Transcript: Julia Gillard, Question & Answer Session, National Press Club, Canberra
Julia Gillard
posted Tuesday, 31 August 2010
E & O E – PROOF ONLY
Subjects: Negotiations with Independent MPs; Federal Election; Parliamentary reform; Australian Labor Party.
JOURNALIST: Since the election, you have avoided election (inaudible), You’ve stressed the need for the search for a stable and effective government, but doesn’t that ignore the elephant in the room and that is that under your leadership your Party lost 16 seats and if truly want to present yourself as a legitimate leader of this country, don’t you have to have a more wide-ranging discussion with people about why they didn’t vote for you, what went wrong, than simply saying as you did a moment ago ‘well, our communication broke down’?
It’s far deeper than that, isn’t it and why don’t you talk to people about it?
PM: Well, I don’t think that that’s a real summary of what I just said to be frank. I believe the Government, obviously coming to power in 2007, had a very broad agenda and we added to it. We also faced the circumstances with the global financial crisis and that added again.
In those circumstances, internally, in terms of processing the necessary work as well as externally explaining to Australians how these things fitted together, having a deep conversation about reform. I think, you know, when we look back on those years we can learn some lessons about how to do it better, about how to progress work; how to have the deep conversations with Australians and I’ve acknowledged today and I’ve acknowledged before that not everything went according to plan. That is obvious.
What I am saying to Australians is I don’t think that Australians are asking us to have a period of campaign introspection. What they’re asking us to do is absorb the lessons and to do things better and I believe they are looking to the Parliament, particularly in this period, to do things better, and they’re the things that are feeding in to my discussions with the Independents, with the Greens, and obviously with Mr Wilkie and in due course with Mr Crook.
HOST: Thank you. The next question’s from Mark Riley.
JOURNALIST: Mark Riley from the Seven Network, Prime Minister, on the Monday after the election, you said that the majority of Australians, on the two-party preferred vote, have indicated they want a Labor Government. When that’s in dispute now - I think Labor’s ahead a little bit; I mean, the numbers are jumping around – but what isn’t in dispute is that 700,000 more Australians voted for, gave their primary vote to the Coalition than to Labor, that the Coalition is going to end up with 73 or, I know you’re putting Tony Crook in an Independent, but he’s at least a half, so there’ll be 72 and a half. I saw him yesterday, he was yesterday sitting in the National Party room, so he might not sit in the Coalition room. I don’t think even though Adam Bandt is going to support your government I don’t think he’ll be sitting in the Caucus, but doesn’t Tony Abbott have a more legitimate claim, now, to have the majority support of Australians, seeing as he’s won the primary vote, he’s going to have more seats, and least by half, and possibly the two-part preferred vote?
PM: Well, thank you for the question. I think there are a set of assumptions in it that shouldn’t be made.
It’s not clear to me that the Coalition is the Coalition any more, when National Party members are openly speculating that they’re on the cross benches, too, so I think we need to take that into account.
I’m sure the Coalition is Coalition is the Coalition any more when significant figures like Ms Moylan and Mr Broadbent are openly saying that they’re not prepared to support the key plank of the policy that Tony Abbott put forward at the last election, supposedly related to his slogan ‘stop the boats’.
I’m not sure that the Coalition is the Coalition any more when we’re seeing some of the conduct that we’ve seen in recent days.
On the question of the two-party preferred vote, I do note that this caused some considerable flurry in excitement in our friends from the media and perhaps beyond, but if we look at the two-party preferred vote, what is appearing on the AEC website now is the two-party preferred vote for 142 seats. That is, the AEC has taken out of the count contests that are viewed not to be between Labor and the Liberal Party, the Coalition. Yesterday they took three seats out: Grayndler - Anthony Albanese is here – Batman and Denison, and that, in and of itself caused a statistical change to the two-party preferred vote.
Experts like Antony Green are saying the AEC’s currently displayed two-party preferred vote is wrong because of those circumstances.
Now, where will we end up on the two-party preferred vote? The AEC is doing what it does. What it does is it excludes those counts that are not between the two major political forces in this country. At the end of the process it does count a 2PP between those seats and adds it back into the general 2PP, so this flurry of excitement, I think, is misunderstanding what is appearing on the AEC website now.
As I’m advised as coming down to the Press Club, in any event, even with seats like Grayndler and others excluded from the count, Labor was ahead in the 2PP as our lunch time discussions commenced.
HOST: Phil Coorey.
