Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Sky News On The Hour 4pm -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program will be live

captioned by Ai-Media In

South Australia, this means

that young people, people

from birth through to age 14

and that cohort moving up

through three years of the

trial, will be able to

experience a fuller range of

services to meet their needs.

We were particularly services to meet their needs.

concerned in South Australia

to focus on the early years. Because we believe investment

in the early years pays enormous benefits in later

life for those young people. This is something that has been a difficult proposition

for South Australia. We have

very difficult financial

stricters in the last budget

in May, we were faced with

considerable savings, having to make very

considerable savings, because

of the collapse in revenues

because of the global

financial situation but the

single biggest commitment we

made in the budget was $212

million because we had to do

more and as part of that, we

earmarked funds to contribute

to the trial that we knew the Commonwealth were going to

promote in the first phase of

the National Disability

very proud to be Insurance Scheme. So we are

participating in this. We

think that this is an

incredibly powerful message

to people with disabilities,

their carers, their families,

that we have heard them and

that this scheme is going to

happen and the first steps

have been put in place. In

addition to the matters that

the Prime Minister has

the Prime Minister has mentioned, there were also

some important discussions in

the COAG meeting about the

Commonwealth State financial

relations in relation to national partnerships. There

is a range of national

negotiated between the partnerships that are

Commonwealth and the States.

Many of them are going to

expire in coming years.

These represent massive risks

to State Governments and we

have arrived at a set

have arrived at a set of arrangements that will mean that those national

partnerships can be concluded

in an orderly fashion with

proper notice to States and

Territories so that we can

jointly manage our financial

relations and the expectations of the

communities in which we all

live. I also want to add my

voice to the remarks that

were made by the Prime Minister concerning

Minister concerning the

national electricity market,

the interconnected

electricity market in the

Queensland, Victoria, NSW and

South Australia. We have

seen a dramatic escalation in

electricity costs. That the

lines share of which has been

driven by, what we regard as

gold plated investments in

relation to infrastructure.

consequence in We think that is a

consequence in part of the

regulatory system and we

believe that the regulator

can take steps to ameliorate

the growth in those costs

which are driving the lines

share of the growth in

electricity prices. So that

is an important indication we

have given to energy

ministers to focus their

attention on that work.

Thank you. Just before we

take questions, we also did note that it is

note that it is Genia's last

COAG after 17 years in local

Government, a very long time.

She is moving to a different

stage of the journey, so we

very much enjoyed her company

and thanked her for her efforts.

REPORTER: Is this a set back

for the disability insurance

scheme that the two larger

States, Victoria and NSW,

have not signed up, can you

say how much extra money you

wanted from Victoria and NSW? And if I could ask

And if I could ask you

premier bail oou, why has

Victoria not signed up, was

it a question of money, did

you offer any new money at

all? Well, I will take those Disability Insurance Scheme questions. The National

is starting. It is starting in three places around the

country and I think that is

great news. As the Premier

of South Australia has said,

that means we are moving from

a great idea to it actually making a difference for

making a difference for

people with disabilities. We

are doing what we need to do

to test this scheme. So that

when our nation can roll it

out nationally, and of course

I want to see the national

roll out, but when we do

that, we are doing it right

because we have had the

experience in these launch

sites. For NSW and Victoria and,

and, indeed, western Australia and other

jurisdictions, if they want to continue discussions with

the Commonwealth, with the

Federal Government, about the National Disability Insurance

Scheme, then we will participate in those

discussions. But I am

disappointed that we didn't

get to an arrangement today.

The amounts of money above

indicated in their bids, what NSW and Victoria had

indicated in their bids, the

amounts of money are in the

order of $70 million across

the forward estimates in NSW

and $40 million in Victoria,

these are in circumstances

where the Federal Government

has $1 billion and where its partnership with NSW would

have seen it invest around $300 million and with

Victoria would have seen it

invest around $100 million.

Of course, I

Of course, I want to see us

benefitting from this scheme. working to get more people

But I think it is fantastic

that today we are emerging

from this meeting with three

places around the country

where we will see the

National Disability Insurance

Scheme start. Can I say from

our point of view in

Victoria, we have been very

proud to be champions of an

proud to be champions of an

NDIS and we want to see one

in place. And that remains.

And we are very keen to see

the trials in place an we are

very keen to participate in

those trials. I think for

anybody in Australia, but I

will focus obviously on

Victoria, but anybody who

endures a disability knows

how difficult this can be.

And we want to assist and

that involves, obviously,

that involves, obviously,

some significant steps and we

are prepared to take those

steps. We put in a very

comprehensive bid in

conjunction with NSW. And, indeed, across the two

jurisdictions. We were

looking for some 15,000 people being addressed

through those proposals for trials. It is certainly our

view, and we believe the view

of those advising the Government and certainly

Government and certainly

advising us, that the maximum

benefit is afforded from a comprehensive trial. The

sort of trial that both NSW

and Victoria could offer. As

I say, we had a comprehensive

bid on the table. In terms

of a response from the

Commonwealth, we had some

concerns about that suffice

to say that an alternative

response was put to us later

today. We are more than happy

happy to assess that as we

have commenced doing. We

will continue to have those

discussions. We have advised

the Prime Minister of that.

