Subject:
Water, Hizb ut-Tahrir, David Hicks, Iraq, workplace reform, economic management
E&OE...
LAWS:
Joining me in the studio for my first interview of the year, as I said appropriately, our Prime Minister John Howard. Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John.
LAWS:
It's very nice to see you and I hope you enjoyed the short break; I had a longer one than you so my IQ's even lower. I hope you enjoyed it.
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't be game to say that.
LAWS:
Why did you leave it until last week to put a bomb, as you put it, under the process of ensuring water security?
PRIME MINISTER:
The plan that I announced last week has been in preparation for the best part of two months and it took a while to get it together. I've been thinking for quite some time that we needed to get national control of the Murray-Darling Basin. I reasoned that there would need to be a very big Commonwealth investment in the infrastructure. We also needed to address the big problem of over-allocation. And one of the really significant parts of this promise is $3 billion.
LAWS:
Yeah, a lot of money.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a lot of money, to deal with structural adjustment and over-allocation, bearing in mind that the over-allocation occurred under the surveillance of the states. I mean, they made the allocations and what we're saying to the states is that if you agree to this plan, we will pick up the entire cost of a problem you created.
LAWS:
Well you say that you have been working on it three months...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, two months.
LAWS:
You've been there a lot of years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I realise that but I, by instinct and by nature, I wanted to try collaboration.
LAWS:
Do you think it's a matter that has been neglected by all governments, state and federal?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well certainly there has been a lot of neglect of this issue over the years, but people have tried to persevere with the Murray-Darling Basin. I mean, my plan I announced last week deals with 70 per cent of the water that is consumed in Australia. We hear a lot of talk from the Premiers about what's in it for the cities, and I will come back to that in a moment, but 70 per cent of the water consumed in Australia is consumed by agriculture and the great bulk of that consumption occurs in the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan that I announced last week deals with that issue. I should make it clear for the benefit of the Premier of Western Australia, who I noticed last night on television, was saying there's nothing in it for Western Australia; he's wrong, there is, because the infrastructure investment is as available to irrigation systems in his state as it is in other states. It's just that the great bulk of the irrigation is in the Murray-Darling Basin, but there will be fair treatment of people in Western Australia as well.
LAWS:
Okay, but given the fact that 70 per cent of the water is consumed in rural areas, is that one of the reasons it's been neglected because it hasn't affected the loud squealers in the city and the eastern seaboard in particular?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that's part of the reason. I think the greater part of the reason is that historically the states have controlled all of these things. States issue water licences, states control property rights. The Commonwealth has very little direct constitutional power in relation to these things and we have all rather hoped that the pretty unwieldy, ad hoc arrangements concerning the Murray-Darling Basin might work, but plainly they don't. I mean this morning you turn on the radio and in a sense my case is made; I hear the states saying different things about water recycling. I heard Mr Beattie and Mr Iemma both say well our situation is different from the other. Exactly. That is my point with the Murray-Darling Basin.
LAWS:
Do you approve of what Mr Beattie has done?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do. I have advocated recycling for a long time. I agree with Mr Beattie. I disagree with Mr Iemma and Mr Rann.
LAWS:
Well Mr Iemma won't do it until the state election is out of the way.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he'll do it; if he wins he'll do it. If he loses, Mr Debnam will do it.
LAWS:
Do you think he will?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hope he does. He should and he's said he will. But I am very strongly in favour of recycling and Mr Beattie is right, and I agree with him completely.
LAWS:
Do you expect the states to kind of roll over completely and surrender this individual control of that Murray-Darling Basin?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would hope that they would see the logic and reason of this proposal. I don't like using expressions like roll over and surrender abjectly. And I am trying, in a respectful, logical fashion, to reach an agreement. I will write to the states this week proposing in detail the changes I want concerning the management, reaffirming the $10 billion and making it plain that the two things are conditional on the other. We will make this investment. We will do these things if we can be certain that we can make it happen. And it stands to reason, when you look at the map, those rivers run across the borders, the Great Artesian Basin lies underneath the borders. Those lines on the map mean nothing, and we have to think as Australians, and not as Queenslanders or New South Welshmen, or Victorians.
LAWS:
Exactly.
PRIME MINISTER:
And this will be my pitch. I believe the great majority of Australians support what we are trying to do, but the rubber will hit the road when the decision has to be made and we really have to understand that the two things are conditional. This is a very big infrastructure investment, $10 billion.
