LAURA TINGLE, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB PRESIDENT: I'm sure that my colleagues are going to ask a lot of questions for you about industrial relations and the Jobs Summit. But just taking up a couple of the points you made just now, particularly about the importance of aged care workers, childcare workers, teachers, nurse in the health system, and noting how essential they've been, and how exhausted they must be: the Andrews Government announced measures overnight to free new nursing trainees from HECS obligations. I was just wondering whether the idea of relieving existing workers in those fields from some or all of their HECS debts would be something that addressed not just the need to reward and recognise them, but also keeping them in those workforces? And also, since those particular areas tend to be very dominated by women, whether it was all also that addressed gender equity issues? Is that an instrument the government would consider using more aggressively?
PRIME MINISTER ANTHONY ALBANESE: We've got Katy Gallagher here as the Finance Minister, I'm not about to make multibillion-dollar commitments on the run. That's why she attends these events, to make sure that ministers don't go completely outside our ERC process. But I did speak to Premier Andrews this morning and it's a good initiative that he's undertaking. But we have our own initiatives as well: fee-free TAFE, the additional university places aimed at areas of skills shortage. The different levels of government have to pull the levers that are available to them. We are certainly pulling those levers across the health workforce, including the commitments that we've made to support increases in wages for people in aged care. But as well, making gender pay equity an objective of the Fair Work Act will change the dynamic in the consideration that the Fair Work Commission can make when it has cases before it as well. I think that's an important initiative, as is our establishing of bodies within the Fair Work Commission to particularly focus on gender pay equity. The truth is that gender pay equity went the wrong way in the last figures. It has essentially stalled over a long period of time. But there's a range of measures that we need to look at that will make a difference. Our childcare policy will make a difference as well by recognising that it's not about welfare, it's an economic reform. If women are able to more fully participate in the workforce, they not only will have greater chance of advancement and higher wages while in work, they'll retire with higher superannuation balances as well.
MICHELLE GRATTAN, THE CONVERSATION: Prime Minister, on your reform agenda: are you willing to legislate for significant industrial relations reforms to the wages system even if there is not consensus on the way that should go? And would any legislation wait until after the white paper?
PRIME MINISTER: Some legislation we'll have ready by the coming session, during what has become the budget session of when we'll sit. That is the legislation to change the Fair Work Act to make wage theft a crime and a range of other measures that we committed to in the election. We're hopeful if this week near-consensus emerges from the discussions on Thursday and Friday, then we would look at change in an expedient fashion. I take great heart to the debate that took place yesterday with Jennifer and Sally, who are the respective leaders of the BCA and the ACTU. You had a mature debate about common interests. They didn't agree on everything, but that's the sort of maturity that we're trying to foster. So we will have a look at what comes about this week and potentially take further action from what we've foreshadowed. But quite clearly, as I foreshadowed before the election in my speech before the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, enterprise bargaining at the moment is not working: it's not lifting productivity, it’s not working for workers, it’s not working for or business. If we can work through ways to improve with as much support as possible, then great. But we are also prepared to lead on issues as well. I think we've shown that. If you wait for everyone to agree on everything, not much will happen. We've been through a decade of not much happening. We want to get wages moving. There was a clear commitment that we made before the election. We said that, for example, we wanted the increase in the minimum wage. The Fair Work Commission responded in part to our submission, but made an independent decision of 5.2%. And guess what? If you go outside, the sky is still there. The government, the former government said that the sky would fall in, businesses would fold, it would all end if we give people $1 an hour more. It didn’t happen. It was a good decision and I’m pleased that it did.
KIERAN GILBERT, SKY NEWS: Prime Minister, at the weekend you said that you don't want to look back and wish you had a crack. You said a similar sentiment today in the speech. Asked if you fear failure, you said, "I fear not trying." Can I ask you on the reform side of things: the country is facing huge costs, NDIS, aged care, talk of another 28 joint strike fighters, will you have a crack at the reform necessary to pay for all that?