And we look forward to

reaching a final position on those. It wasn't the case

that we could reach a

position on that today. And

I would say, in terms of

characterising that, there

was a component of that revised response that

involved an assessment of risk into the future.

risk into the future. We

need to make a legitimate

assessment of that. That

doesn't diminish in any way

to our commitment to an NDIS

or to the enthusiasm with

which we would embrace a

trial. We believe, both

Victoria and NSW, offer a positive approach to the

trial and we will work through the response that's

been put before us and look

forward to getting a

forward to getting a positive

outcome. We will just keep

some order here. So we will

go two across the front, then Michelle, then to the third

row. So we are really going

in rows.

REPORTER: You said alternative proposal another

joint proposal with a joint

project with NSW. No, I'm

talking about a response from

the Commonwealth and some

the Commonwealth and some suggestions and that involved

a consideration of risk into

the future and we want to

make sure that that gets fair

consideration. It is very

difficult to sit around a

COAG table or to stand in the

corridors of Parliament House

and ases these things in

detail. I think we owe it to

the sdiblt sector to get this

right and that is --

disability sector to get this

right and that is what we

intend to do. We have made

our ministers available to

continue thesing discussions

continue thesing discussions

tomorrow. That will occur.

Unless there is any

unwillingness, I don't think

that is the case, we want to

reach a resolution on this

but we have to make a fair

assessment. I think it is

fair to say that when these

trials are embarked upon,

that they do set an agender

for the future, regardless of any statements to the contrary, so we want to make

sure we get it right.

REPORTER: If I could,

REPORTER: If I could, what

was your reason for not being

able to reach agreement today

and is your bottom line that

NSW is not going to

contribute any extra money

above what it already spends

on disability? Well,

obviously like Victoria, I'm

both optimistic but disappointed we couldn't

reach agreement today. I'm

particularly disappoint that

we couldn't reach any sort of

funding agreement, not for

three pilot programs that will affect around

will affect around 11,000

people, but for a National

Disability Insurance Scheme

that when set up, it will actually benefit more than

400,000 people across the country. Along with a

Liberal premiers today, I was

pleased to meet Sean

Fitzgerald in Aussies. He is

one of those people who would

benefit enormously from a

National Disability Insurance

Scheme and that is what

ultimately our goal as State and Territory leaders must continue to be. So

continue to be. So there was

no way today I was going to

short change people with

disaiblts. There was no way

I was going to deconstruct a productivity commission

report. But we have more

than $550 million on the

table for the three year

trial in the Hunter Valley,

to assist 10,000 people, that is a significant commitment

whichever way you look at it.

That is on top of the $2 billion in growth fund

billion in growth fund that

we have put forward for

disability services in NSW under stronger together last

year, last year an additional

$600,000 in our budget, 14%

increase. This year, a 12%

increase, we are doing the

heavy lifting and I'm

disappointed we couldn't get

agreement today but we are

happy to have our disability minister come to Canberra

tomorrow to try to keep those

negotiations going so that

the people within the hunter

have hope of joining in a

pilot, but let's be clear

about this, until this group

signs up to a National

Disability Insurance Scheme,

we will not be fulfilling our

obligations to people across

this country with disaiblts.

I will go to Michelle.

REPORTER: Can you just

REPORTER: Can you just

clarify is it possible that

Victoria and NSW and that is

taken as a joint bid, can

still come into this trial at

this point? And can you also

clarify of those figures, numbers you were requiring

amounts to be put in, did

those two States offer any

extra money? The answer to your question

your question is Victoria and

NSW can still put proposals

to me which I will consider

to have a launch site. A

bench - it would not need to

come back to COAG again, it

can be done between now and

the next COAG. But let's be

very clear, we have had three

jurisdictions, two States and a Territory,

a Territory, step forward and

say they are prepared to put

more money on the table than

is business as usual for

disaiblts, more money on the

table and acquit certain benchmark for a contribution

by a State or a Territory to

the care of an individual.

So people get care packages,

care packages cost, the cost

is going to be shared in the launch

launch sites, between State

Governments and Federal Governments, Territory Government an Federal

Government. So the costs are

going to be shared. These

jurisdictions, three of them,

have stepped forward and said

that they are prepared to

lift to here in terms of

their contribution. We have

asked NSW and Victoria to do

the same. In order to do

the same. In order to do

that, the amounts of money

involved for these States,

NSW over its forward

estimates is around $70

million, Victoria is around

$40 million. I am

disappointed that we haven't

been able to reach agreement

over what are comparatively for Governments in this

country relatively small sums

against a Federal Government

against a Federal Government

contribution of $1 billion,

300 million around into NSW

and 100 million into Victoria.

REPORTER: Did they offer

anything of that extra money? Besides the 575 million we have on the table

for the trial? Is that what

you are saying Michelle?

