Thank you very much Spencer; to the Leader of the State Opposition; to Bob Quinn the leader of the Queensland Parliamentary Liberal Party; Gary Hardgrave; Margaret May; any other State and Federal parliamentary colleagues that I haven't spotted on the way in; ladies and gentlemen.
As always it's a great pleasure to be in the great city of Brisbane and to have the opportunity as part of what is obviously going to be a very successful partnership between the Queensland Parliamentary Press Gallery and the business community of Brisbane in sponsoring a State-based press forum. It comes, this gathering of course, at a hugely important and pivotal time for Australia given our involvement in the military campaign in Iraq. And not surprisingly I want to devote much of what I intend to say today to the war in Iraq, the background to it, the progress of it and some of the challenges that lie ahead of the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, in particular, but the broader world community in dealing with the aftermath of what is a very important moment in the experience of the world in the period that has followed the end of the Cold War more than 10 years go.
In many respects what we are now witnessing is the working out of the first important challenge to the collective world community since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. And it is also in many respects the first test of how the world reacts to some of the new paradigms established by the onset of international terrorism and the possible interaction of international terrorism with the possession of weapons of mass destruction by rogue States. So it is an event that I believe will be seen historically as being of enormous significance as well as being of enormous immediate moment to those countries involved and not the least of course, indeed the most important of all, that is the people of Iraq.
By any measure the military campaign has been remarkably successful, remarkably successful. That ought to be said very deliberately because in the early days of the operation when it wasn't over in two or three days we had this extraordinary parade of people who were prepared to question in the most fundamental way not only the wisdom of the operation having been undertaken, but the strategic and tactical capacity of people involved at a military level, particularly in the United States. It's now been going for a period of some, what, 20, 21 days. The 1991 Gulf War went for 42 days. The bombing stage of that campaign lasted 37 days. The campaign waged by the NATO countries in support, be it remembered, of the Islamic people of Kosovo against Orthodox Serbia, that campaign lasted for 79 days. And the core stage of the Afghanistan campaign lasted for 37 days.
I know those figures sound very clinical, but we should remind ourselves in this age of sort of instant desire and passion for results and outcomes that it has been going for a remarkably short period of time. And we're not dealing here as we were in the first Gulf War in 1991 with the expulsion of the invading Iraqi forces from Kuwait, we're dealing here with the liberation of an entire country of 26 million people, believed to have at the beginning of the campaign standing military forces of about 350,000 to 375,000. So by any measure it's been a very impressive military campaign, and one hopes naturally, without venturing to put any kind of timeline on it, one naturally hopes in the interests of minimising suffering and saving lives of everybody involved, one hopes that it is concluded as soon as possible.
This campaign has been characterised by a number of things. Thinking particularly that I'm in a news and journalistic environment, two observations to make. Sadly it's been a reminder of the danger to journalists and others connected with the journalistic profession. The dangers that they undertake in reporting for the public a large military, and I know would share the thoughts of many in the journalistic community of the deaths of some of their colleagues in Iraq, and also in particular Paul Moran, the Australian freelance cameraman, who was the victim of a suicide bomber in the early stages of the campaign.
It's also been, of course, the first experience of the embedding - I think that is the expression isn't it - the embedding of journalists in the military forces of the United States and the United Kingdom. It's an interesting innovation, if I could put it that way. Some people have criticised it, others see it as the inevitable consequence of the mass communication days in which we live. I wouldn't be the first person to reflect that the course of the great conflicts of the last century could well have been altered, and could well have been much shorter if there had been journalists embedded in the armed forces of the participants. I doubt that public opinion in great democracies would have allowed, if they had known the full measure and impact of it, the horrendous loss of life that occurred in those tragic battles in World War I in particular, and also in relation to the German-Russian campaign in World War II. But it is a development that is an inevitable consequence of the evolution of immediate, instantaneous, mass communications.