JOURNALIST: Good afternoon, Ms Gillard. Phil Coorey from the Sydney Morning Herald.
You spoke in your speech of the reform process of which Tony Abbott is also talking about, and you talked about, if I could read, ‘a common ground.’ You said ‘I believe the new Parliament has the opportunity to be a forum in which we work together to find common ground on critical issues – health, education.’
Will that spirit of cooperation apply if you’re in Opposition, if you’re not successful, or will fight the government tooth and nail like the Opposition before you for the last eight months?
PM: Well, I think the overwhelming maths here, and I outlined them, is if you count the traditional National Party, the ‘Warren Truss Nationals’, for want of a better terminology – I’ve adopted that from Tony Crook – if you count the Warren Truss Nationals, even though, as I understand it, he’s a member of the LNP, but that way madness lies.
If you count the Warren Truss Nationals in Tony Abbott’s count, then you get to 72. If you count Labor’s seats, and, you know, admittedly the AEC is yet to declare some of the closest contests, but it’s likely to be 72.
With that maths in the Parliament, then whichever discussions in this period come out, whoever is on the government benches and whoever is on the opposition benches will have to find new ways of working: new ways of working with each other; new ways of working with the Independent members, and this is before you get to the circumstance where, clearly, in the new Senate, you know, whoever is the government will have to deal with a significant third force, the Greens, who take their seats on the first of July next year, bolstering the current numbers of the Greens in the Senate.
This is going to require new ways of working, so everything I’ve said today I believe applies in all circumstances.
HOST: Philip Hudson.
JOURNALIST: Philip Hudson from the Herald Sun, Prime Minister. In 2006 you wrote this reform paper for Question Time-
PM: -And did you find that learned, Phil?
JOURNALIST: It was fascinating. It really was. But it’s awfully dusty.
PM: Oh, really?
JOURNALIST: Yes, and in it you said that you wanted to change Question Time: having limits on questions and answers; changing the role of the Speaker; actually requiring Ministers to answer questions, and you’ll note that the current Speaker has been complaining about this Government that he has no power to require ministers to do that.
What’s happened to that? Is that what you’re going to implement now, and why should we believe that you’re really genuine about it?
And secondly, you do talk about reform and the system being in need of reform – are going to move to shut down the life gold pass system for politicians, for retired politicians, and if not, could you please explain why, excluding retired prime ministers, why more than 200 former politicians every year, including some that haven’t been in the Parliament for 30 years, continue to get taxpayer funded travel?
PM: Sure. Well, I think that may breached Ken’s rule about two questions - I see, part a and b – but I’ll do my best.
On the question of parliamentary reform, I think we should acknowledge our focus, as I said in the speech, has been on some big reform questions – political donations, electoral reform. In some of those questions we’ve been stymied by the Senate, but that was a key focus during the last period of government.
When it come to reform of the House of Representatives, Anthony Albanese as our Leader of Government Business, made some valiant efforts to engage in reform, including extending private members business, and I think many would remember the antics that then flowed from the other side that made that unsustainable and not possible, but a set of reforms have been initiated whilst Anthony has been Leader of Government Business.
I do acknowledge though, more needs to be done. It’s obviously a key focus of where we are in the Parliament now and the discussions I’m having with the Independents, in the broad sense of those on the cross benches.
Yesterday, as promised, I furnished to the three independents a political reform paper which goes to reform of the Parliament as well as some electoral reform questions and campaign financing reform questions. I think we can agree an immediate set of reforms that would make a difference to private members business, private members bills, the operation of Question Time, the way the Parliament works and then there are a set of longer-term reforms we would need an inclusive process to keep driving forward, so I am optimistic about this.
On the question of the life gold pass and entitlements for parliamentarians, I think it’s better if we allow these things, including the questions of reform, to be dealt with transparently and independently from politicians, but if I could say to you, and know this may not be a popular answer but I’m going to say it anyway – I am the successor of Barry Jones in the seat of Lalor, and to my certain knowledge, in the many years since Barry’s been in the Parliament there have been community groups, scientific groups, right around the country, that have sought to have him speak at conferences. He’s still much sought after.
Now, in those circumstances I think people want assurance that these monies are being used properly, but in those circumstances I do think, you know, if Barry Jones is asked to perhaps travel from his Melbourne home to Sydney to open a major scientific conference, given the reputation he came out of Australian politics with as being at the forefront of understanding the new way in which we live – you know, Barry was talking about super-fast information highways and computers at a time that everybody was kind of going ‘gee, that’s all pretty madcap’, and it’s come to pass. I think it’s appropriate that he’s able to do that and it would obviously be unsustainable for him to do that continuously if he paid for it all himself.