Let's be clear about the billion dollars here. Despite what I read overnight

and in some papers which I

never believed, there was no additional money on

additional money on the table

today and I have to say what

frustrates me is that of that

billion dollars, only $350

million goes to providing

services to people with disabilities. The rest is

admin and set up costs. The

rest is the necessary

arrangements to set up the

scheme but nothing gets us

away from the maths here.

I'm sitting next to a premier

who was prepared to step up

to a certain figure per care

package, that is why he has got a

got a launch site. Given

your disappointment, do you

think that the... Look, I

will leave the theorising to others. My determination is

to get a better deal for

people with disabilities.

Now, I don't think I have

given Matthew one.

REPORTER: Just on another

issue, a lot of people in

remote communities are warning of

warning of worsening

continuing problems with

petrol sniffing and some

people say that the answer to

that is to make compulsory

the roll out of the opal fuel. I don't think your

Government is doing that.

And I'm wanting to know what

the reason is and the reason

I'm asking it in this forum

is that there are other premiers here, I guess

Western Australian the

Northern Territory, you could perhaps reflect on how

serious the problem is and what you think

what you think the solution

is? Well, that wasn't the

subject of discussion today.

But I'm very happy to say

generally from the Federal

Government, we think petrol

sniffing is a big problem and incredibly destructive

problem. And I would not be

the only leader sitting at

this table whose, you know, seen a young person

seen a young person whose now

being cared for in a nursing

home because they have just destroyed their brain through

petrol sniffing and so, you

know, they need full-time

care. So dreadful tragedy

when you see that for someone

who should be absolutely in

the prime of their lives in

their teens or in their 20s.

Now, opal fuel does make a

difference. We acknowledge

it makes a difference and we have worked to

have worked to spread where

opal fuel is provided.

Indeed, my recollection is we

have provisioned around $100

million to facilitate the further roll out of opal fuel. We have certainly done some of that in partnership with the Northern Territory.

So I will go to the Chief Minister now. Thank you

Prime Minister. And yes, I

saw the stories in the paper

this week. There has been a

very significant reduction of

very significant reduction of

petrol sniffing in the Northern Territory since opal

fuel was started to be rolled

out about five years ago,

maybe a bit longer than that.

And I absolutely support, as

the Chief Minister, that

where communities are experiencing petrol sniffing,

that opal fuel should be

rolled out. The issue in

terms of the Lake Nash

terms of the Lake Nash community which featured in

the press this week, has opal

fuel in that area community but across-the-boarder and

I'm not sort of making any

accusations here,

across-the-boarder in

Queensland, obviously opal

fuel is not available

locally, so people who want

to sniff petrol can find other ways of sourcing

petrol. But what I can say absolutely in the Northern

Territory's experience has been a very significant reduction. Now,

reduction. Now, one child

sniffing is one child too

many. And openpal fuel

certainly is very much a

large part of the answer and

I'm prepared to work with the

Northern Territory to work on Premiers bordering the

a further roll out. Because

it does make a difference.

It does work. And it does

stop kids sniffing. In terms

virtually is in every of the Northern Territory, it

community. It is just

community. It is just where

people, you know, travel up

the Stewart highway from

interstate and the kids can

unrealistic to say there access the cars. So its

should be a compulsory

national roll out, but where

we have problems, we should

be working across State

boundaries to ensure that we

minimise the availability of

leaded fuel to indigenous

kids. We will take a few

it in order more questions but we will do

it in order and I do feel

like I'm being a bit unfair

to this side, but we will

take Andrew and then come

across here and back.

REPORTER: What attitude did

you bring to the meeting in

regard to hosting an NDIS

trial and, more generally

speaking, to all of you, how

much discussion was there of

the old GST carve up which is very popular

topic? Definitely on colins

favourite topic. First on

the NDIS and I have been to

quite a few COAG meetings

now, almost a veteran.

Without exception, premiers

and Chief Ministers arrived

at COAG with a great deal of

good will for an NDIS because

it is the right thing to do.

judgment, was an However, today, in my

judgment, was an opportunity

squandered. We did not make

the most of what could have

been achieved today. And

with due respect to the three

trials that have been set up,

they are small scale, they

are in the small States. And

we should have seen at least

one or two trials in the

larger States. As far as

Western Australia is

concerned, we put forward a

proposal that would have

each by the Commonwealth and required $135 million funding

the State. I

the State. I think it was

Commonwealth. In Western broadly acceptable to the

Australia, I think it is

recognised that the level of

funding for disabilities is

higher than elsewhere in

Australia and also the system

is different in the sense

that it is decentralised and

people are more empowered

over choice and control of

the funding made available to them. Which is where the

NDIS is headed toward and

will surpass that. So I'm disappointed in that sense.

That that hasn't happened. I

guess the show stopper for the Western Australian

proposal related to the governance model. And I

don't need to go into that.

With respect to the GST, if I

can say so, the group of four

met this morning over

breakfast. They being the

larger States of NSW,

Victoria, Queensland and

Western Australia. And we

the have, I think I can say for

the other States, we are

trying to develop a joint

position of the larger and

the donor States and we are

probably close to a position

where we believe that the

majority of the GST pool

should be allocated on a

simple per capta basis and

the remainder of the pool

should be allocated according

to needs. In other words, to

provide, if you like, that

financial protection for the

Territories and the smaller

States. The system is

clearly broken. It is not

serving, not only my State,

but it is not serving the

Australian economy. It is a

broken system and tinkering

with it will not solve it.