It's also been a conflict in which an unprecedented endeavour has been taken to minimise civilian casualties and non-combatant casualties generally. How successful, it is hard to tell. But certainly for all the criticism and all the vivid depiction of civilian casualties not withstanding there have been unprecedented endeavours undertaken to minimise those casualties. And also the very conduct of the military campaign itself has been designed to minimise, to the maximum extent feasible, the loss of life on both sides. None of that of course can obscure the fact that war is horrible, it causes very large numbers of deaths and injury and maiming of an horrific kind. And nobody lightly commits the armed forces of one's country to such an activity. But of course whenever you are looking at the human suffering involved in a conflict of this kind you have to set against it the scale of human suffering that would certainly have continued in Iraq under such a dreadful regime. And one of the things that will become even more apparent as time goes by is the scale of human rights abuses that have occurred in that country. As the apparatus of intimidation and terror and fear is demolished people will speak spontaneously and volubly of the experience that they have suffered and the losses they have incurred. And that process has already begun, particularly in the southern parts of Iraq which have been liberated by the British forces.
I want to pay a very warm and very strong tribute to the extraordinary professionalism of the Australian forces that have been involved. Our commitment numerically is nowhere near as large as that of the United Kingdom and the United States but it is significant for a country of our size. And as is so often the case Australians are punching above their weight. The quality and professionalism and capacity of our Special Forces is widely known and respected and admired around the world. The contribution that they have made is necessarily circumscribed as far as detail is concerned. Their contribution, that of our Hornets, the naval contribution, the contribution of the naval diving clearance teams, all of it represents a very effective and impressive contribution. It is not a token contribution, it is a real contribution and it's one of which all Australians, whatever their views may be about the wisdom of the Government's decision to commit Australian forces, we can at least come together in admiration and respect at the what our forces have done, what they have achieved and I'm very happy to say that as I speak and I necessarily have to enter that caveat, they are all safe and sound. And it's a contribution that has added to the respect in which Australian Defence Forces are held and regarded around the world. And it's a very important reminder to the rest of the Australian community of the great professionalism of the men and women who are involved in the Armed Forces.
It's always worthwhile at a time like this to remind ourselves of why we committed our military forces. We committed our military forces there because the Government very strongly believed that Iraq did have chemical and biological weapons and did have an aspiration for a nuclear capacity, and that if steps were not taken to disarm Iraq not only would that represent a potential threat, especially to neighbouring countries, but other rogue states would take the view legitimately that they could do the same as Iraq and escape the sanction of the rest of the world as they watched the world do nothing about Iraq. Add to that the dimension of international terrorists seeking to obtain possession of such weapons, and you have a very potent cocktail of misery and threat to the future of many countries, including our own. Well, that fundamentally is the reason that we became involved. Now, people can argue well, we should have just stepped back and let others do the heavy lifting - it's never really been the Australian way to step back and let others do the heavy lifting alone. Also, our relationship and our alliance with the United States was, and should always be, a factor in major national security decisions that are taken by this Government.
We do live in a different world now than we lived in before the 11th September 2001. We do live in a world where international terrorism can in a random brutal ad hoc fashion claim the lives of Australians in different parts of the world as well as potentially being a threat in this country. And nobody should assume that you can, by calibrating your foreign policy responses, you can win immunity. One's reminded of the old description of feeding the crocodile most in the hope that it would eat you last. The reality is that as a Western nation, we are a target for terrorism. They have a collective detestation of Western nations because of a number of factors. Our open democratic lifestyle, a whole range of considerations flow from that. And if you look at the experience of different countries over the last few years, their citizens have been the victims of terrorism irrespective of foreign policy stances that they have taken. It's worth recalling that the most specific reference that bin Laden has ever made to Australia was to condemn our action in helping the people of East Timor to obtain their independence. And I would propose the wholly rhetorical question - if that warning had been give before we undertook our intervention in East Timor in 1999, do any of you seriously imagine that we should have altered the decision that we took then. Because you can never fashion the foreign policy of your country on the basis of threats, you can only hope to fashion the foreign policy on the basis of an appropriate measure of principle and also of course a hard headed assessment of our medium and longer term national interests.
When the military operation is successfully completed - and I have no doubt that it will be very successfully completed - there will, of course, be the major challenge of the post-war or reconstruction phase. As far as Australian policy is concerned, we have no territorial ambitions of any kind on Iraq. We did not enter this operation to buy trade favour with the United States. We did not enter this operation in order to appropriate expropriate any of the assets of the Iraqi people. We entered this conflict for the reasons that I have outlined. And we will uphold those reasons and act according to those reasons in the months ahead in the post-war phase.
