E&OE...........
McGRATH:
Prime Minister, thanks for joining the AM programme this morning after a very busy morning for you. Prime Minister, the ASIO bills are deadlocked, would something have been better than nothing?
PRIME MINISTER:
We can't pretend to the Australian public that a bill that we know to be inadequate, and a bill that would be infinitely weaker than the bill passed through the New South Wales Parliament, without criticism from Federal Labor, we can't pretend that that kind of bill would adequately cover the new security challenge this country has.
MCGRATH:
So what happens now, I mean, there will be [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we will wait and see if the Senate insists but I want to make it plain that having been willing to move in two areas in relation to the sunset clause and the availability of State judges we are not prepared to accept the other amendments because they will make the legislation unworkable. Let me give you a simple illustration - under the Labor bill passed in New South Wales the New South Wales Police have the power to strip search children between the age of 10 and 18 years without a warrant.
MCGRATH:
How do you move forward, though, I mean [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we have to understand what is happening. I mean, the Labor Party, if it were really serious and consistent, why didn't it attack and disown the Carr Government? That happened in New South Wales without a murmur. But in New South Wales what I've just described can occur with the authority of Michael Costa, the Police Minister. You don't need a judicial approval for it. We have built in judicial approvals. We have enormous safeguards, judicial supervision of questioning, judicial review of the need to hold the person every 48 hours. Now, for Daryl Melham to say that this is Augusto Pinochet, if he feels that way why didn't he say that about Bob Carr. The reality is that they are playing a silly political game and what is at stake here is the capacity of this Government in this country, whether it's a Labor or a Liberal government, to have adequate power to deal with the new terrorism threat.
MCGRATH:
So you look as though you may go into the holiday period without this resolved.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it depends on the Senate and it hangs upon them. I mean, it's very interesting, in the crucial vote just taken in the House…
MCGRATH:
You'll have a double dissolution trigger.
PRIME MINISTER:
…just a few moments ago there were only 38 Labor members voting against the Government in the House of Representatives and we had a majority on that crucial final division of 28, which is 10 or 11 more than the majority we normally have. Now, there may be some explanation for that but it's very interesting. The Labor Party says it's united on this issue. I think there are probably a number of people in the centre and the right of the Labor Party who do understand that you do need the sort of powers we seek in this legislation in this new age of challenge.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, on this difficult day for the ASIO bill you will also be meeting Richard Armitage in Sydney. Does war look more likely now, do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hope not. We do not want military conflict over Iraq. We want Iraq to completely rid herself of weapons of mass destruction. We support the United Nations process, indeed, we urged that upon the United States some months ago.
MCGRATH:
Will you be insisting that they go back to the UN Security Council?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we want the Security Council resolution to be adhered to by everybody. We've had this declaration by Iraq. Everybody's got to be given time to look at it and if there's something wrong with it or there are some gaps then those gaps will need to be pointed out.
MCGRATH:
Have you heard the view in the Australian electorate, you've obviously seen the polls, but many Australians are very concerned, very worried, that Australia is drifting towards war and very closely backing the US without much questioning? Have you heard that response, do you address it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we would want this dispute settled without military conflict but you can't walk away from the challenge. It's not the only challenge we have and I've made it very plain all along that if there were any kind of military involvement then any contribution that Australia might make - and we haven't taken any decision to do so - any contribution that we might make would not be such as to in any way diminish our capacity to deal with other threats.
MCGRATH:
Clive Williams, Australians leading terrorist academic expert, said this week that Australia would become an increased target if it was involved in this war.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, some people have been saying that for a long time.
MCGRATH:
But it worries Australians to hear that sort of thing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Some people would say that but I think Australians would also understand and know that many people have been murdered by terrorists who've had a completely different attitude towards the United States than what Australia has had. We are a target for terrorists because of who we are, not because of the individual political stances we may take on given issues. We are a western, liberal, democratic society. Terrorists despise us because we're an open democracy and we're a western nation.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, if we could move on to the car industry plan set to be announced today. Tariffs will go down to 5% by the year 2010, unions are saying that it will cost jobs in Australia for vehicle manufacturers. Can you ensure those people that they won't lose their jobs?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I certainly can and I think the greatest assurance that I can give is that the car manufacturers, I believe will welcome this package. They will see it because it carries with it very, very significant financial support for the industry.