We need to go to a system

that suits this century, not

something that was better

designed for 100 years ago.

The proposition that is has

been advanced by Western Australia would cost South

Australia $600 million per

annum and for that to be advanced, and anyway suggest

that this is somehow a nation

building exercise or involves treating South Australia as

one nation, borders on

laughable. We have

prosperous jurisdictions laughable. We have

promoting a carve up of the

nation's resources in a way

which would have traumatic

effects on the smaller

itself that was a net States. Coming from a State

receiver of resources from

the rest of the nation just a

few short years ago, it is

breathtaking in its audacity.

Can I say that this was one nation, it was established as a Commonwealth and those

worth mean something.

worth mean something. That

the wealth of the nation

should be shared eqtaably, not according to some notion

of the rich States taking the

resources an keeping it for

themselves. The principles

that underpin the horizontal equalisation, the mechanism

for distributing GST resources, are based on the simple principle that

wherever you exist in this

nation, as a citizen, you

of should receive the same level

of services. Now, how could

one advocate against that

simple principle of equality

across this nation? Are we

with one nation or are we a

decide to keep for themselves series of citizens that

the resources that they are

just fortunate to happen to

be living proximate to? I think it is a proposition

which is damaging to the

nation as Australia as a

nation, we came together as a

group of equals, and frankly

we are not going to be

treated in an unequal

fashion. We will never

cooperate with such an

arrangement. Hang on, I just

said I would give Hendo the

call. Thank you and I'm

disappointed that given the article in the Western

Australian today by the

Western Australian Premier

saying that they were - he was going to put

was going to put forward this

60/40 split today, I'm

disappointed that the gang of

four have not come clean with

the rest of COAG about this unprincipled attack on the

smaller States. You now, you

know, it is not a laughing

matter for myself as the Chief Minister of the

Northern Territory. We are

talking about some of the most disadvantaged people in this nation who have a

this nation who have a right,

who have a right, to access

the same level of services as

all other Australians. And

the proposition being put

forward is not about fairness

and equity across this

nation. It is just an

unprincipled dash for cash.

It is certainly not acceptable to the Northern

Territory and it goes against

all the fundamentals of this

great Commonwealth nation of ours. I

ours. I did... In regards to

the NDIS test? I will let

you jump in, even though it

is really in breach of the

system. And then we will

come over here. Special rules for Western Australia.

We are being very nice.

Look, the issue from my point

of view is we are trying to

launch arrangements for a national disability insurance

scheme. That means that it

does have to have national

features. If we end up with

a federation of State based schemes, then even if they

start off in the same place,

in five years time, 10 years

times, 150 years time, we

will end up where we are now

-- 15 years time, we will end

up where we are now with

differences in the country of

how you get treated. So we

need to be testing national arrangements for a national scheme.

scheme. Testing national

arrangements also means, of

course, that this will give

people with disabilities the

benefit of knowing that they

can move from place to place

without jeopardising their

service provision. And I've

certainly heard the

individual stories of people who would like to move to

somewhere else in the country, maybe closer to

family, but who are just terrified that if they move,

terrified that if they move,

they won't get the same

package of care put back in

place. So that is why we

want genuinely national

characteristics. Now, we do

absolutely acknowledge that

WA is, you know, top of the

leaderboard in terms of

expenditure on people with

disabilities. WA including

through its recent My Way initiatives is

initiatives is trialling the

kind of - well not trialling

- it has got a system which

is incorporating the kind of individualised approaches

that we want to see for the

National Disability Insurance

Scheme where the person with

the disability gets to make

choices about their care, rather than having the system

blitz in and say you have got

to have two of these, one of

these, and half of the other, even if you would prefer some

even if you would prefer some

other mix. So I very much

understand WA's going down

that path. Consequently in

terms of provision of care, I

think there are things we can

learn from Western Australia.

Now, I did say we would go

over here. We will go to the

two in the front.

REPORTER: If you can't get agreement on a trial that

involves, you know, around $100 million of extra spending from the States,

what chance is there of

getting a full national

getting a full national

scheme running that will cost

an extra $7 billion and was there any discussion today

about where that money for

the final scheme will come

from? The discussion today

was on the launch sites. The

discussion today was on

keeping moving on

arrangements that we need to

make to have a full national

scheme and you will see in

the communicated that there is some

is some work progressing

around eligibility and around

what the standard of care we

are aiming at is. I am

disappointed, there is no

doubt about that, but you

focus, I certainly focus, to

get the big things done. And

the history of our nation is

the big things don't come

easy. Whether you are

pointing to Medicare or

pointing to Medicare or universal superannuation, or

native title, the big things

don't come easy. Well, this

is a very, very, very big

thing. And so it is going to

take a lot of focus and a lot

of work and I'm very

determined to do it.