Now, you know, yes, does that mean there are a set of questions to work through? I think there are, but I think it’s a little bit black and white to say that there would be no politician in genuine demand for the community, from the community, after their political life other than a former Prime Minister. I think Barry Jones is a very good example.
HOST: Next question’s from Mark Simkin.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you’ve said several times today with regard to parliamentary reform that more needs to be done, but specifically, what needs to be done? What sort of proposals, specific proposals, have you made to the Independents?
PM: I furnished the Independents with a comprehensive paper and, obviously, that will form the basis of dialogue between us and them and we are obviously also talking to the Greens and to Mr Wilkie, be very happy to talk to Mr Crook. But I think there are some obvious items on this reform agenda, obvious items in terms of the conduct of Question Time which go to time limits and the like; obvious items in terms of better access for private members business; for them to be able to bring propositions, including legislative propositions to the Parliament that are genuinely debated and dealt with rather than executive government being the only real instigator of legislative propositions; set of issues about how they get fair access to the opportunities that the Parliament provides. Certainly during the last Parliament I know that our then Chief Government Whip and Anthony Albanese in his capacity as Leader of the House did make some reforms to ensure that the Independents did get fair access to a series of opportunities that the Parliament gives individual members, but more can be done in that regard.
So, the paper I’ve produced for them, working with my colleagues, is quite broad and it’s quite deep. We will work through it piece-by-piece and I think we can see some immediate reforms flow from it.
HOST: Laura Tingle.
JOURNALIST: Laura Tingle from the Financial Review, Prime Minister.
You talked about the Government’s economic record. Could you clarify for us whether any negotiations you have with the crossbenches will be budget-neutral? That is, if you make any promises that cost something you will find offsetting savings, and as part of that, will we see the Murray-Darling Basin plan released, given that that will probably involve fairly large amounts of compensation to some communities?
PM: OK, those two questions.
First answer is yes. Any commitment we make will be offset, exactly as we did during the election campaign. We are completely transparent about this. I will continue to be completely transparent about it.
We are challenging Tony Abbott, who has fought the release of his costings up hill and down dale, and as I understand it is still not clear on the question as to whether or not Treasury-checked figures will be made available to the Australian people and to those on the cross benches during the course of this process. They should be, but any commitment we make during this time will be offset, exactly as we did during the election campaign.
We won’t be adding a dollar to the budget bottom line. The budget is coming back to surplus in 2013 – full stop. That’s it.
On the Murray Darling Basin Authority plan, that is not mine to release, I don’t have it, I haven’t seen it, it’s in the hands of the independent authority that has taken a view about whether or not it should be released while the Government is caretaker, so that’s simply not something I can help you with.
JOURNALIST: Sue Dunlevy from Daily Telegraph. Prime Minister we keep being told that we’re in a new political paradigm, that we’re going to have new, more open government. Yet you’re still, you and Tony Abbott, are still negotiating behind closed doors with these Independents. You’ve given them a program for parliamentary reform, but you haven’t shared it with the Australian people. They’re getting briefings from Treasury and Finance that are not being shared with the Australian people, and neither you nor Tony Abbott has yet been frank with the public about why you think you didn’t get enough votes to form a government in this Parliament. If you can’t articulate where you think you went wrong, how can people believe that you understand what your mistakes were and that you’ll be able to fix them?
PM: Well I’ve gone today to some lessons I’ve absorbed from the recent election. On the question of transparency about costings and the briefings with Ken Henry and David Tune, I agree with you Sue, that what happens in that room as it pertains to costings and the Budget bottom line should be in the hands of every Australian. From my side of politics it will be; the only fly in that ointment is Tony Abbott matching that commitment, I’d ask him to do so. I think it’s absolutely appropriate that Australians understand what, if the government is led by Tony Abbott, what that means for the Budget bottom line and we still don’t, it was hidden during the election campaign, it was fought all last week, it should be made available now. I absolutely agree with that.
On the question of the negotiations, I think it’s inevitable and indeed proper that there can be exchanges where people toss around ideas, talk through propositions, what’s important to the Australian people is what is agreed, and I have indicated I will be transparent about what is agreed out of these discussions.