PRIME MINISTER: It's a good question. And it's one that government will have to address over a period of time. One of the things we're going through with the ERC process in the lead-up to the budget in October is the fiscal position that we have inherited with a trillion dollars of debt and not much to show for it. If you look at the projections on what will be required over a period of time, with rising defence expenditure, the NDIS, a range of other expenditures that will be required – we need to have a debate about how we pay for that over a period of time. But I have said very clearly that our focus at the moment is about jobs and skills and the summit we have on. And that, in part, is answering the question as well. If you improve secure work, if you improve the wages that people are paid, they pay more tax, they are less of a burden on the welfare system, businesses increase their profits, therefore there's more company tax being paid as well. You boost productivity you boost national economic growth. Our plan is a growth agenda. It is unashamedly pro-business, but it's also unashamedly pro-workers. We want an economy that works for people not the other way around. So we will continue to address these issues over a period of time. But we're focused on what we said before the election and delivering it. And that's what we'll continue to do.
ANDREW PROBYN, ABC: Prime Minister, my question follows quite neatly from Kieran's. As you’ve said today, a couple of times, that you inherited a trillion dollar debt. You also inherited a tax plan that predates the pandemic which includes tax cuts that you perhaps would not legislate in current circumstances, tax cuts that you supported as a Labor Party, perhaps because you didn't want to be seen as anti-aspirational. Given that the facts have changed, and there are so many things that your government and the governments after yours have to pay for: will you, under any circumstances, change your mind on this stage three tax cuts? Can you guarantee here and now that those tax cuts, half of which goes to the top ten per cent of earners, will remain as they are?
PRIME MINISTER: People need to look at what happened with the tax cuts, which were that we actually tried to amend out the stage three of the tax cuts and we weren't successful. And they were legislated. What we said at the time, if you go back and look at the comments that I made, I said at the time that it wasn't wise to consider that you knew in 2019 exactly what the economy would look like in 2024-25. But the parliament made a decision. Parliament made a decision to legislate those tax cuts, and we made a decision that we would stand by that legislation rather than relitigate it, and we haven't changed our opinion.
PROBYN: But if it wasn't wise then, have you got the courage to argue why it's not wise now?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a bonus question to Mr Probyn.
PROBYN: It’s a good one though.
PRIME MINISTER: I don't want to channel my predecessor about Andrew, Andrew, but... We made those statements then and we weren't successful. We weren't successful at the time. We inherited it, and I have said that we haven't changed our position that we articulated when we made that call because were in a situation of all-or-nothing at the time. We voted for tax cuts because to vote against the package would have been voting against tax cuts including for people who desperately needed it at the time.
CHRIS UHLMANN, CHANNEL NINE: The International Atomic Energy Agency points to the fact that critical minerals will be absolutely essential to the energy transformation. Can you tell us what work is being done to find out what minerals Australia will need, how many minerals we will need, how they would be secured and what will happen to the cost curve of those resources when the entire world wants them at the same time?
PRIME MINISTER: It's a very good question, Chris, and it's an essential one. What it points to is the opportunity that's there. If you look at so many of the rare earth minerals that the world will need and will be in demand, we have a lot of them. What we need to do is to make sure that in the structures that are put in place, we can still have access to them. But also, I believe it's an opportunity for us to take a bit of a different approach to what we've done in the past with resources. The exporting of our resources will continue to be important. But where possible, we should value add here. With the changing nature of the production process, with labour being less a portion of input costs for production, we have that opportunity. That's why I speak about a future made in Australia. The work that we're doing through people like Ed Husic and the National Reconstruction Fund, through Brendan O'Connor and the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia, through our entire economic team, is: how do we maximise the value for Australia? That is also about our national security interests as well. So for example, we have everything that goes into a battery. We have lithium, we have copper, we have all of those minerals that will increasingly be in demand. We should be value adding here. Some of the announcements that we made in places like Gladstone and Kwinana and other places as well around Australia, were aimed at that. I hope that's something that is discussed at the Jobs and Skills Summit as well - because in you need labour with skills to take advantage of that as well. I’ll just raise one example of why it's important beyond just making things here - why it's a national security issue. At the moment about 85% of the world's solar panels are made in one country, I think you can guess which one it is. That will rise to in excess of 95% in a decade's time. If the world is totally dependent, at a time when solar energy and more and more important, on just one country then that changes the whole power imbalance of what happens if the access is switched off. So we need to actually learn these lessons of the pandemic” to be more resilient, to take more advantage, to stand on our own two feet. And it's one of the reasons why I'm so optimistic about Australia's future. We have these natural advantages. Let's not waste the opportunity. Let's not look back and say ‘oh, we wish we had have acted’. So this government, my government, is absolutely determined to ensure that Australia, both in terms of Australian businesses, but also Australian workers, get the benefit from the luck that we have on this great island continent of ours.