REPORTER: On the GST, a

question for you and then

also a follow-up for some of

the Premiers here, if the GST

the Northern Territory lost arrangements were changed and

out to the tune

out to the tune of a couple

of billion dollars, would

the gap and fund the Northern Canberra be willing to fun

Territory and a follow-up,

Ken Henry has talked about increasing consumption taxes

and reliance on consumption

taxes, is it time to put a

raising of the rate of the

GST and a broad.ening of the

base of the GST on the agenda

given the arguments that we

given the arguments that we

are seeing? Well, I don't

agree with raising the rate

or broadening the base of the

GST. On the GST distribution

issues, I determined quite

some time back that there

should be a very high level

review of these principles.

I asked two former premiers

I asked two former premiers

to do that from either side

of politics, premiers Brumby

and former premier Grina.

Announced that review when I

was in Western Australia and

Premier Barnett, who has been

a very strong advocate on GST

distribution, welcomed that

review. It is still doing

its work and I think as

replicated you've already seen,

replicated from the

discussion at the table, this

is not an easy area. Because

we do have an expectation

about what it means to be an

Australian sit scomblen. We

do have that -- Australian citizen. We do have that expectation. What it means

to be a person who lives in

our country and I don't think

any of us would be happy to

wake up in a

wake up in a nation where you

could point to impoverished

places that weren't getting assistance because the part

of the nation that they were

in, you know, didn't have

revenue raising capacity.

Now, to be fair, when I have discussed these questions

with Premier Barnett and

others in the past, they have

acknowledged that there are

places in the country that,

with the best will in the places in the country that,

world, do not have the same

revenue base and revenue

raising capabilities. And

Premier Barnett has

acknowledged that for a long

part of its history, Western

Australia was a net taker out

of the GST pool. And that is

not surprising either. A

vast relatively sparsely

populated place, not

surprising it was a net

that as the taker, and not surprising

that as the economies

changed, those circumstances

have changed. So we do have

a very high level review to

look at all of this. That is

the process that I determined

would get us through here and

that review is not yet

concluded. I did say here.

REPORTER: I just wanted to

touch on something

colin-Barnett raised about

the fact that they are small trials an they are

trials an they are in small

States. Do you actually need

a trial in a larger State,

like NSW or Victoria, to

justify moving to that next step? We have three trials.

That is a good thing. Of

course, I would want to see

further trials if that's

possible. But we have got jurisdictions that have

stepped up to the benchmark

in terms of contribution for care per person

care per person and we are

asking others to step up to

the same benchmark.

REPORTER: You have supported

NDIS, but is it true that

South Australia health are

going to cut up to 700 jobs

tomorrow? We are consulting

with a range of

representatives of health

workers and the employees of

the Department of Health workers and the employees of

about essentially getting the

cost of our healthcare system

under control. I think this

is a matter about which I

think there will be complete

common ground amongst all State and Territory first

ministers and that is that

the costs of running our

health care system are an

enormous challenge and we

have done some very important

work in controlling demand.

But we now turn our attention

system and to the efficiency of the

system and that is difficult

work. And we are having that conversation with our

employees and we will be

with the South Australian having a broader discussion

community tomorrow when we

release a range of reports.

efficiencies which are about What we are talking about are

delivering the same, if not

or better services, making

sure, though, that we can do

way possible and we that in the most effective

way possible and we are

looking at the way in which

how our system operates,

giving very careful toll quarantine the things that

effect front-line services.

We will take a few more

questions. I'm conscious

obviously of premiers and at

least one Chief Minister has

to get on a plane. The other

Chief Minister gets to live

here so it is not as hard for

her. But before we

her. But before we jeopardise too many peoples

arrangements, we will take a

couple more questions an then we will go.

REPORTER: Did you put

anything else on the table

today and you've been very

firm in your position on

this, I'm just wondering, do

you have any personal family

or friends who face the

challenges of a disability

and have you visited any disability support services

since becoming premier? I

have and that is as many as I

will say on that. -- as much as

as I will say on that.

Queensland is putting in

excessive $9 mun million a

year in the support of people

with disabilitieses right now

-- 900 million. Should we

put more in? You bet you.

Do we want to put more in?

You bet you. Can we put more

in right now? No, I'm afraid

we can't. Why can't we? Go

and ask Anna Bligh. This

financial year, we will see a

deficit of over $4 billion on

a $47 billion budget. We do

have a crisis in Queensland's finances. We are working

hard to solve the problem.

What I'm saying is that in

the 2014-2015 financial year,

with the plan that we have

got, to get the State's finances back on track, I

believe we will then be in a

position to review our

support for the scheme. We

want to be in it. We want do

a trial unless the Prime

Minister sort of wants to

fund it and I accept that she

is not in a position to do

that. But we will watch very

carefully what's going on.

Indeed, I will be talking to

our communities ministers

about what we can do to try

and deliver better services

with the resources we have

got right now. And we are going to watch what's going

on with these trials. I

believe that these trials will tell us a

will tell us a lot. I think

they are going to be very

useful and we will take note

of that and implement things

as soon as we can out of

those things. So the problem

is in Queensland we simply

don't have the money. My

final point is we are not

seeing thousands of public

servants lose their job, as

we speak, because it is fun.

