTION:
On the Defence entitlements – Prime Minister, you gave credit to your Government backbenchers for pressuring you over that. Are you saying this had nothing to do with Jacqui Lambie going independent and threatening to block or vote against every piece of Government legislation? What message does this send to her and others on the crossbench?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, she wanted not only those allowances restored but she also wants an inflation plus pay deal. Obviously, we can't accommodate her there, so she wasn't the only one saying that something needed to be done. What we've done to respond to what I think was genuine concern in the community was restore the allowances. Now, what Senator Lambie does is a matter for Senator Lambie but we haven't been able to meet all of her requests and frankly, this Government is not in the business of listening to each and every member of the crossbench in the Senate and saying, of course you can have what you want. We're in the business of doing what we think is best under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There is a massive budget repair task that's necessary, because of the declining terms of trade it's become more difficult, but we won't squib it. We won't squib it and that's why we are determined to stick with the 1.5 per cent pay arrangements but the commitment I give to our Defence Forces is no-one in the public sector will do better than them because they are people who face rigours and endure dangers that the average person in the public sector doesn't face. So, I think that’s – under all the circumstances – regrettable but reasonable.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, how close are you to a deal on university deregulation? And just secondly, back on MYEFO, if there are extra revenue measures in MYEFO, is that a broken promise?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not going to speculate on what may or may not be in MYEFO. It doesn't matter what the Government does, someone will find fault with it. If we cut spending, people will scream broken promise. If we don't cut spending, people will say we aren't taking strong enough action to tackle the deficit. There are some promises that this Government made, including one that we made two elections running that I'm sure many people would love us to change further. So, look, it doesn't matter what we do, there'll be all sorts of criticisms bandied around.
The public expect us to respond intelligently to the circumstances in which we find ourselves and that's what this Government will do, in accordance with some fundamental principles. We know that government has got to live within its means but we also know that government has got to reasonably provide for things like our national security, we've got to try to ensure that businesses face a less burdensome regulatory and taxation environment. We need to try to calculate everything we do for more growth and more jobs and more prosperity. So, within those parameters, we will respond intelligently to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
QUESTION:
And universities?
PRIME MINISTER:
And universities – look, we are continuing to talk with all members of the crossbench. I don't presume to know what the final outcome will be but we are determined to deal with this matter one way or another in this final sitting week of the year and there is an overwhelming view from the universities of Australia, an absolutely overwhelming view from the universities of Australia, from the so-called great eight to the regional universities, there is an overwhelming view amongst all of them that these changes should go through, that these changes will, in the short, medium and long-term, strengthen our university sector and ultimately help students. So, I do hope that the crossbenchers – all of them – are listening long and hard to the vice chancellors of Australia.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, last week your office was briefing one thing on the co-payment and roughly 12 hours later it was being refuted by some of your senior colleagues. Doesn’t this indicate that there’s something a bit skewwhiff in your internal communications? And secondly, how would you respond to criticism of the work done by your Chief of Staff, Ms Credlin?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Malcolm, look, the first thing to say is that I stand by my office. It's a very good office. My office is essentially the same office that got us from nowhere to election parity in 2010 and gave us a very strong victory in 2013. Let's not forget where we were as a party and as a Coalition in 2009. In December 2009, the Liberal Party was on the verge of splitting, the Coalition was on the verge of breaking. We went to within a whisker of winning the 2010 election. We performed strongly throughout that term of Parliament and we had a very emphatic victory in 2013 and the office that I have now is essentially the same office that I had throughout that period so I stand by my office, I stand by all the senior members of my office. They do a fantastic job under sometimes difficult circumstances. Now, I'm not privy to every conversation that goes on between every journalist and every member of my staff up in the press gallery and I know that lots of things can be read into conversations.
As I was coming out of the ACCI dinner on Wednesday night, it was put to me that we’d dropped the co-payment. I don't know how many of you saw the footage but I was, frankly, a little bit bemused and surprised by that because that's never been our position.
We support the co-payment. We accept that it may have trouble getting through the Senate and we are always thinking of alternatives in the event that the Senate does not accept the need for the good policy that we have put forward. But we support the co-payment, always have and will until such time as a satisfactory arrangement is negotiated with people in the Senate.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, when say the ADF allowances will be restored, is that everything including the Christmas leave? The rec leave?
PRIME MINISTER:
There was about five or six allowances that were withdrawn under the arrangement. There was the extra rec leave, there was the Christmas allowance, there was a driving allowance, there was a food allowance. All of those allowances have been restored.
QUESTION:
Why can't the Government sell its message and is that the way you do it being reviewed and how much responsibility do you take?