KAREN BARLOW, CANBERRA TIMES: You’ve had a hundred days to look under the hood of the public service. I'm curious about the state that the Coalition left it in. I'm mindful of the fact that there is an inquiry under way into what Mr Morrison did in secret, but this is broader than that. How is the public service - is it match fit for the 21st century to deliver your reform agenda? To be transparent, accountable, and frank and fearless? What is your level of confidence in the public service?
PRIME MINISTER: I think the independence and processes of the public service were undermined over a long period of time. I've been somewhat surprised – because some of the detail isn't known until you're in government – that people who I knew, good professional public servants, were put off by the department of widgets, then reemployed as contractors being paid more than they were as the dep sec of the department of widgets. That whole process undermined the public service. The truth is that cabinet processes under the former government were completely trashed. Cabinet isn't for Powerpoint presentations from pollsters. It's for serious consideration of policy based upon advice from the public service. There's someone here I met just before, who is a former secretary, who spoke about that. I think that it will take time to rebuild but we are doing that. I met with the secretary of all the departments of the public service. Every one of my ministers has gone to their department and had meetings, not with the secretary and dep secs and the executive, with all of the public service who are there. I have met with all the workers at various agencies, including our intelligence agencies. And that's been really well received. Guess what, who knew if you treat your workers with respect, you'll get better outputs? It's not rocket science. That was ignored by the former government. But it will take time to repair. And if there's people out there who are watching this right now, I would say: being a public servant is an honourable profession. Think about it. People who are public servants don't do it for the money, most of them could earn more in the private sector. They do it out of their commitment to public service. I think that we need to get back to that. My government, through the actions of the ministry, are trying to do that. And that's important because it's in our national interest for that to happen.
PHIL COOREY, AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW: Mr Albanese, if I could ask you about immigration, and all the speculation we're going to increase the target on the back of the Jobs Summit. Your predecessor Mr Morrison said in March when asked whether he was prepared to go above 160,000, in response to requests by the business community, he left it open, but said you don't just turn on the tap and all of a sudden they turn up, that's in reference to migration coming to a halt during COVID years. He said, "It's not something we would have to look at for at least a year or more." Is that still the current expectation within government, or do you expect us to hit that 160 sooner? Are you anticipating lifting it sooner rather than later?