It is not fun. It is really

tough on those people. And

frankly it is hard for

frankly it is hard for everybody involved in the

process. So far 5,000 people

have lost their jobs. There

is going to be thousands more

to get our financial position

sorted out. And we have to

make really tough choices

right now. So I just

conclude by saying again, we

are funding disability

services in Queensland to

over $900 million a year. We

would like to put in more.

We need to put in more. We

are going to try to find the

money to do a better job but it is

it is going to take some

time. You can have the last one.

REPORTER: I know you are probably limited in what you

can say about it, but is

there anything that you can

say to reassure Australians

that our national security

hasn't been compromised by an

alleged Canadian spy selling

secrets to Russia? I don't

comment on intelligence

questions but I can certainly

assure people that our national security

arrangements are robust and

can be relied upon. All

right, Phil, just because,

you know, I'm feeling generous.

REPORTER: Those jurisdictions that have

signed up and those haven't,

can I perhaps ask one of the

Premiers, what do you say to

the disabled people tonight

who may rightly or wrongly

conclude that this whole

program may fall victim to

partisan politics which seem to become more and

to become more and more prevalent in Australia?

Well, I'm determined to get

this done. If the Premiers

of Victoria and NSW have said

that they are prepared to

keep working on this, I think

that is a good sign. So I'm

determined to get this done.

I'm very proud that it is

this Labor Government that

said it would do a national disability insurance scheme

that put in the foundation

work so we could even be

talking about launch sites.

Very proud that we are in

that position. What I'm saying is that our

contribution is currently in

the order of more than $550

million and what I'm saying

is that we are increasing

disability funding by

disability funding by $2

billion. 14% last year, 12%

this year. We are doing the

heavy lifting and, Phil, I'm

disappointed. I'm disappointed because whether

it is 3 or 5 pilots, it is not a National Disability

Insurance Scheme and none of

us should be happy until that

scheme is established. Thank

you very much. I just want

to say as well, if I may

Prime Minister, we want this

to happen. I don't want to

leave anyone with any doubt. We want

We want it to happen. And as

soon as we can find the money to actually increase our

contribution, we are going to

do that. Because we

recognise we have to. And we

want to help people with

disbabilities. But it is

simply a problem that we have

right now here and now. So

the trials are going to

occur, 2014-2015 we will be revisiting our financial

position an how we get involved. They are all

settling back in, I was

worried about their planes.

Barry is worried about his

plane. 70-80% in total.

Thank you. Well, the COAG press conference there

wrapping up here in Canberra.

Kevin Rudd, of course, used

to talk about cooperative

federalism when he was Prime

Minister. He, of course, had

Minister. He, of course, had

the advantage of wall to wall

Labor State and Territory governments. Julia Gillard

is now facing from the big

States, NSW, Queensland,

Victoria and Western Australia, conservative

political opposition and what

we have seen there today is

one of the most fracture and divided COAG meetings in

years. Unable to reach agreement, failing to reach agreement, on

agreement, on a National

Disability Insurance Scheme.

To help some of the neediest,

the most vulnerable people in

our country. We will see

three trials in the smaller

States and Territories.

South Australia, Tasmania and

the ACT. Where Labor

governments preside. They

are all kicking in funding to

match, or to go some way to

helping the Commonwealth in

funding these trials. But

they are not happening in the big States,

big States, in the big

cities. And proponents of a National Disability Insurance

Scheme heading into today's

talk said it was critical

that trials be held, pilots

be held, in these eastern sea

board big States, either

Queensland, Victoria, or NSW,

in particular. That hasn't

happened. Julia Gillard did

offer $100 million to

Victoria, $300 million to

NSW, but in the end,

NSW, but in the end, unable

to reach agreement on getting

trials off the ground. Now,

talk also continue at a

ministerial level tomorrow.

State and Territory ministers

will meet with the Federal

Minister to try and continue

this and Ted Baillieu, the Victorian Premier spoke about an alternative compromise

that had been put on the

table late today, so that

will continue, the talks will

continue tomorrow, but what

you saw there was the real

division, the refusal from

some of these Coalition

premiers to deal with Julia

Gillard on this, to give her

an inch, and the Prime

Minister whose political

authority certainly has been weakened, unable to get them

over the line, as what Labor

sees as one of its signature

reform areas. Also on GST,

the carve up of GST revenue,

this has long been an area of

hot dispute between the States, you

States, you saw them

scrapping there, Mr Barnett from Western Australia saying

the current system is no good for Western Australia, no good for the national

economy. The smaller States,

South Australia and Northern

Territory, saying that

proposition is laughable. So between the States, we are

seeing enormous division but

at a national level as well,

their failure to reach an

agreement on trials for the National Disability Insurance

Scheme a real set back there

for this cause. There will still be those smaller

trials. This is not what the

proponents had been seeking though. Perhaps there will be trials in the bigger

States if they can sort out

their differences on this.

It is not just the money, although this is the big

issue, but it is also those benchmark standards of care

for severely disabled

Australians that is one of

the sticking points here. We

will be talking to one of the

Premiers of the big States,

Campbell Newman, from

Queensland shortly. We will

take a quick break shortly.