Our aim, and I know it to be the aim of both the Americans and the British, is to return the Government of Iraq to the Iraqi people as soon as that is feasible. The oil of Iraq, if I can cut to the chase because it's the one asset of that country that's most frequently talked about, the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq and we won't be part of any policy that interferes with that. Inevitably, there will need to be an interim period. You can't when you've toppled a dictator, particularly one, whose established such an intricate and terrifying edifice of intimidation, you can't replace that an immediately and spontaneously functioning political administrative structure. You have to get together the building blocks of a new government process. And there has to be an interim period of administration by the power that is there as a result of the toppling of the regime and that is inevitably that of the military forces that are there, and there will be undeniably an interim period of a US-led administration. There's no practical alternative to that. It's really a matter of ordinary logic. But there will be, during that interim period, there will be as both the British Prime Minister and the American President have affirmed after their meeting in Northern Ireland, there will be a very significant important role for the United Nations during that interim period.
The Australian Government thinks that the United Nations didn't do as well as it should have in the lead up to the outbreak of the war in Iraq. I think that the United Nations Security Council had a significant failure in not really living up its own rhetoric, that was due to a combination of explanations. It was in part due to the desire of some countries, and I think particularly of France, to use it as an opportunity to secure some kind of strategic diplomatic advantage against the United States in particular, but perhaps also against Britain as well. I still find it puzzling that a body that could have passed 17 resolutions over a period of 12 years requiring Iraq to disarm, couldn't summon the courage, if I could put it that way, to pass an 18th . But it didn't. As it turned out legally we didn't need an 18th resolution. There were already 17 that in different ways provided an adequate basis in international law for the action that was ultimately taken. It was always a non-legal reason, a broader international political reason that encouraged the United States and others on the Security Council to try and get another resolution. But having said that, I nonetheless remain a believer in supporting as much as one can the processes of the United Nations because it is the one body in the world that does bring all of the nations in the world together. But like all other bodies of that kind, it is the sum of its parts, and if the parts are not working together, as they clearly weren't for some of the reasons I've outlined in the lead up to the war in Iraq, then the whole does not behave very effectively. But it has a massive capacity in humanitarian areas, and I believe that there is a very significant, indeed vital role, for the United Nations to play during this interim period.
And it's very important to keep reminding ourselves that at the end of the day, we should keep this in mind all the while, at the end of the day it is returning the government of that country to the people of that country that should be the goal. And the process has already begun. I don't know how many of you may have seen some footage this morning, I forget whether it was on one of the Australian commercial channels or it was a direct feed from BBC, well I don't know, one watches so much at a time like this that you lose track of exactly what the source was. But it was of a British Army officer meeting a locally established council in one of the southern Iraqi cities and he was describing how, for the very first time, this local council had taken a decision in years. It was a simple decision, it was to reopen the schools. And to ask the teachers to come back and resume the process of educating the young people. Of course in the past most of the decisions were taken by Baath party officials. And you could see, even in that brief footage, you could see the sense of the occasion, you actually witnessed the beginning of the transfer of authority if I could put it that way. However fleeting the transfer of authority from the officer of the military power which had won the military conflict to some of the locals.
There will be an interim administration and it will be lead by General Jay Garner of the United State Forces. And there has been established what's called an Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs. And that body has already established a headquarters in Kuwait and it will be progressively built as time goes by. At present Australia has five officers, five staff within that reconstruction office. We have an officer from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which is attached to the Chief of Staff's Office and will be working very closely with General Garner. We have an AusAID officer assisting the humanitarian relief issues. We have a Defence representative assisting with contingency planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq. We have an agricultural expert preparing the way for a larger Australian advisory team, providing analysis of key areas of Iraqi need in the agricultural sector. We have inevitably of course a macroeconomist from the Treasury advising on overall macroeconomic issues as a part of the process of re-establishing a viable Iraqi economy. A petroleum sector expert from the Department of Industry, Trade and Resources will join the body this weekend to help redevelop the Iraqi petroleum industry. And we're considering different ways of making post-conflict contributions to Iraq with a very clear eye to Iraq's long term future, but also to our own national interest in terms of peace and security and of commercial interests, and with a proper regard for our own commitment to the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.
