E&OE...........
CORDEAUX:
And it is with a great deal of pleasure that we go to Canberra and the Prime Minister, sir how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very well Jeremy.
CORDEAUX:
Good to hear you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Very well indeed.
CORDEAUX:
Now the debate about Iraq, obviously there is so much cynicism about the decision to let the weapons inspectors in, I take it that you are thoroughly cynical about it as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am, I';m very sceptical and I have reason to be. This has happened before when the weapons inspectors were last there they were interfered with, they were harassed, they were prevented from carrying out full and unfetted inspections. And it';s important to remember that the calls that have gone on from me and from the Americans and the British and many others over the past couple of weeks have not only been for the readmission of inspectors (inaudible) completely unhindered capacity to seek and find any weapons and to ensure, in a completely enforceable way, that those weapons were destroyed and that is something that I would certainly want to be satisfied about before I saw in any way what has occurred over the last 24 hours as being any kind of lasting breakthrough rather than a tactical ploy designed to buy more diplomatic time. Now we all want to avoid a military conflict, I say that very genuinely and very deliberately. If this issue can be resolved without resorting to military conflict nobody would me more pleased than I. But we cant go through what we';ve been through before and it';s no good people saying oh there you are Iraq';s allowed to let the weapons inspectors back in, that';s the end of the problem, we have to ask a lot more than that, we have to be completely satisfied that it goes beyond and it ends with the disarming of any weapons in the way that they can';t be (inaudible).
CORDEAUX:
If Saddam Hussein is stonewalling and he is stalling for time and he';s not sincere in this, he would be very foolish wouldn';t he? I mean he must understand the resolve of the Americans and the resolve of the free world to fix this problem now.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m quite certain that what he';s done in the last 24 hours, this offer, is only the result of the focus from the UN which in turn was the result of the speech that President Bush made last week. It was President Bush going back to the United Nations and saying to the United Nations you have responsibilities here that helped focus the mind of the world on this issue. But there have been a lot of people ready to criticise President Bush, I don';t believe the UN would have acted if it hadn';t been for what President Bush did because Iraq has been in breach of UN resolutions for years, in 1998 the inspectors were expelled. Now nothing has been done over the last four years to get them back, nothing seriously, and over the last few days there';s been a big focus on it as a result of the diplomatic offensive that the Americans have conducted with our support, with support of quite a number of others. Now we haven';t heard the last of the diplomatic manoeuvrings on this and I imagine that at the moment the Americans are talking to different members of the security council about the possibility of further resolutions and I certainly wouldn';t rule that out, not for a moment and I think it';s too early to be too prescriptive about precisely what further activity there is in the security council. But whatever form that takes, and I think we should look to the substance of the issue rather that the process and the form, we have to have an arrangement where the readmission of the inspectors is not just an artificial way of buying more diplomatic time, it';s got be a genuine readmission, it';s got to result in unrestricted access of any building or any site and it';s got to also result in the enforceable dismantling and rendering useless of any weapons that are discovered.
CORDEAUX:
Do you think we need new resolutions or would the old resolution that was already in place, and (inaudible) ignored of course by Iraq, wouldn';t that old resolution do?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not sure that the old, the old resolution is all that good while we';ve had four years of inactivity.
CORDEAUX:
Well the United Nations unfortunately…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well maybe, I mean that';s one explanation. I am this stage am not going to be definitive about whether you definitely, I mean I wouldn';t rule out a new resolution, my information would be that you probably do need a fresh resolution of some type. I think at this stage we have to allow the diplomatic process to unfold, the one thing we mustn';t do, you say oh well the problem is solved, Iraq has said the inspectors can come back, that is only the beginning of a very long journey to a secure outcome and we have a lot of bridges to cross on that journey, we have to, first of all be satisfied that they are going to be readmitted in a completely unhindered way, they can go anyway they want to, they can require inspection of any suspicious site and that anything they discover can be dismantled, they won';t be interfered with or harassed. Now whether you do that by means of a further resolution, which is obviously one way of going, and also whether and indeed it';s desirable to put some kind of sanction on Iraq if it doesn';t fully comply, these are matters that I believe the world community has to discuss, the United Nations has a responsibility. From Australia';s point of view we welcome the fact that Iraq has shown some indication of listening to world opinion but it';s only the very start of a very long journey and I think the world will be making a huge mistake if it thought the problem had been solved merely as a result of the letter sent by the Iraqi foreign minister to the United Nations.