PRIME MINISTER: I'll be undertaking genuine consultation with business and unions at the end of this week. I will make a couple of points though. One, it probably wasn't the wisest decision during the pandemic to tell everyone who was a temporary visa holder to leave and to provide them with no income and no support, which means many of them have left with ill feeling towards Australia and that spreads around. We've got a globalised labour market and we need to enhance our reputation. Australia is a great place to live, or to visit, and we need to always bear that in mind. I think some of the actions that occurred then weren't wise. But secondly, I also think it's not just about numbers. It's about how we do this beyond – yes, addressing the urgent needs which are there in particular professions, but also in areas like hospitality there's massive skills shortages. Every restaurant will tell you that that's the case. But it is also about the nature of the mix as well. The truth is that, unfortunately in some areas, temporary labour have been used to undercut wages and conditions. And we don't want that either. But what we need to do is – I've said this before, on the table is my view that we need more paths to permanent migration rather than just temporary labour. There are areas and professions that we have, whether that be nurses, chefs, engineers, to name three separate professions that don't relate to each other but there's many more – where we have had skills shortages not for a year, but for decades. The idea that you train someone and bring them out here for a couple of years and then go and try and find someone else to do the same job is, in my view, incredibly inefficient and part of a way that the IR system is potentially undermined. Far better to give someone a sense of ownership and a stake in this country. We are, with the exception of First Nations people, all migrants or descendants of migrants. We are a migration country. We need to look at ways in which those pathways are got, through areas of skills shortage that can be identified as ones that will continue to be there like some areas of IT. The creation of Jobs and Skills Australia, the idea is that you plan beyond just a year, that you plan where we need to be in five years, ten years' time. We need to look at migration but we need to do it in a way that doesn't usurp the need for us to give the first opportunity to Australians to be trained and skilled-up for jobs. Because whilst the unemployment rate is 3.4, the number of people who have been long-term unemployed and the period in which they've been long-term unemployed isn't shrinking. We need to use this opportunity to pick up some of those people who have been left behind and give them a chance.
TINGLE: Could I just clarify, Prime Minister: there's a lot of discussion about the permanent migration intake being lifted, but what exactly is the state of play about temporary workers? You alluded to the fact they were all told to go away. Where is that up to at the moment? Yes, there are problems in the existing onshore workforce, but what are you doing to facilitate a lot of those areas that were filled by those people in the short term?
PRIME MINISTER: We are looking at that as well. One of the problems – to go back to Karen's question about the public service – is that there weren't enough people processing visas. We've had to take people from other areas. So it's absurd for Australia's reputation that someone who has wanted to be here, the business wants them to be here, has waited 12 or 18 months to get into Australia. That's a very bad thing. Temporary visas will always have a role. No question about that. But what I'm saying is, where the opportunity is there to look beyond the short term, we should be doing it.
ROSIE LEWIS, THE AUSTRALIAN: In July you said it wasn't the right time to consider reducing from 7 to 5 days mandatory COVID isolation. What will be the right time? Will it be considered this week when National Cabinet meets? And what confidence can you give business that it won't become a permanent fixture of the pandemic?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we've had those discussions at National Cabinet. Dominic Perrottet’s position has been very clear. But the other thing we did in July, the last time we had a discussion, was that we have moved away the states all having different systems. So we have eight different systems operating. One of the things that Premier Perrottet has done, he has raised the issue, he spoke to me about it last week and the week before. It's something that he has a position on that is very public. We'll have a discussion about that on Wednesday when we hear a report and a consideration of the health response to the pandemic. But that is an immediate issue. We're looking, as well, in the longer term about what the nature of restrictions are. Over a period of time they have been reduced. It is important that decisions are made which are right for the times. In July, we were in a period where you had an increase in the number of COVID infections. Fortunately, I've got to say, I'm very pleased that the health advice at the time that was given to National Cabinet, which is why we extended the paid pandemic leave entitlements for another three months, has proven to be correct. It did peak when the health advice was it would peak, and it's coming down. And that's a good thing.
ANNA HENDERSON, SBS/NITV: Mir Island is the birth place of Eddie Mabo and a place where there was great hopes for Native Title to deliver for Indigenous empowerment. There is a group engaging with a Chinese state owned supervise hoping to provide investment into that community for infrastructure. Setting aside the Foreign Investment Review Board reality, what does it say to you that a community like that would be looking overseas in that way for help – for basic telecommunications assistance? And are you concerned about any national security implications of that discussion which is already underway?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we'll make decisions based upon Australia's national security interests. And that includes in areas of communications. But I travelled to the Torres Strait and met with the Torres Strait Regional Authority, including the elected representatives of all of the islands, both Central, Outer, and - both sides - East and West - as well as the people in the Peninsula who are represented. Linda Burney travelled with me, we met with the mayors of the three regional councils as well. It was a very positive discussion. Very positive discussion. We will engage with the elected representatives and continue to. I'm confident that Australia's national interest will be served. From time to time there will be voices – communities aren't homogenous. From time to time there will be views put that are not put by the elected representatives. The elected representatives were very clear in the meetings that we held and that was very constructive.