LAWS:
Maybe one of the biggest ever?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is. I mean this is for real; this is about piping and lining the major irrigation systems of Australia. It's about helping people on their own farms, providing they make a contribution, to reduce wastage and evaporation on the farm. It's about tackling problems such as the evaporation in the Menindee Lakes and the Barmah Choke where in the system if you can remove, in effect, what is a blockage and provide for a more free flowing of the river, you will improve the whole environmental flow.
LAWS:
To stop evaporation in the Menindee Lakes, that has got to be one of the biggest calls ever. How are you going to do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I won't try and...
LAWS:
I'll ask Malcolm.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I won't try. Well I don't think even he'll; he'll have a go.
LAWS:
He will.
PRIME MINISTER:
He'll have a go, but whether, you know, you've always got to be careful in these things to leave some things to the experts and that applies to both of us.
LAWS:
Well that's probably very true, but you've got the right man for the job. I mean he hit the ground running didn't he?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's very interested in this issue and I said a year ago that I would give him and Andrew Robb a run in the paddock as parliamentary secretaries and they have both done a very good job, and that is why I have promoted them.
LAWS:
Okay, can we just move on...
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
LAWS:
To the fact that we have a group here in Australia, Sydney, this Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seem to be an outrageous group of people who say outrageous things, and yet we've done nothing to endeavour to have them stopped?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they are being monitored by the authorities.
LAWS:
But that costs a lot of money. Why don't we just stop them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because there are laws and rules to be applied. You don't want a situation where because we don't like somebody we put them in jail or throw them out, I mean we do have a rule of law.
LAWS:
Yeah, but if they talk about jihad and killing people, and they're talking about that in our own country and they...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is, the latest offering, if I can put it that way, is being examined. And what I can assure your listeners is this: that if they break the present anti-terrorist laws, or indeed any other laws, then they will be dealt with. But until there is sufficient evidence of that made available to the Attorney-General, we can't and shouldn't act. Because there is often a thin line between stupid extravagant language and language which is deliberately designed to incite violence or to bring about violence or to threaten the security of the country. And people can say a lot of ridiculous things and they should be able to say ridiculous things in a democracy...
LAWS:
Sure.
PRIME MINISTER:
Without that language constituting violence and extreme incitements to violence.
LAWS:
Well if other countries have banned them and in fact prosecuted them, why don't we look to those other countries for advice because you say...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not ruling that out, but I am being asked as of now, on the 29th of January, why haven't we banned this organisation and the advice I have from the Attorney-General, who is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to dealing with terrorist threats...
LAWS:
I agree with that.
PRIME MINISTER:
And he's a toughie when it comes to dealing with bleeding hearts and politically correct people who think you should allow anything to happen in the community in the name of free speech, he doesn't take that view. But his advice and his assessment at the present time is that the current law has not been broken. Kevin Andrews has said that, as the incoming Immigration Minister, he will have a look at the status of the bloke who was allowed into the country, who's involved in this organisation. And if there are circumstances requiring a different approach, if fresh evidence based on an assessment of what was said yesterday emerges, then action will be taken. But you have to apply the existing law on the basis of advice, and the existing law on the basis of advice does not at this stage, so I am told as at the 29th of January, warrant a ban.
LAWS:
Okay, but if we have Phillip Ruddock, who as you say, knows his job and knows it well, saying that these people, however, will be monitored, obviously to monitor these people is going to be a very costly thing?
PRIME MINISTER:
But John, the best weapon against terrorism and organisations that act against the interests of Australia are to monitor them because only by monitoring them can you gather the evidence to persuade the courts to do something about them. Unless you monitor an organisation, you have no hope of ever convicting people if they break the law. We monitored those people who are alleged to have broken the law and who are before the courts, who were arrested at the end of the year before last. They were monitored for months by ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. It cost an absolute fortune, but the best protection against terrorism is intelligence and police and ASIO monitoring. That is why we have more than doubled the money that we are giving to ASIO and the Federal Police.
LAWS:
You still have to wonder when you hear a man talking of Australia being prepared for jihad and the Muslims in this country having to be prepared to kill others who don't agree with what they are doing. To me that sounds, you know, pretty tough.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's worse than that. The average person says that's outrageous, it's unacceptable. And whether the accumulation of things represents grounds for taking action is a work in progress, it could. But all I can say is at the moment, according to the best advice he has, the Attorney-General is saying we can't ban the organisation, but that may change.
LAWS:
Okay, could you take a call or two?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes sure.