CORDEAUX:
Would you agree that the United Nations would have absolutely no credibility at all if this thing had been allowed to drag on?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I think the United Nations'; credibility would have been very severely damaged if it had been allowed to drag on. But it';s only come to where we are now as a result of the action, let';s face it and be blunt about it, the action of the United States.
CORDEAUX:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
And people have been quick to criticise the United States but it';s the Americans who have in effect reactivated the interests of the United Nations in this issue. There wasn';t a great deal happening on the United Nations front until the Americans reactivated it.
CORDEAUX:
The Americans really, though, want a change of regime. I don't know whether the weapons inspection will be enough for them. And that's a view, if I listen to the people who ring this programme people are very uneasy about the idea that even if you've got a bad regime - and there are enough of them around, I mean, the mind goes to Zimbabwe or North Korea - what worries my listeners, or what seems to worry them is…
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the regime, bad though the regime is in Zimbabwe, the regime in Iraq is much worse. But that's to say…I mean, I';m not defending Zimbabwe, I'd be the last to do that but it is a particularly bad regime. If you want our opinion on regime change would be, the prime objective is getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction. That is to us the prime objective. I don't like the regime. If it were to change I'd be very happy and the Iraqi people would be better off but the main game has to be absolute assurance that those weapons of mass destruction have been found and dismantled and rendered completely inoperable. Now, if that results in a regime change, all the better, but a regime change on its own separately and apart from the dismantling of the weapons of mass destruction is not as important as the dismantling of the weapons. That's our view.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, would you take calls.
PRIME MINISTER:
Certainly.
CORDEAUX:
Hello, George.
CALLER:
Yes, good morning, Prime Minister and good morning, Jeremy.
CORDEAUX:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I would like to make the comment, who said the United States is the world's policeman and if they are the world's policeman why don't they get the Russians out of Chechyna, the Chinese out of Tibet? I must compliment Mr Ruddock for everything he's done, [inaudible] sending them to El Alamein, which I believe still should be kept as a training base for the Australian military. I remember the problems that you kept bringing up that people who wanted to physically go in and inspect the Woomera site and…
CORDEAUX:
George, can I get you to ask a question. What is the question you'd like to put to the Prime Minister?
CALLER:
I'd like to ask the Prime Minister what actually gives the Americans the right to physically want to go it alone and push the barrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think what the Americans are trying to do at the moment is not that. What the Americans are endeavouring to do is to encourage and involve the United Nations in dealing with a potential threat to certainly the stability of the region in which Iraq is located and given the potency of terrorist attacks, revealed by the 11th of September last year, rid the world of the possibility that those kind of attacks should occur in the future. I don't think the Americans are seeking to be the world's policeman. That is a label that is given to America by some of Her critics. But bear in mind that Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people, against the Iranians, it did invade Kuwait, it was expelled from Kuwait. And what the 11th of September demonstrated is a level of vulnerability of free societies to terrorist attacks that nobody before those events imagined was likely. I think we have to keep constantly in mind that we are all now a lot more vulnerable than previously and if we leave potential threats unaddressed we might be condemned to explaining to the children of the next group of victims why we were so inattentive.