PRIME MINISTER:
Obviously I take responsibility for everything in the end. I mean, the buck stops here. That's the way it is in our democracy. The buck stops with the party leader. In respect of the Government, the buck stops with me so I take full responsibility. I'm not sure that I accept the premise of your question, though. I think we are getting our message across very clearly.
I think that the Labor Party are doing their best to sabotage the policy and sometimes the public see the soap opera, they don't see the substance but I think we are getting our message across clearly and I think that, over time, the public will respond more appreciatively than they seem to be now.
Let's not forget that the Howard government had a pretty rocky first term. The Howard Government was in a diabolical position at different periods in the first term and yet it recovered to win its second election and then went on to be arguably the most successful post-war government Australia has had.
So, I'm not for a second suggesting that last week was a great week when it come to the atmospherics, but let's not also forget that the previous week we'd had what was probably the most triumphant week in Australia's international engagement in memory and, in the end, what happened at the G20 and the Free Trade Agreements that we negotiated culminating with the China Free Trade Agreement, these are things of substance. What happened last week was more a matter of atmospherics and I think substance always trumps atmospherics.
QUESTION:
On constitutional recognition, Prime Minister, can I ask when can we expect the exact time frame for when you propose to recognise first peoples in the Constitution and can they trust you? A second question, if I may, you said before the election you'd be a government of no surprises and no excuses. Today you said cuts to the ABC were in contradiction to what you said before the election. Is using the state of the Budget an excuse?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as you know, we were saying uphill and down dale until we were blue in the face that there was a budget problem. We used very strong language prior to the election to describe the budget problem. Now, the budget emergency started to abate the instant a Government came in that was determined to address it. It’s like if you’ve got a fire, the moment the fire brigade turns up, the situation starts to come under control.
The budgetary problems that we rightly articulated pre-election started to come under control the instant a Government was elected to deal with them. But given changing circumstances, obviously, certain responses are required and the point I made earlier is that we went into the election campaign being told by the then government that there was an $18 billion deficit, it turned out to be a $48 billion deficit. Given that, plainly, savings can be made in the ABC, under the circumstances, we think it is reasonable to go for those savings.
As for indigenous recognition, like John Howard before me, I am absolutely committed to recognising indigenous people in the Constitution. I don't underestimate the difficulty of doing it. It is easy to accept in principle, quite difficult to do in practice in a way that will satisfy the majority of indigenous people that it is genuine progress, without creating a whole lot of new rights that could easily unsettle others. So, we've got quite a long road to tread on this and I dare say there will be some difficult moments but my hope – my absolute hope – is that we can come up with something that will be an affirming moment for our country – for everyone, black and white – and the sooner we can do it, the better, but I'd rather get it right than to rush it.
QUESTION:
Thanks, Prime Minister. Firstly, what's your view on the feasibility of a nuclear energy industry for Australia? Secondly, are you going to give your MPs a debate on a free vote on same-sex marriage now that Leyonhjelm's Bill has been put back into the Senate, or will you break that promise, too?
QUESTION:
On nuclear energy, as I have said on many occasions, I don't have any theological objection to nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a very important part of the energy mix of many countries: Japan – and it's coming back in Japan after the Fukushima problem – France, I think more than 50% of France's energy needs are met by nuclear. So, I have no theological objection to nuclear energy and if we are to dramatically reduce emissions, we have to remember that the one absolutely proven way of generating emissions-free base load power is through nuclear. So, I've got no theological objection to it. It's never really been an option for Australia up ‘til now, because we don't have the energy shortages that other countries do. We've got abundant coal, we’ve got abundant gas, hundreds of years of reserves of coal, hundreds of years of reserves of gas. We do want to reduce our emissions and we will under our Direct Action policy. So, if someone wants to put a proposal for nuclear energy generation here in Australia, fine, but don't expect a government subsidy. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen because it’s economically feasible, not because the Government runs around offering a subsidy.
Now, on the subject of same-sex marriage, yes, Senator Leyonhjelm has, as I understand it, introduced his Bill. Normally, Opposition private members motions in the Senate are dealt with without a vote. Now, if this one is different, well, obviously the Party Room will consider it, but if is dealt with in the normal way, it won't actually come before the Party Room; it's only if the Senate decides, presumably through suspension of standing orders, to deal with it differently to normal private members business that it would then need to come before the Party Room.
QUESTION:
I think today is your fifth anniversary as Liberal leader, just looking forward, you’re about to move into the reform stage. You’ve got a tax white paper you’re going to launch soon, you’ve got a federation white paper already commissioned. You've got a hostile Labor Premier especially towards tax reform in South Australia on the GST. You've now got a Labor Premier in the second largest state. Do you see that as an impediment maybe to achieving consensus amongst the federation to give you something to take to the next federal election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Let's wait and see where these debates go. We promised before the election that there would be a federation reform white paper, we promised before the election that there'd be a tax reform white paper. We didn't want to prejudice the debate by ruling a whole lot of things out before the debate had taken place. Let's see where it goes and let's start the debate with the problems that are universally admitted. Obviously, we do have this dog’s breakfast of divided responsibilities and it would be better if it could be addressed. It would be better if the states could deal with their responsibilities from own-source revenues rather than having to argue with the Commonwealth to fund their schools and their hospitals and so on.