Stay with us right here on Sky News.

You're watching PM Agenda.

In a moment, we will be

joined by Queensland premier

Campbell Newman for a bit more on that COAG meeting

that's taken place here in

Canberra today. That failure to reach agreement between the Federal Government and

the big States, the Coalition

led States at least, on

trials for a National

Disability Insurance Scheme,

trials will take place in

some of the smaller States,

South Australia, the ACT, and

Tasmania, all Labor run

States, but not in NSW, Victoria, Western Australia

or Queensland. We will bring

you more on that in just a

moment. In the meantime, Tony Abbott has done a pretty

good job, it must be said,

since the last election of

keeping the focus on the Gillard Government. He

doesn't talk much about what

he would do as Prime Minister

beyond getting rid of the

carbon tax and mining tax and stopping the boats, of

course,. But this week he

has weighed into a policy

area. China, he has been

there in Beijing, meeting v

people and giving a speech,

among the comeptses that he

made, he called that more

political reform in China, he

said, as Prime Minister, he

would ensure territorial

disputes in the South China

Sea are settled peacefully

and he also warned that State

owned enterprises, which most

Chinese companies

predominantly are, would

rarely be able to take

control of an Australian

company. This has been a

sensitive policy debate in

Australia. Chinese

investment in farmland,

agriculture, and in business

more generally here in

Australia. The Government

has jumped on the comments

that he made. Treasurer

Wayne Swan says Barnaby Joyce

has taken control of the

Coalition's foreign

investment policy. Bill Shorten, the minister for

employment and work place

relations, also critical and

fearing this could lead to foreign investment being

banned in a whole bunch of

areas. Just what validity

does the Government's

criticism here hold? I spoke to Bill Shorten a little

earlier in the day about Tony

Abbott's speech. Thanks for

your time. Now, Tony Abbott

says it would rarely be in Australia's national interest

to allow a foreign Government

or its agencies to control an Australian business. What is

wrong with that? Well, Tony

Abbott has had a shocking

Abbott has had a shocking trip overseas, at least to

China, I mean, I know he is the Leader of the Opposition

and he might not be familiar

with some of the jurisdictions, but to go to

China and say "I want to

change the way you run your

country" but then say "An by

the way, if you have got enterprises investing in Australia, I have got a

concern about that too".

Doesn't Mr Abbott get ou the

economy works in Australia?

We do need foreign investment, part of that comes from enterprises

comes from enterprises and

not just from China. But he

does say the Coalition

welcomes foreign investment

from China. But he drew a

Government between Government

enterprises and private money

in chine. Let's be clear.

There are Sovereign wealth

funds throughout the world.

Malcolm Turnbull has said he thinks the Sovereign wealth

fund is good for Australia to invest overseas, so the first

invest overseas, so the first

problem Mr Abbott has got, or

the Liberals have got, I

should say, is that they

don't like Chinese wealth

funds buying in Australia but

Mr Turnbull says he does like

them investing overseas. The

second problem is that there is more than Chinese wealth

funds. Etihad, they are

airlines, Etihad Stadium in

Melbourne's dock labds,

Etihad is a State --

Docklands. So what is he

saying, we should change the

name of our football venues?

More importantly than the

name of football Stadiums and airlines, we have got

significant enterprises who

are investing in jobs in

Australia, Optus, Virgin,

Quinos, all of these jobs depend upon foreign

investment from State owned

enterprises. All of them rigorously analysed by the

review board. My view is the

national interest is what

matters. National interest

equates to jobs. But he is

not saying a blanket no to

investment by State owned

enterprises, he is saying

rarely would it be in our

national interest to allow

State owned enterprises to control an Australian

business. Now, any of the

examples you have given there involve control of an Australian

Australian business? Yes,

some of them do. What

happens when you invest, when

foreign investment occurs in

Australia, is if it is above

a certain amount and $244

million if it is from private

sources, it gets checked out.

What is it? Does it line up with our national security,

our national interest, what

are the consequences? When

it comes to State owned

enterprises, they get scrutinised from the floor scrutinised from the floor

up, especially in our

farmland, so there are lots

of checks and balances.

There is a fair bit of concern in Australia about

this. I agree, there is

always concern about ik

making sure we protect

Australian jobs, there is

always concern to make sure

that we protect our military

secrets and our special, you

know, if there is a

particular mineral that we

have which might be used in

missiles overseas. There is

a legitimate national

interest question. Under interest question. Under

this Government, we have seen

a bid by the Chinese State

firm winning a tender on the national broadband network,

we have also seen the

Singapore stock exchange bid

for the Australian stock

exchange knocked back, so it

does happen. Precisely and your point highlights the

mistake that has been made in

China. We have got a system.

We have got checks and

balances. But what we

shouldn't be doing is lifting shouldn't be doing is lifting

up the drawer bridge and

telling particular

Governments that we don't

like State owned enterprises

or we have got concerns about

you, you are not welcome.