CORDEAUX:
It's funny how Osama Bin Laden's name hasn't appeared for a long time. It's almost as though he's dropped off the radar screen for some reason.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I suppose you could say that but the important thing is not whether he's dead or alive, or whether he gets mentioned, it's whether the terrorist movement that he heads has been effectively dealt with. The Americans and Her allies, including Australia, have made a lot of progress but the problem is by no means solved, it's a very hard thing to fight. And I can understand why people, after a while, start to get a bit weary. It's now more than a year and people say, oh well, we keep hearing about the war against terror but nothing much has happened over the last year, let's sort of go a bit easy and forget about it, the problem's probably being solved. It's not quite like that. And what those events displayed is unfortunately - and it gives me no joy to say it - that we are all a lot more vulnerable and vulnerable in a way that I don't think any of us ever imagined before those events happened.
CORDEAUX:
Well if our complacency hasn't been shaken by the events of the last year, well, we're so soundly asleep it's amazing. Do you still think that there is going to be the need to send Australian troops, if called upon, to Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hope not. I don't want that to occur.
CORDEAUX:
It would be only a token really, wouldn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me, without being specific about something which is entirely hypothetical, entirely hypothetical, I will never commit Australian forces beyond the capacity of this country given its other responsibilities and obligations. So we're not talking about, either in this or any other potential situation, a position where our total military capacity is committed. It's not that type of situation. And I see references to that from time to time, well, they are an exaggeration of all the likely calls that could be made upon Australian forces in the years ahead. But as far as Iraq is concerned, we want to see it resolved diplomatically. We don't want military force used if it can be at all avoided but the only way you can avoid it is you've got to have an arrangement whereby there is a fair dinkum return of the inspectors and dismantling of weapons and they are allowed to go free without lead or hindrance and to do whatever they think necessary to satisfy themselves and have the clout and the support of the world community to enforce their decisions. Now, unless you have that we're just going through empty gestures. I mean, does anybody seriously believe, given the record of Saddam Hussein, that he's not presently engaged in seeing, in a sense, what he can get away with.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, another call. Hello, Rachel.
CALLER:
Hello. I'd just like to ask the Prime Minister that before he commits our sons to any war overseas I hope he'll include his own.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have been asked that question before and I've answered it by saying that if we're ever involved in a conflict that requires general military service I would expect my sons to be treated like every other son.
CORDEAUX:
Hello, Donna.
CALLER:
Hello, good morning, good morning, Mr Prime Minister. As a mother and as a citizen of this country I really want to ask you as the Prime Minister and as a politician, and as a person that I actually voted for in the last election, to stop blindly supporting American aggression against innocent people of Iraq. I think there is no discretion. There seems to be from your side and from the side of the Foreign Minister that it's a foregone conclusion. People of Australia have no say in actually what happens in the end the person before me said, if anything happens then you'll definitely have to send your son there to prove your point.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as far as they involvement of the Australian public is concerned, there's plenty of opportunity for the Australian public to be involved. You just had the opportunity, yourself, of putting your point of view very directly to me. We are not blindly supporting America. We do not seek to hurt the people of Iraq, in fact, we have a lot of sympathy with the people of Iraq. But I ask you to contemplate the possible outcome of the world doing nothing and let us assume you do absolutely nothing and in a few years time some of these weapons are used firstly against neighbouring countries in the Middle East, perhaps a terrorist group gets access to them and carries them by one means or another to the western country and they're let loose there into the cooling system of a large building, for example, in relation to nerve gas. They're the sort of possibilities that arise when you know that you're dealing with people who are demonstrated to have a very aggressive view and demonstrated a capacity to tolerate and support terrorism in the past. Now, you're not dealing with an ordinary regime. Now, you may say, well look, we'll take the risk on that. I don't take that view but I would hope that we could contain the risk and deal with the threat in a way that doesn';t involve military conflict. And if in fact we can have a completely effective and enforceable inspection followed by dismantling and some kind of sanction if that doesn';t occur, then I think we are in a position to say that that is an alternative, and I would hope that that occurs. And that is what we are seeking, that is what the Americans are seeking, and that is what many others are seeking.