So, the election of a Labor Premier in Victoria doesn't change the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed. Over the years, I have worked very constructively with different Labor people. I don't believe that I've had a bad relationship with Jay Weatherill as Prime Minister and the conversation that I had with Daniel Andrews this morning suggests that both of us want to be constructive as far as we can be. So, let's see where it goes.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, there’s a report this morning suggesting the Government wants to form an Anzac taskforce to bolster the efforts against Islamic State militants. Can you tell us what is the truth of that report? What's involved? And should Australians prepare for an announcement sometime down the track of an increased Australian troop commitment to Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
As you'd expect, we are talking all the time to our friends and partners about what is best done to disrupt and degrade the ISIL death cult. As you know, the longer the death cult remains in substantial control of large swathes of territory and large populations with significant resources, the worse it is for those people and for the wider world. So, it's really important that the international action led by the United States against the ISIL death cult succeed – very, very important.
We haven't made any further decisions. We have only just got our Special Forces contingent in there. They are now doing their job; they're doing it effectively, but it's far too soon to be making further decisions because we want to wait and see what kind of feedback we get from our Special Forces before we make further decisions and further announcements. But, yes, we certainly are talking to people. Let's see where those discussions go.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, I was going to ask the same question but include Afghanistan. Has there been any request for additional or a different structure of forces in Afghanistan from us? I was also going to ask have you a plan in place to choose a replacement submarine, might it be an open process, and is your mind set on a Japanese submarine?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our commitment – our post-Uruzgan commitment to Afghanistan – is about 400. They are not in frontline roles; there's a training role, there’s a logistic role, there's a little bit of force protection, but they are certainly not in frontline roles and, as I said, the commitment is about 400. Now, it might go up, it might go down, but it will remain at about 400 and we have no plans to change that.
On submarines, we want a really effective submarine at a fair price and we know that a lot of people are interested in helping us to get that, because one positive side-effect of the controversy over whether submarines should be designed and built in Australia, or not, is that a whole lot of people from around the world have been beating a path to our door saying, “We can supply you with a large conventional submarine that is at least as capable as the Collins.” So, we are weighing all of this and we will be making announcements and decisions in due course.
QUESTION:
Leaving my own interest in the ABC to one side, you’ve just said this morning that what you’re doing in relation to the ABC now is not in compliance and at odds with what you said before the election. You have also said the public is very intelligent. Why not say. “I've broken a promise?” And also in relation to the change in circumstances that you’ve talked about in relation to the public understanding that, is it time to revisit the paid parental leave scheme again and tweak it in terms of change in mind and also to tweak it in terms of getting it through the Senate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Do you think if I were to change the paid parental leave scheme that there wouldn’t be screams of broken promise? I mean, I put it to you collectively, these are very important questions and on the one hand, you are inviting me to change a policy that we took to two elections and, on the other hand, you’re ever vigilant to damn the Government for broken promises. Now, I'm not complaining because, as a former journalist, I appreciate that these are the sorts of things which are an integral part of the national conversation on these things.
The ultimate commitment that all politicians should give to the people and, certainly, the ultimate commitment that this Government makes is to do its best to govern as effectively as we can given the circumstances that we find ourselves in and as close as we possibly can in conformity with our commitments.
Now, I think everyone knows the fundamental principles of this Government. I don't think anyone was in any illusions going into the election that we were going to get rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax, we were going to move heaven and earth to stop the boats, we were determined to see cranes in our skies and bulldozers on the ground and we were going to get the Budget under control. No one was under any illusions about that and they were also under no illusions about my commitment to a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme, because I’d taken a lot of flak, internal flak as well as external flak about that, and the internal and the external flak continues to this very day.
So, in conclusion let me say, we will deliver a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme. What tweaks might possibly occur will depend very much on the course of discussions with the Senate early in the new year. Likewise, everything else. They all know what we are trying to achieve. Everyone knows where this Government's heart is. Everyone knows what this Government's fundamental commitments are. Our heart is with a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme. Our heart is with a country that can look its kids and grandkids in the eye and say, “We are not leaving you with unsustainable debt; we are not going to practice intergenerational theft to sustain our own spending.”
That's where we're at and, as I said, I am confident that when it comes to the next election, people will appreciate that. They may not agree with it, they may not even support it, but I think they’ll appreciate it.
Thanks everyone.
[ends]