What is ironic is that the

British royalty have observed

parts of Australia ever since

captain cook, you know, found

Australia. And so Mr Abbott

doesn't complain about the

Duke of Westminster controlling our agricultural

interest, but when it is a

Chinese Government, it

becomes a question. I wonder

when Mr Abbott goes to

London, does he ever say to

the Duke of Westminster,

hello, we have got a national

interest issue about you. Of

course not. You are

completely comfortable with

Chinese State owned enteprises controlling

Australian balances? With

what I'm comfortable with is

that using our current national interest tests,

which already exists that,

where we have an opportunity

to save good Aussie jobs, I'm

not fussed about whether or

not it is Chinese currency,

maen, American or English.

What I'm interesting is is

the livelihood of families of

Australia, in our

manufacturing sector, of Aus

minerals, of a whole range of

businesses. We should have

an intelligent debate about

foreign investment but it is

just absolutely naive, it is risky foreign policy and it

is a risk to our foreign

investment profile and it's a

risk to our Sovereign

financial situation if you

have alternative potential

leaders of South Australia

putting up the warning sign and saying you are not

welcome. Couple of other

issues. The National

Disability Insurance Scheme,

you have been a strong

proponent of this over the

years. Has been discussed at

the COAG meeting today. Are

you comfortable with where

the progress on this scheme

is now at? I think it is one

of the success stories of

Labor in Government, is the

development of a National Disability Insurance Scheme.

For decades, peoples with

disabilities and their carers have been treated as second

class citizens. The Federal

Government has flagged that

it is going to invest money,

we are now talking about launch sites, there is important discussions with

the States. What I would say

to - if there is any State

premiers who are reluctant to

engage with the national Government about disability

reform is have a chat to the

parents and carers who are up

at midnight who have been

looking after their adult

children with severe

disabilities for decades wondering who is going to

look after their lovely,

loved adult child when they

no longer can. I don't think

anyone should be against a

National Disability Insurance Scheme. And Scheme. And a final question

on what's happening in your

party at the moment, some of

your colleagues, Mark Bishop,

says the polls should I a

call to make dramatic changes

or face a decade in the

political wilderness.

Unpopular leaders will

eventually be replaced. Do

you think Julia Gillard is

being undermined at the

moment? When I look at the

polls, the polls are tough.

But what I'm pleased about is today's announcement that

headline inflation is 1.2%.

But when you look within your

party... That is just it. If

some of our party wants to

look at particular numbers, that is their opinion and

they are entitled to it. I'm

interested in the fact that

in Australia, even though it

is tough for people,

unemployment is at 5.2%, that

is a good number. But are

they entitled to do this or

should they pull their heads

in and give the Prime

Minister some clear air to

sell these sort of things? sell these sort of things?

Well, I think the numbers

that matter are inflation,

1.2%, which means there is no

barrier to potentially the

Reserve Bank lowering

interest rates. We have got

the cash rate at 3.5%. So

they should focus on that and

not the polls? I'm saying

the important numbers are the numbers which affect house

holds every day. Unemployment, infashion,

interest rates, they are the

numbers that count to me and

I believe to the Gillard

I believe to the Gillard Government. Thank you.

Thanks. The Work Place

Relations Minister Bill

Shorten talking to me a little earlier this afternoon

before that COAG meeting

wrapped up. As we heard

earlier this hour, the Prime

Minister has reached

agreement with smaller States and Territories, the Labor run South Australia,

Tasmania, and the ACT to go

ahead with three trials,

pilots of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

but no agreement reached with

the big States, all run by

Coalition Governments now,

Queensland, Victoria, NSW and

Western Australia. The

dispute was primarily over

money in the end, the Prime

Minister says she had a billion dollars on the table.

Barry O'Farrell, the NSW Premier, suggested that only

$350 million of that would

get into the front-line

services for people with

severe disabilities but the Commonwealth and those State

governments couldn't agree on

how much the States should

stump up of their own money

to see these pilots, at the

very least, get off the

ground. Here is a little of

what the Prime Minister had

to say coming out of the

talks. Unfortunately,

neither NSW nor Victoria was

able to step forward with some relatively small amounts

of additional financing to

make these launches possible.

We will continue to work with

these jurisdictions in the

hope of seeing change because

I do find it disappointing

that there will be people

with disabilities in those

regions tonight, who will go

to bed uncertain, rather than

knowing that they will be the

subject of a launch site

arrangement and that they will see change and

improvement in the care in

which they receive. The

Prime Minister saying this whole National Disability

Insurance Scheme still is on

track. There is no doubt

proponents of this sort of scheme, had really argued

that it had to see a trial

take place in one of the big

States for it to

realistically be trialled. That hasn't happened yet.

State ministers will continue

talks with the Commonwealth tomorrow. They are not

completely ruling out

agreement on this. There are various compromises being

discussed. So we will see

where that ends up but at the moment failure to reach

agreement today on a National

Disability Insurance Scheme

trial in those big States at

least. We are going to wrap

things up but do stay with us

very shortly, we will hear from Campbell Newman, the

Queensland premier, about the

outcome of today's talks.

Thanks for your company. We

will be back shortly on Sky News.

Live Captioning by Ai-Media www.ai-media.tv