CORDEAUX:
I think what a lot of people don';t understand is that the Americans have been talking tough and if the American';s hadn';t of talked as tough as they did, we wouldn';t have the situation today which hopefully is the breakthrough that the world has been looking for.
PRIME MINISTER:
There is no doubt about that. It';s very easy to blame the Americans but if they had not got the thing on the agenda, if they had not put the acid on the United Nations, we wouldn';t be where we are now.
CORDEAUX:
Marguerite.
CALLER:
Good morning. And the Prime Minister put the nail on the head – if the USA hadn';t made a fuss in the first place, none of it would have happened. But I really rang to say people like the Prime Minister and Mr Bush are forgetting that the USA gave Iraq the knowledge on how to make these weapons of mass destruction to knock out Iran during the Iraqi and Iranian war, and now they want this jolly stuff back. And Israel has got a thousand tonnes more and why isn';t the [inaudible] going in there? It';s all sort of just [inaudible] on one tiny little… they';ve all got despotic leaders and you';re just focusing on one. And that';s why people really don';t give a hoot for any of it because they just know it';s George Bush following his Daddy';s orders. I mean let';s face it, it seems to be world knowledge because I listen to the ABC from the BBC every night and you know, old George Bush senior seems to be ruling the roost.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t believe that';s the case but I mean I don';t think I';ll persuade you on that particular point. I do take issue with you in comparing the regime in Iraq with the Government of Israel. Israel is a democracy. Whatever may be said about Israel, Israel has elections, Israel has courts, Israel has a vigorous free press where the Government of Israel is regularly criticised and people aren';t executed as a result of that, and the people of Israel are not executed as a result of that. I don';t think Israel is perfect and I think some of their behaviour has been counterproductive but remember that the great peace offer that was made in the Middle East was made by the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who offered the Palestinians 90% of what they wanted. He offered them the shared capital arrangement if you like in Jerusalem. He went far beyond what any other Israeli Prime Minister had dared go, and that was knocked back by Arafat. That is one of the great tragedies. It was a lost opportunity and sadly it will be years and much bloodshed before some further offer is made because by failing to get Arafat to accept that, he lost control of the Israeli Government to somebody who had a more hardline view. And that was through the normal democratic process. So with all its faults, it has to be said that Israel is a democracy and I think the comparison between Iraq and Israel is quite unfair and inaccurate.
CORDEAUX:
The Prime Minister is my special guest. It';s seven minutes to ten. Hello Jason.
CALLER:
Good morning Jeremy. Good morning Mr Howard. Mr Howard, I';d just like to complain about health insurance premiums being indexed to CPI. I';m someone whose wages aren';t linked to the CPI and I just find it';s getting unaffordable.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it would be a lot less affordable if you didn';t have the 30% tax subsidy that the Government provides and the Labor Party voted against. I';ll open my answer by saying that. I don';t know what arrangements [inaudible] – you don';t get any wage adjustments?
CALLER:
No. I';m on Workcover from the Northern Territory. I get 75% of what I used to earn. I get a $50 a year pay rise.
PRIME MINISTER:
But isn';t that 75% - it';s 75% of what you used to earn, yeah I see. And you get $50… well I accept what you';re saying. Well the arrangement that we';ve entered into – we accept that from time to time some rises are justified and we';ve taken the view that in order to maintain the overall viability of the funds, allowing adjustments that are no more than cost of living are reasonable, and then any adjustments over and above that they will need to justify. I think that will actually result in premium increases being less than they might otherwise have been.
CORDEAUX:
Thanks Jason. Prime Minister I don';t know if you saw the Australian Story this week – Philip Ruddock and his family? Did you see it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I did.
CORDEAUX:
What did you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought they all came across as very likeable, intelligent people. I thought it was a very nice story. I thought they handled it with great aplomb and sensitivity.
CORDEAUX:
What we don';t think about in I guess the court of public opinion always is that within a family you may have very strong opinions and very great differences. What must go on in terms of debate around even your kitchen table from time to time is possibly not, you know, total agreement and unity.