LAWS:
Alright you better be quick, call us on 131332, the Prime Minister is with me and if you would like to have an opportunity to talk to him, and let me tell you there aren't too many Prime Ministers who give you the opportunity to talk to them, but I suggest you pick up the telephone and dial 131332, you could do it now. 131332 is that number to dial. I noticed that Joe Hockey had a win with the Tristar payout to Mr Beaven who has now passed on, but that was all too late, nice timing for Mr Hockey, but the workers have been in Canberra in November and were very quickly brushed off.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that's not quite right, they were in fact in the gallery of the House of Representatives when I gave a fairly detailed answer in relation to the status of this company. I don't think it's quite fair to say that they were brushed off.
LAWS:
Well they didn't achieve anything?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well maybe that was because of the nature of the industrial agreement and bear in mind it was an agreement entered into before WorkChoices came into operation, but what has been achieved in relation to this man who unfortunately has died is a fair outcome, and as to the rest of it, then there are, as I understand it, ongoing discussions and it does seem to me a very odd circumstance that the company is paying them to come in and do nothing. That is an odd circumstance to say the least.
LAWS:
Kevin Andrews really did precious little. Joe Hockey was the man who seemed to grab it by the horns.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to draw comparisons between the two.
LAWS:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because they are both good friends and good colleagues of mine and they each have special talents and I am not preferring the one to the other. In general terms, I think Kevin was the right person to get the legislation through, he was the right person to understand its legal complexity and to argue the case, and he did it very well and it did after all survive a High Court challenge from all the state Labor governments. But now that that's been completed we need the other particular skills of Joe Hockey to deal with the public debate about the legislation and Joe will be extremely effective in explaining the great benefits to workers of this legislation. We're reminding people that since it came into operation, we've had more than 200,000 new jobs created, we've had the lowest level of industrial disputes ever recorded and real wages have continued to rise and we start 2007 with the lowest unemployment in 30 years. So the world has hardly fallen in Chicken Little-like as the Labor Party and the unions suggested.
LAWS:
I know it has hardly done that, I agree with that, but that was a very tragic circumstance with that man dying and it did take a couple of months, it shouldn't really.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's true that the company behaved very badly, but John no industrial law will force people to do what you and I understand to be the right thing if they are not minded to do so because in the nature of things a voluntary redundancy is a voluntary redundancy. Now what happened was they called, as I understand it, they called for people to express interest in voluntary redundancies and when they knew the man's health position, they refused to give him one which was extraordinary but within the law, but, incidentally, what the law has been for decades. I mean this wasn't the law created by our new legislation, not even the unions tried to allege that. I mean they, in the end, were sort of jumping in, trying to put the boot in, they vaguely suggested it, but the truth is that the same thing could have happened under Mr Keating or Mr Hawke's industrial laws.
LAWS:
Sure but why don't you change it so it doesn't happen again?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, but how can you write a law that says a company must do the right thing?
LAWS:
Well, couldn't you specify the circumstances giving the example of the man who died?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there could be another case and you would have to couch the law in such very general terms as to allow for every combination and permutation.
LAWS:
Well couldn't you simply say that if a man has to leave because of ill health that he must be cared for?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well many people would argue that there are already provisions in the law that provide for sick leave, they provide for...
LAWS:
Yes but not certainly (inaudible)...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I mean look, it will cause us to look at the law, but I just want to signal that it's not the easiest thing in the world...
LAWS:
I understand that.
PRIME MINISTER:
...to write a generic new rule that will cover every conceivable situation, that's all.
LAWS:
Kevin who is in Chatswood would like to talk to you Prime Minister, Kevin go ahead.
CALLER:
Yeah g'day John, how are you going mate?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am very well Kevin.
CALLER:
That's good. Just a question in regards to immigration. Like all people who emigrate to Australia you obviously get like a, what I'd call a probation period before you become a full time resident.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
For non-speaking people who are emigrating to Australia...
PRIME MINISTER:
Non-English speaking?
CALLER:
Yeah non-English speaking, how about once their time comes up for review of permanent residency, they have to do an English test?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, we are looking at that, we are having a look at that, but...
CALLER:
And what will that entail, that test?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well any English test has got to be reasonable, I mean we are certainly going to have one for citizenship, it's got to be reasonable. We don't want to stop people who can't speak English when they first come here.
CALLER:
No, that's right.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we would lose, I mean there are a legion examples; people like Arvi Parbo, and Frank Lowy and all those people, I mean you can't do that.
LAWS:
No of course.
PRIME MINISTER:
And we'd be mugs if we did that. But what we are really saying is after you've been here for a certain period of time you should be able to speak English, now I think that's reasonable and 80 per cent of the community agrees with it.