HENDERSON: You don't have to be elected to have those conversations, I guess, is what I'm saying. If those conversations are happening, are you worried there could be a chink in the armour?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not worried about Australia's national interests at all with regard to the Torres Strait because we will ensure that they will be delivered on. One of the things about the Torres Strait, as well: they have a great history of playing a role in our defence of our nation. And they've done that in the past and I'm sure they'll continue to act in our national interest and we will always act in our national interests as well.
JAMES MASSOLA, SYDNEY MORNING HERALD/THE AGE: Just a follow-up on Rosie's question, you didn’t quite answer it for mine. I'm wondering, perhaps if we ask it another way – will Damien Cook be able to play for the Rabbitohs on Friday night? And in the interests of balance, an AFL question, should Tasmania have an AFL team? Is it time for the AFL and the other 18 clubs to do the right thing?
PRIME MINISTER: The big picture. I hope Tassie does get an AFL team. Tasmania has produced some great champions in AFL over a long period of time. They've had Hawthorn, the team that I support, have played - I'm not sure what it's called, it was Aurora Stadium at one stage in Lonnie, and North have played in Hobart. But that's a decision for the AFL to make. On Thursday night – far more detail than anyone needed but you asked the question – if Melbourne beat Parramatta then Souths will play Easts, as I still call them, not just this Friday but in the first finals. So, I don't think it matters – I think a lot of players will be rested and I encourage Souths coach to make sure they keep an eye on the semi-final which is what really matters. But I do I think it's a bit cruel for you to raise anything relating to the semi-finals while Jim Chalmers is in the room still suffering from the Broncos.
MASSOLA: Is Damien Cook going to be in iso come Friday?
PRIME MINISTER: That, essentially, is a decision for Premier Perrottet.
PETER VAN ONSELEN, NETWORK TEN: My question is about the stage three income tax cuts and it followed on from Andrew's. I sensed a bit of wiggle room in your answer, unusual for a politician. I just wanted to check: during the election campaign, Labor promised it wouldn't repealed the stage three tax cuts. I just wanted to know whether that was an iron-clad rolled gold promise, or any circumstances whatsoever that you can envisage in this term of government doing anything at all that would resemble repealing the stage 3 tax cuts?
PRIME MINISTER: We stand by the comments we made.
VAN ONSELEN: There's no chance?
PRIME MINISTER: We stand by the comments we made. We made those comments at the time. We made those comments on the basis that we weren't successful in what we put forward. We failed by just one vote to make a difference there. But the other issue that is important for people is the issue of certainty. We said that. But of course we face real challenges. That's a reality of the fiscal position, that we inherited a trillion dollars of debt. That remains something that we're doing our best to deal with. You'll see in the October budget that the ERC has been working really, really hard. And in spite of the Jobs and Skills Summit, we'll be meeting again this week, we'll be meeting every week.
MARK RILEY, SEVEN NETWORK: You mentioned the gender pay gap a few times today. When will you legislate to make the gender pay equity issue a part of the Fair Work Act? And what would be a metric for success on this for you come the next election? If it's 14% now, what do you want to see by the time the next election?
PRIME MINISTER: We will legislate this year to include gender pay equity as one of the objects of the Act. A success would be a closing of the gap rather than expanding. The recent figures were going the wrong way. We want it to go the right way.
BEN WESTCOTT, BLOOMBERG: You spoke to Chris about green manufacturing and your want to build a green manufacturing industry in Australia. But Australia is not alone in wanting to do this. The US, China, Canada, have all made this a major part of their economic platforms. Even a couple of weeks ago, when Chris Bowen spoke about building an EV battery industry in Australia, the same day, Joko Widodo, he told us he wanted to build the same industry in Indonesia using their nickel. Has Australia missed the boat to take the lead on building a green manufacturing industry? And what can make us competitive against all these other competitors?