PRIME MINISTER:
It would be a very odd family if you agreed on everything.
CORDEAUX:
I suppose so.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know of one family that would fit that bill. The world would be pretty dull if it were like that. And you just inevitably do have differences of opinion. The measure of the maturity of a relationship between parents and adult children is to have those differences of view but still retain the intense affection that you ought to have for one another. And that clearly is the case in the Ruddock family and full marks to Philip and Heather for that.
CORDEAUX:
Well his daughter';s left the country because she disagrees so strongly (inaudible) story yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think she was going anyway (inaudible) one of the glosses that you put on it. I didn';t quite hear her saying that.
CORDEAUX:
Well Philip Ruddock enjoys great support on this programme and from my listeners I know that. Gareth Evans'; daughter was saying something about how she, in the paper yesterday, how she disagreed with some of the things that he did. I just wonder whether or not the children of the Prime Minister ever take the Prime Minister to one side and say now listen your policy on such and such and such and such, we want to talk to you about that, does that ever happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me answer that question a general way by saying we don';t agree on everything but the question of whether they agree or disagree with me on individual things is a matter for them to talk about, not me, they';re adults and I have found that I';ve retained a very close relationship with my children now that they';re adults by treating them as adults and not presuming to speak on their behalf.
CORDEAUX:
Barry Maley, the Centre for Independent Studies, was on the show the other day and he was talking about paid maternity leave not being the answer to the fertility and population problems. He believes that we should go back to what happened 40 years ago which was basically giving people a tax break for every child and he recommends a $4,000 a year tax break for each child and he reckons that would be a much better incentive going forward. Have you looked at any of this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no I';ve heard Barry';s ideas on this and I know he';s released something quite recently which has actually nominated a figure of $4,000. I understand what Barry has in mind is the abolition of all of the existing tax breaks and the replacement of them with a uniform $4,000 cash rebate or payment to everybody in relation to each child and then they can do what they want with that, they can spend it on childcare, they can spend it on subsidising one mother or father withdrawing wholly or partly from the workforce, whatever they like. We will examine the feasibility of that as part of the overall review of work/family policies that we';re conducting. I';m not ruling it out, my instinct is that it';s not quite as simple and not quite as readily neutral as Barry';s suggesting. But I am quite happy to examine that proposal and I should point out that we do have tax breaks now for children, the family tax benefits are quite generous tax breaks for children, this idea implicit in some of things he said that we abolish tax deduction or tax breaks for children and replace them with welfare payments is not right, we do have tax breaks, that';s what the family tax benefit is, people can take it on a fortnightly basis or they can take it at the end of the year as part of their tax returns. But we have quite generous tax breaks for children. We';ve done a lot already and we';d like to do more if we could afford it. Paid maternity leave is not the answer to the fertility decline, that just can';t be substantiated by any research. But I';m not ruling out paid maternity leave of some type as part of an overall range of policies but it';s not the answer to fertility falling and we';re not going to force businesses to make it available against their will, they're the sort of fences we draw around our consideration of it.
CORDEAUX:
Right I';ve got just 60 seconds before the 10 o';clock news, just let me ask you quickly about the stem cell debate. Do you think that you can get that through?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s gone through the House of Representatives, the second reading, I don';t believe it will be substantially amended in the House of Representatives, if at all.
CORDEAUX:
What about the Senate.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the result there will be more narrow but my information is it will still get through.
CORDEAUX:
The Professor Trounson situation must have been very, well distracting?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think he was careless in what he said, I';m not saying he set out to be deliberately misleading but he certainly did mislead some people and (inaudible) but it hasn';t altered the substance of the debate and there';s quite strong support for the second reading of the main (inaudible) and that';s an indication I believe of what the ultimate outcome will be.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister again thank you for your valuable time, great to talk with you and have a good day.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]