JOURNALIST: Paul Bongiorno, Ten News, Prime Minister. Tony Windsor says that there are three options confronting the Australian people. That is, the Independents support either the Coalition, or Labor, or they go back to the people. I wonder if you could give us a bit of an idea or the sort of advice you’ve taken on how we would get to go back to the people. For example would you advise the Governor-General that it would be an election for half the Senate and all the House of Representatives, or would it only be for the House of Representatives because this is the House in a which a government is formed? And if the Independents went with the Coalition, would your first move as Opposition Leader be to move a vote of no confidence in the Parliament?
PM: Well Paul thank you for all of those questions but my focus in this period as I’ve made absolutely clear is on forming stable and effective government. Of course these matters will resolve at some point, I believe how they resolve should be transparent, that goes to Sue’s question, I must admit I don’t know whether there’s a matching commitment on the other side about that, I certainly haven’t seen it. So that’s where we’re working. Beyond, what might happen out of these discussions I don’t think that it’s appropriate for me to speculate and I’m not intending to. I think the Australian people are asking us to work through this in good faith and I am.
HOST: Michelle Grattan.
JOURNALIST: Michelle Grattan from The Age. Ms Gillard I don’t quite see what’s the different between the old and the new paradigms if we just are to know what’s agreed. Why don’t you just release this paper you’ve put out on the reform of Parliament and specifically, does it include proposals for an independent Speaker, that is a speaker who is independent, not one of the Independents, and also a Lower House estimates committee system?
PM: Look obviously I provided this paper for discussion but I’m happy to tell you what I think about various reform proposals. Yes, I think it would be good to have an independent Speaker in the way that you’ve used the terminology, not necessarily a Speaker who is an Independent, but an independent Speaker. I think, particularly given the focus on regional Australia, that it would be good, particularly for regional Australia, to have a way in which to question and get information Senate Estimates style, I do think that that’s appropriate. I do want to see a better working Question Time, I do want to see more access for Private Members, I do want them to be able to initiate and have substantively considered Private Member’s legislative proposals. I think there’s better things we can do with the Committee system. One of the things that retiring MPs often say when they do retire is that the best work that they’ve done as a Member of Parliament is in the Committees where issues that are often quite difficult and not necessarily of sharp political divide are worked through and solutions found. So I do believe strengthening the Committees makes a difference too.
So those kind of propositions are the sorts of things that we are talking through with the Independents and obviously with the others on the cross benches. So there’s no mystery in any of this, no mystery at all, they are the kind of things that I think generally people would point to as the sorts of reforms that would make a difference for the operation of the Parliament.
HOST: Mark Kenny.
JOURNALIST: Mark Kenny from the Advertiser Prime Minister. My question’s about transparency as well. Kevin Rudd, of course, talked a lot about transparency when he first came in and he promised Community Cabinets, which he did, he promised there’d be a press conference after each Cabinet meeting, which mostly was done, but I think you’re admitting now that there were some mistakes made and you’re promising a new transparency. In that spirit, can you tell us, for example frankly, if you are not to go into government now, if you’re to go into Opposition, that you will stay on as Labor Leader?
PM: Well I chucked some ideas about this with a group of school children from Western Australia, which you may have seen reported. They didn’t necessarily jump in to give me a whole lot of political advice, they were engaging in a mock Parliament at the time. So look my focus here is on the days ahead and on this period of building a government, so you will have to excuse me if that’s what I answer on, that is the issue of moment to the nation and that’s my focus. On transparency, I do think, at this point, I understand that friends from the media like to see everything immediately, but I’m happy to rule a line now and say if we could see Tony Abbott at least make a move to somewhere near catch-up, that would be good. The Independents will be briefed by Treasury and Finance, you will know from us every dollar, every dollar in the Budget bottom line, indeed you know it now. Absolutely key. Economy at the core of the future of this nation, national interest, it’s about jobs, it’s about interest rates, it’s about how our economy functions in a difficult global age. I’m prepared to be completely transparent about that and we have been, we’re still waiting for a matching commitment.
HOST: Jaynne Azzopardi.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Jayne Azzopardi from the Nine Network. I’m interest in how dealing with this situation is affecting you personally. If you look back a year the Government looked like a shoo-in about being re-elected, you toppled a first term Prime Minister, led that first term government to an election in which it lost its majority and now you’re finding yourself at the beginning of this new era in Australian politics.
How does that weigh on you and how do you feel that Australian history is going to look on you?