MCGRATH:
Will the industry be ready to compete then, I mean, it's going to be much tougher for them to compete on the world market?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not with the support because the future of the Australian motorcar industry is now in export and what we have seen over the past few years in an environment of lower tariffs, we've seen a more competitive industry, we've seen a stable jobs outlook and I think you will see and the unions will see, and I asked them to carefully look at this package, that the car manufacturers will respond very enthusiastically. We will be foreshadowing a further inquiry by the Productivity Commission before the year 2010 to make certain that everything is on track before there is any further downward adjustment in tariffs.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, can I ask you about Senator Helen Coonan from your State in New South Wales. The headline in the paper from Sydney today, The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Pressure Builds on Coonan to Resign.' Dramatic scenes in the Senate and the House of Representatives this week and last week. Do you stand by her?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I do.
MCGRATH:
Has she used her ministerial letterhead to correspond with [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm told by her that she has used ministerial letterhead on two occasions and that was after the claim was settled, after the…and she stated this in the Senate. Now, it's not normal to use ministerial letterhead but of itself it's not a hanging offence. You've got to look at all the other things and there's nothing else that's really been established against her. I mean, you talk about dramatic scenes and headlines but there's no evidence that she has evaded any tax.
MCGRATH:
Well, can we look first of all at the letterhead because if you're an Australian plumber, an Australian shop owner, an Australian bus driver, an Australian small business person and you have a claim you don't have the power, as a Minister of the Crown, to use your letterhead to get the sort of response that that could bring.
PRIME MINISTER:
But a company dealing with Helen Coonan, whether she used her letterhead or not, would still know who they were dealing with. She can't, by using another…I mean, I write letters, I wrote a letter the other day to somebody using a private address but I'm quite certain they knew who they got the letter from and it was a personal letter. But I think too much can be made, if I may finish, a little too much is being made of this. And in any event, Helen Coonan has told the Senate that that letterhead was used after the substance of the issue had been resolved and, separately from that…
MCGRATH:
Not before…[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, hang on, can I just make this very important point that yesterday I tabled two statements. One from the insurance company which certified that the settlement was completely in accordance with the normal practice and one from the person who had been involved independently in the assessment of the strength and the validity of her claim and he said it was perfectly in order and the amount agreed to be paid by the insurance company was proper and reasonable in the circumstances. Now, you have to look at the merit of something and just because she has an insurance claim, there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, this idea that once somebody becomes a minister they lose any right to have assets, they lose any capacity to look to their proper financial and economic interests is an outrageous proposition.
MCGRATH:
Can we just go back to the issue of Senator Coonan. Earlier in the week was the land tax. The New South Wales State land tax owed by her husband, the former Justice Rogers, that was paid last week, paid at the start of this week, now, how can that be justified, how can it be…
PRIME MINISTER:
How can what be justified?
MCGRATH:
That the land tax was not paid until this issue came up in the Parliament.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's not according to Andrew Rogers's, the circumstance. And, in any event, can I make the point that…
MCGRATH:
Australia's [inaudible]…
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, hang on, I mean, I thought people were entitled to have their independent careers. I mean, if people have got a problem with something Andrew Rogers has done, they should pursue Andrew Rogers. He, in any event, has given an explanation. Helen Coonan has no financial interest in that Clareville property. The land tax was paid in accordance with the law.
MCGRATH:
Well, Labor's argument is…[inaudible]…hurt the clients, that's their argument.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Labor's argument is…please don't…I mean, please, let's not have a scatty interview, let's just be civil. Labor's argument is always that we're bad and they're good but you've got to look at the merits and the merits are here that the property is not owned by Helen, she has no interest in it. Andrew Rogers has given a full explanation of the circumstances in which the land tax was paid. And what is happening here is the Labor Party's trying to generate the impression that, oh, these are very wealthy people, they have all of these assets and they're on the take. I mean, it is an outrageous attack on her character. They haven't been able to substantiate anything. The only thing they've been able to really establish is that on two occasions she may have used her letterhead after the substance of this issue had been resolved. Now, as I say, that's not normal practice. I encourage ministers not to do it but it's not, of itself, a hanging offence.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, thanks for speaking to AM this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Ends]