LAWS:
Happy Kevin?
CALLER:
Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you.
LAWS:
Okay, Kevin's happy, one happy one out there. Incidentally Prime Minister, the story today is that a third of overseas uni students can't speak English.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I've read that. Well it's worse than that according to the research, it is a third when they have completed their courses. I will be getting some advice from the Vice-Chancellors and will be getting some advice from my Education Minister as to how accurate they and she believe the research to be. Bob Birrell is a very good researcher, he's got quite a reputation when it comes to immigration and demography, but I would like to look below the headline of that research before saying other than, that on the face of it, it's concerning.
LAWS:
Very concerning I would have thought. Is there going to be another interest rate rise this year?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a matter for the Reserve Bank. Expressing a view as an interested observer, let me say that the inflation figure last week was good news but whether ultimately it means there will be no interest rate rise this year, it's too early to say but I tell you what, it's the best possible start...
LAWS:
To the year.
PRIME MINISTER:
...to the year, in relation to interest rates, the best possible start. It really is because the main determinant of whether the Bank lets interest rates is whether inflation is on the way up or on the way down or is level. Now the indication from last week's figure was that inflation was on the way down. Now it's a very good start to the year to say inflation is going down and we have a 30 year low in unemployment. That's not a bad start economically to 2007.
LAWS:
Okay Shane in Paddington, are you there Shane?
CALLER:
Yes.
LAWS:
Okay the Prime Minister is here.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Shane.
CALLER:
Yes look I am interested in the Hicks case, just one of a number of things. You were very quick on television in that news conference just after Saddam was hung talking about due process being followed and you are talking today about banning this, what, Muslim group, due process will have to be followed again, legal process, necessity of breaking the law and then nothing has been done about an Australian citizen held under very, very questionable circumstances. And all of a sudden you say something in the last three weeks that you've sent an ultimatum to Mr Bush, I find that very hypocritical and inconsistent.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well a couple of observations, Shane. Firstly, that when people go overseas whether they are Australian citizens or not, the protection of the Australian law does not automatically follow them.
CALLER:
No but there is a thing in the passport that says something about the Australian citizens, you know fair conduct and so on, and all of that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no, no, let me repeat; the point is that if you go to another country and you commit an offence, or you are alleged to have committed an offence...
CALLER:
Alleged yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
...you have no right of automatic repatriation to Australia to have that offence, or alleged offence dealt with here.
CALLER:
I am aware of that.
LAWS:
But couldn't you have done it any way, Tony Blair did it.
CALLER:
That's what I was...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well I understand that. We took a different view from Tony Blair, we took the view that somebody who was charged with the offences that Hicks was charged with, knowing as we did that he could not be charged with any offence under Australian law because they were not crimes under Australian law when he allegedly committed them, we took the view that it was reasonable that he face a judicial...a military commission in the United States suitably amended to satisfy us that he would get a fair trial. Now that was the view we took at the time Blair asked for the repatriation of the British. Now then, of course, there was an appeal.
CALLER:
Excuse me Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well could you, I did listen courteously Shane to your view.
CALLER:
I am listening courteously to you...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to answer, you've, you know, as is your right you've used some criticism and I am just trying to reply. There was the delay of some 22 months because of the appeal against the whole process and the original charges against Hicks fell away because the American Supreme Court said there had to be another military commission. Now a new military commission has been established and we've indicated to the Americans that we want him charged by the middle of February and I've indicated that and we'll see whether that timeline is met. I am not happy at the time that's gone by, I do not accept that he can be held indefinitely without trial whatever view I may have about the alleged offences with which he's charged.
LAWS:
Now I think Shane is probably concerned of the period of time, I mean, he's been there five years. Is that what you're talking about Shane?
CALLER:
Am I allowed to speak now?
LAWS:
Yes, go ahead.
CALLER:
I'm certainly concerned about that fact and Australia Day has just passed and we're supposed to be...at certain occasions we talk about proud to be Australians, that we've got to respect the country and all this and other countries like Pakistan and Britain got their citizens back and the Prime Minister's again explained that in that convoluted way. I'll just take it up to now five years and here we go again and now they're allowing this sort of evidence from coercion and other things are going to be admitted in the case which wouldn't be accepted here. We seem to do anything the Americans say, I wish we could be like Finland or Switzerland or other small countries who stand up independently, not like slavishly following America here as we always do under this government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's your view and I don't think anything I say will alter it, but there are a lot of Australians who think a close and strong alliance between Australia and the United States will be as important to our future security as it proved to be critically in the past.