PM: Well for me it’s never been about people writing history books, though of course people will. For me it’s always been about the interests of the nation and the things that I’m passionate about and I know you stuck with us a long time on that campaign bus during the five weeks that just were, so you’ve obviously heard me speak about the things that I’m passionate about. About the benefits of work, an economy that can offer people opportunities, the benefits of making sure that we’re truly a nation that offers every child a fair go, our embrace of the challenges of the future, these are the things that are important to me, these are the things that I judge my political contribution by and they’re the only judgements that matter to me, how I’m going against the things that I believe in and I came into politics to pursue.
For the rest, I’ll let people write the history books and that’s of no great consequence or moment to me.
HOST: Andrew Probyn.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Andrew Probyn from the West Australian. If I could venture, if the outcome of the Federal election is not clear, what is clear is that it’s the death of focus group politics. What are you, if you’re successful in negotiating with the Independents, going to do lift the dead hand of focus group politics that is infected the Labor Party in recent years?
PM: Well thank you for that question and I do feel that perhaps we need to record a little bit of accurate history here. On the other side of politics, do people really imagine that Tony Abbott read every conservative thinker in the globe, consulted long and hard with experts, sat with his team agonising night after night, looked into the depths of his soul and came out with ‘Stop the Boats’? Is that what you think happened? Really.
Or do you reckon, do you reckon maybe the alternate explanation of history is he said to Nick Minchin or Brian Loughnane, a couple of rich seams here, do you reckon you could go get me a few slogans from the focus groups, it would be good if they were three words, quite like three words, you know, we’ve had unchain your heart and stuff like that in the past. And, you know, Brian went, and said, oh, ‘Stop the Boats, End the Waste’ and you know, Tony said it’s the conservative manifesto for our age, here I am, stop the boats, end the waste.
Now really, every political party uses focus groups, of course they do. Just like, every newspaper in this country has opinion polls and reports on them as questions of significance. Exactly. So what is the vice to which you refer? The vice to which you refer is not having focus groups, which every political party does, it’s not having opinion polls published in the newspaper and Dennis Shanahan and others drawing learned conclusions from their numbers fortnight by fortnight. The vice you refer to, is if a political party says it will generate its manifesto from what is in the focus groups. I did not do that, if you get my election policies out, the education reform package that I first unveiled to mums and dads in the round in a conversation in Western Australia, I said all of those things because I believed in it. I’ve got no idea how any of those propositions would go in focus groups and deeply unconcerned by the question.
I unveiled my plans for work, for getting people from welfare into opportunity. I said those things because I believe them. I’ve never put them into focus groups and I’m deeply unconcerned by how focus groups would have viewed those questions. I outlined my plans for apprenticeships, for making sure that young people don’t drift off from education into idleness and then five, 10, 15 years later after school, there they are on the margins of society baring the mark of that disadvantage. I’ve not no idea how those things go in focus groups, completely unconcerned. But I would like some accurate recounting on both sides of politics about the use of focus groups, would like some sophistication in this debate. Political parties are always going to have focus groups, what you should seek to be judged by is the manifesto you put forward for the nation’s future. I’m very happy to be judged by mine.
HOST: The next question is from Stephanie Balogh.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, hi, Stephanie Balogh from the Courier Mail. Have you or any senior members of your team spoken to Kevin Rudd since the election? And now isn’t it time to tell Australians what role you have in mind for him if you form minority Government?
PM: I’ve been speaking to Kevin since the election, and my colleagues - I’m not going to indulge in rolling commentary on my discussions with Kevin or any of my colleagues. When I talk to my colleagues, you know, as a Government, as a political party, we have strategy discussions. As a Government, if we form it, we’ll have Cabinet discussions, we’ll have confidential discussions and I won’t be engaging in rolling commentary about any of them, whether I’m speaking to Kevin, whether I’m speaking to Anthony, whether I’m speaking to Craig, whether I’m speaking to Wayne. So, you know, sort of end of that line of questioning, and on- sorry, what was the second aspect?
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: On the, well let’s focus on the task here. I’m not outlining a Ministry. My focus is on stable and effective government. And once again, I think let’s have a look at both sides there. It’s not clear to me, for example, what role Malcolm Turnbull would play if Tony Abbott became Prime Minister.
HOST: Karen Middleton.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Karen Middleton from SBS. On the issue of stable and effective government, everybody’s talking about it, I’d like to know what your definition of it is. Is stable and effective government from your point of view merely a guarantee of supply? Is it a guarantee of supply plus particular elements of your program that you believe need to be supported? If you do get some kind of an agreement with the Independents- we’ve heard a lot about what they are asking of you- what would you be asking of them to achieve stable Government?