PRIME MINISTER: Getting on with it. That's the start. Ten years of delay and denial – fwe're suffering from it. But we've a number of advantages. Take nickel. If you go to the nickel refinery that BHP has in Kwinana, South of Perth, that's a facility that is world class. It's employing large numbers of West Australians in good, secure, well paid jobs. Nickel is one of the things that goes into a battery. We have everything that goes into it. We have natural advantages through our resources. What it takes is getting on with it. The government that we replaced was a barrier. The sort of statements of ‘electric vehicles will end your weekend’ were just extraordinary and just sent completely the wrong message to investors around the world – that we were some Flat Earth Society. Every manufacturer in the world, whether they be Japanese, Chinese, American, European, is not looking at internal combustion engines. They're all looking at EVs. They're looking at hydrogen vehicles. They're looking at a range of vehicles as well. I notice the Coalition slipping back into that argument over the weekend about utes. ‘You can't buy an electric vehicle ute’ – it's just absurd. We need to show that we are up for it and I have great hope. We've had business that, in spite of government mechanisms, have powered through. To take one, Tritium, that's producing in South East Queensland, the fastest electric vehicle charging stations in the world and exporting them to North America and to Europe. They're about to establish a plant in the United States as well, to manufacture. If we seize the opportunity, we can do it here. But we can't do it unless government facilitates that private sector activity. The private sector - the business community – are up for it. That's one of the reasons why when we signed off our on higher ambition for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, we had the BCA, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the NFF standing with us, supporting that changed policy. That is a really concrete example of what I've been talking about today, looking for common purpose and common interests in the interests of business and unions and Australia – our national interest. Our national interest wasn't served by the playing of politics and denial. If we take it up, we can manufacture a whole lot more things here. We can be an exporter of renewable energy, such as the Sun Cable project into Singapore. It's something that we can do. But we also need to have as a frame: how do we commercialise our innovation? Australia has always been ahead of the game. We punch way above our weight in innovation, not the least in renewables at the Australian National University or the University of New South Wales and other places. There wouldn't be a solar panel in the world that doesn't have any intellectual property that was invented by an Australian scientist, yet we haven't commercialised that opportunity. We need to be better at it. And we're determined to be better at it. And that is why it's no accident that Ed has the job, not just of Industry, but Science as well. It's about how you put these things together and seize the opportunity which is there.
JADE GAILBERGER, HERALD SUN: Following on from Kieran's question, when this term are you willing to have a debate about how you're going to pay for not only your ambitious policies, rising expenditure and, obviously, the trillion dollars of debt? Will further tax reforms be part of that debate? And what could be on the table?
PRIME MINISTER: We are having a consideration, now, of our budget in October. And you'll see our commitments, how we're going to pay for them, our analysis of the expenditure that we have inherited, going through line by line, trying to knock out waste and rorts which are there. The job of reform is never done. There’s not a date in which you come along here to the National Press Club and I'll have ‘mission accomplished’ sign at the back there that says we're done. We'll continue to engage in economic, social, and environmental policy reform. I have said very clearly I want to be the leader of a government that has a crack, that has a go, that does what is necessary and that doesn't rest on our laurels. I'm excited by the fact that the cabinet and the ministry and the caucus are so up for debate and engagement in new ideas. And one of the things we're trying to do with the summit on Thursday and Friday is to expand that so it's not just us. In the lead-up to the election, we obviously met with the unions, who are connected to the Labor Party and that's an important connection with working people that we have. But I also sat down with Jennifer and the BCA. In the coming fortnight I'm speaking to the BCA, the Australian Industry Group, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I'm engaged. We're up for the debate. We're up for ideas. And we'll continue to engage. So I see it as a continuous process not something that says ‘we'll have this on this date’. After the October budget, we'll have another process that leads into the May Budget, where we'll give consideration to the changed circumstances which are there. At the moment, obviously inflation is a global issue that we're dealing with as well. That's part of the context of the October Budget that we're dealing with.