CALLER:
But not sacrificing Australians?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think we're sacrificing Australians, I think what we are doing is trying to strike a very difficult balance between on the one hand our detestation of the alleged offences and also our proper desire to ensure that nobody is held indefinitely without trial. And I don't disagree with you on that I but I hope all the people listening to this exchange realise that one of the charges against Mr Hicks is that in the full knowledge of what happened on the 11th of September he rejoined the Taliban, in full knowledge of that, and there are a lot of Australians who feel very, very deeply that somebody like that should in some way have those allegations tested against him and unfortunately they cannot be tested against him in an Australian court.
CALLER:
No, so we do it somewhere else for the Americans. Right.
LAWS:
Ok, but what the Prime Minister's saying is reasonable. I mean, if after September 11 the fella decided he wanted to go back to the Taliban, he's either dangerous or he's a fool or he's both.
CALLER:
He could well be, yes. I don't think that really is the point and a lot of other people, legal and sort of social and, make comments, overseas and here and sort of as an Australian I feel quite ashamed of the Government.
LAWS:
I can understand that Shane and I thank you for the call, I hope you're satisfied with the result of it. But I do think as I say, if the fellow decided after September 11 that he wanted to go back to the Taliban again he's either an idiot or he's a dangerous individual, one or the other. I don't think that you should be jailed for being an idiot, however. Prime Minister, I think that a lot of people would be and are, critical of the fact that we have appeared to slavishly follow the United States as far as Iraq is concerned.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I know a lot of people are critical, but we took a decision in good faith three years ago based on a belief about weapons of mass destruction, a belief that was shared by Mr Rudd and Mr Beazley. Mr Rudd, in fact, said three years ago that it was in empirical fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and he wasn't just relying on intelligence, he invited people to look at the scientific evidence. So the debate three years ago was not about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was what you did about it and the Labor Party argued we should get another Untied Nations' resolution and we argued that the resolutions that existed at the time were enough. But anyway, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction, we also took the decision in part because of our alliance with the United States and I have to now deal with a decision, do we rat on the Americans, do we walk out? Do we say to the Americans it's got all too hard and too difficult? And if anybody thinks that that wouldn't do damage to the alliance they're kidding themselves.
LAWS:
It would.
PRIME MINISTER:
You stick by your friends when they're going through difficulties.
LAWS:
Even when they're wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if they're wrong, we're wrong.
LAWS:
So is that a possibility?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think it was wrong to try and get rid of Saddam Hussein, I don't think it was wrong if you genuinely believed there were weapons of mass destruction and there was a shared belief within the western community, even the French accepted there were weapons of mass destruction but they had other reasons for not joining the coalition operation. But if we give up, if we pull our troops out now then the Americans and the British should do the same and if the West pulls out of Iraq the terrorists win. If the terrorists win the Middle East is plunged into greater chaos and you have a huge fillip, a huge boost to the morale of terrorism in our own part of the world and I think that will be very, very bad for Australia. So that is why I don't intend to walk out on the Americans. That is why until we are reasonably satisfied that the Iraqis can look after themselves and deal with their security situation over the years ahead I think the coalition should stay.
LAWS:
But do you really believe that that will ever be the case? Do you believe that there could be democracy?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am absolutely certain that if the coalition were to leave in the near future there would no hope for a democracy in Iraq.
LAWS:
But do you believe if the coalition stayed that there would be democracy?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there's a reasonable prospect of it, yes.
LAWS:
Do you really?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do. Just bear in mind they have on three occasions, through the most fearful, violent, physical intimidation, millions of them have participated in elections on three occasions. We take it for granted, we go off to the polling booth and the worst that happened in Australia is that there's some argument between a couple of Labor and Liberal Party people handing out how to vote cards at a polling booth. That's the sum of violence in Australia.
LAWS:
But do you believe that you're ever going to get that violent attitude out of extreme groups?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I think some extreme groups will remain violent for decades to come, but there are plenty of countries around the world that are regarded as democratic that have outbreaks of violence. I mean, there have been bomb attacks on a fairly regular basis in Spain and Greece over the last 20 or 30 years, but does anybody seriously suggest that those countries aren't fundamentally democratic? South Africa is a far more violent country in many respects now than it was prior to 1994, but do people argue it's not democratic?
LAWS:
No, well, parts of it are.
PRIME MINISTER:
Parts of it are very much more violent, parts of it are less violent, but the point I'm making...
LAWS:
I mean parts of it aren't democratic.