PM: Well, I think there’s the constitutional lawyer’s answer, and then there’s the broader answer. Obviously the constitutional lawyer’s answer is you would be looking for assurances on supply and no confidence votes. But clearly, you would also be looking at ways of working to enable the delivery of the policies and plans that the nation needs for its future. And so we need, you know, my perspective on stable and effective government is that I believe you can work with people, take them into your confidence, take them with you. I think I’ve demonstrated the ability to do that- student income support, Fair Work Act negotiated with a lot of people to get some very major things done. So you know, I’m not afraid of sitting around tables having frank and honest conversations as we build the kind of parliamentary consensus that we need for various parts of the program.
But obviously, the nation needs to see a set of continuing reforms delivered. I believe that they are in the areas of infrastructure, of human capital investment, of maximising opportunity, maximising economic progress, the distribution of the benefits of work and making sure that we can face the challenges of the future like climate change. So, I’m looking to secure a set of arrangements which will help us keep going on all of those things.
HOST: Danielle Cronin.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Danielle Cronin from the Canberra Times. I have a follow up to Phil’s question. Long-winded and sort of non-answers have been hallmarks of Question Times for past Governments. Can you give us some tangible examples of how Question Time will be different under a Gillard Government?
PM: Well, no mystery in this. Obviously there’s been a discussion about time limits. I believe journalists are active participants in this discussion. I got some very clear views about short, snappy questions and short, snappy answers and enabling them to get back to their offices at a reasonable hour of the day to facilitate, you know, work-life balance for all of them. So this, you won’t just be in an exclusive discussion, I can imagine you’ve all got a view about, you know, you probably want, what, five second questions and 10 second answers and that kind of stuff? It mightn’t quite get there. But time limits for questions, time limits for answers, the ability to follow up with supplementary questions, those kinds of things are obviously important to Question Time. There’s the vexed question of relevance which of course, a bit like beauty unfortunately, is in the eye of the beholder. Independence in a Speaker might assist there. There may be some clarifications that people can work through on. So they’re the kind of reforms that I think people are looking for.
HOST: The next question’s from Kieran Gilbert.
JOURNALIST: Kieran Gilbert from Sky News, Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what do you say to voters in your electorate and other safe seats, Liberal and Labor, about the clout of the Independents at the moment, three or four people they have no say in electing? And when does accommodating become sycophantic?
PM: Well look, the nature of our system is, you know, the good people of Lalor delivered me a very handsome victory and a very sizeable swing, and I thank them for it. I thank them for increasing my majority. So, you could say for the people of Lalor, you know, how do they get represented in what they need if we end up with a conservative government?
But that was the circumstance when I was first elected in ’98 with a big majority and we had a conservative government and you know, 2001 and 2004 and so on. So it’s inherent in the system. On the question of dealing with the Independents and the cross benches, I believe each of them in their own way has made it very clear that what is weighing on their minds are national interest questions. Yes of course, you’d expect them to be feisty representatives of their own communities. That’s what we’re sent to Parliament to do, to be feisty representatives of our own communities. So I think that’s fair and appropriate. But they are obviously too, thinking through a broader set of questions about where they ultimately, you know, put their vote, put their trust.
HOST: One more question today, it’s from Jessica Wright.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Jessica Wright from the Sun Herald. My question might be a little longer than five seconds, feel free to take longer than ten seconds. During the course of negotiations with the Independents and the Greens, it has become abundantly clear that Bob Katter is a staunch protectionist. On the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Wayne Swan - I have the transcript here, so I’m not verballing - said that he wasn’t ruling anything in or out. But you’ve been talking today about the importance of transparency, so would you tell us today, is a return to a tariff wall on the cards? And is this something that you thought about before the hung Parliament?
PM: Well, I think let’s be a bit clear about this. The Deputy Prime Minister on Meet the Press on the weekend I think was being faithful to the spirit of the negotiations, which is, people should feel in the room that they can canvass ideas. I think that’s a good thing. But on my perspective about protectionism, you’re talking to the leader of the political party that literally went to hell and back to modernise the Australian economy, including reducing tariff barriers.
That is our heritage. That is our belief. That is in us. We would not have the modern, resilient Australian economy we have now if Labor hadn’t built it.
HOST: Prime Minister, thank you.
PM: Thank you.