DOM GIANNINI, AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS: What do you make of the allegations that a Chinese slush fund was used to pay off MPs in Honiara? And are you concerned about their move towards Chinese values, where they seem to be shutting out the press that criticise China, they seem to be rejecting US boats docking? How do we fix that relationship without saying we'll offer them further respect? It doesn't seem to be working in the 100 days you have taken office.
PRIME MINISTER: It’s true that Australia's international relations and global circumstances haven't been completely transformed in a hundred days. That's true. But what we have done is change the way that we're perceived. Penny Wong, today, is in Papua New Guinea. Later this week, she'll be in Timor-Leste. I'll be hosting Jose Ramos Horta as well as Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in the coming period. I will be going to the PM's XIII vs the Commonwealth match with Prime Minister Marape, who I spoke to on Thursday and congratulated him on his election. We attended the Pacific Island Forum. We attended in a way that engaged and treated people with respect. And we have shown leadership, and I particularly pay tribute to Penny Wong and Pat Conroy for the efforts that they have made which are outstanding. And that continues to happen. So it's a matter of the way that we're perceived. If we sit in Canberra while the advice was given to the former government about what was happening in the Solomon Islands and don't respond for months: no-one visited the Solomons, no-one engaged properly with what was happening there. Eventually, they sent a very junior former-Senator now, to visit the Sollies – that's not a great way to achieve a positive outcome. So we will continue to engage. I continue to have discussions - some of which are public, some of which are private – with leaders in our region. And we'll continue to engage, including in the Solomons. But this is something that didn't happen on our watch. This is something, though, that we believe that in the national interest we need to engage with in a way that's respectful of people's national sovereignty. But in a way that clearly makes it clear what Australia's national interest is.
AMANDA COPP, NATIONAL RADIO NEWS: You said in Opposition and in this speech that the previous Government was obsessed with secrecy. National Cabinet is meeting on Wednesday and yet you continue the secrecy around National Cabinet that came over from your predecessor. You claim that open access to information from National Cabinet will damage relations between the state and the Commonwealth. That position is inconsistent with the previous FOI approach with COAG which was there and in consistent with a ruling by Justice White. Why, when you say that you want to be transparent, and in this speech that you want to rebuild trust in Government, why would you keep important information from the public?
PRIME MINISTER: We haven't. We've told the public exactly what's happened at every National Cabinet meeting – exactly what's been discussed. This week, we'll be discussing health and we'll be discussing skills and the summit. And we're meeting the day before the summit, not by accident. And we've been transparent about all of the results. The difference is, as well, that we've come to common purposes. There's been one press conference after a National Cabinet meeting that's been held by me which has told people what we have all agreed. We haven't had to have the Prime Minister give a press conference, then the Victorian Premier give a different one and then New South Wales give a different one and then Queensland give a different one as well. We're working together in a constructive way and that is very positive and the dialogue with the Premier and Chief Ministers has been very positive. We've had a press conference after the one that we held here in Canberra.
COPP: Then why aren't you releasing the documents under Freedom of Information?
PRIME MINISTER: What documents are there?
COPP: Are you saying there's no documents?
PRIME MINISTER: That implies that there's all these documents floating around. That would be just a mischaracterisation of the nature of the discussions which are taking place. Decisions on a whole lot of the health concerns, for example, are a matter for the states. What we're doing is working things through, largely verbally, of what is occurring and then coming to a common ground of positions. To give you the big tip - before the last National Cabinet was meeting was called on a Saturday morning for Friday night - you can have all of the papers, because there weren't any. We had a discussion about the issues that we were dealing with on paid pandemic leave. We had a discussion. We came to an outcome. It was announced. It was a good thing. Between governments, from time to time, people have got to be able to have discussions that are private that produce outcomes. That has to happen. And, quite frankly, I'm about outcomes in terms of these processes and I make no apologies for that. The issue of so-called secrecy - previously, you didn't know even when they were happening. The next National Cabinet meeting is happening on Wednesday and I'm very positive that we'll come to some good outcomes with it