I've taken a moment to mention some of the minutiae of our involvement to underline the fact that having made a military commitment, and having been one of only a very small number of countries to do so, we do take the view that we have a constructive role to play in the post-conflict situation. It's not an acquisitive role, but it is a role that will nonetheless keep an eagle eye to Australia's national interest and the people of this country would expect nothing less from their Government.
But to use that old expression winning the peace can be just as important, if not more important, than winning the war. And having made this commitment and having stared down a lot of international criticism and not a little domestic criticism, which is proper in a great democracy such as ours, the Government has every intention that Australia should play a very constructive role in the post-conflict period.
There are just but two other things I want to mention which go to the medium and longer term situation in the Middle East. It is very important that we not lose sight of the crucial significance of the long running and agonising conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I speak as the leader of a government that has always been an unashamed and unapologetic friend of the State of Israel and the maintenance of the integrity of the State of Israel behind secure, internationally accepted borders has been a cornerstone of the foreign policy of many governments in Australia. And that is unaltered. But side by side with that we recognise the right of the people of Palestine to have their own homeland. And the world has to redouble its efforts to bring about the settlement. There's something I guess symbolic about the fact that the British Prime Minister and the American President should have a meeting in Northern Ireland, because if you can get a measure of tranquility in Northern Ireland then anything is possible. I can't think in my lifetime of a more intractable, insanely tribal fight than that and yet it's taken a long time to get somewhere. But in the case of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel we have to keep trying. It's a tragedy that Ehud Barak's courageous efforts three years ago were not met with a more positive response by the Palestinians. The suicide bombings have got to stop, maybe when the war in Iraq is over one incentive, that is the $25,000 that Saddam Hussein pays every family of a Palestinian suicide bomber, that incentive being removed, that might have some modest impact. A way must be found and the entire world has to work very hard to bring that about. I think there is a growing collective world pressure for that to occur and I'm encouraged by the fact that Yasser Arafat has appointed a Prime Minister to assume a greater responsibility for negotiating on behalf of his people. And we in Australia consistent with the statements of policy I've made, will want to do all we can at an international level to facilitate that process.
And the final thing I want to say is that it's very important that we do not allow any currency to be given to the view that what is being undertaken in Iraq is any way directed against Islam. I mentioned earlier that in 1999 the NATO countries undertook a campaign to help Islamic people of Kosovo. And at that particular time I vividly remember going to a Greek national day celebration in Sydney and I was booed by a section of the crowd because the gathering had spilled over into a pro-Serbian demonstration and there was a religious commonality between the people attending the Greek national celebrations and the people of Serbia and that is their common orthodox faith. And I reflected two days ago how ironic it was and on that occasion I was booed, we weren't involved in the military action, but we'd given public diplomatic support, and I was in effect being booed by people because we had supported the action being taken on behalf of the Muslims of Kosovo. And I said then, and I will say again now, to people who endeavour to depict what we are doing as anti-Islamic, that the decision we took then was without regard to the religion of the people involved, because of the conduct of people involved. And the same thing applies in relation to Iraq. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people, our quarrel is with a very evil and brutal regime, and the sense that it is any way some kind of activity against Islam or Islamic people is one that I totally reject. And I'm very pleased to say that it is a rejection accepted by the President of the largest Islamic country in the world - that's President Megawati of Indonesia. I went to Indonesia several weeks ago, as you know, after my visit to the United States and Britain to talk about amongst other things, Iraq, and to explain the basis of our policy. I was very pleased to note that although the President said she didn't agree with our assessment of what was needed, she fully accepted that in no way was it a campaign against Islam. And that it would be her endeavour amongst other Islamic countries to emphasize that point. Because Islam is one of the great religions of the world. At its heart it abhors violence and brutality in the same way that so many other great religions do and it would be a perversion of what Islam stands for if the view were put abroad with any great currency that the action we have taken is directed against that religion, and directed generically against the people who profess the Islamic faith.
Ladies and gentlemen, I said at the beginning that this has been a very significant decision for the Government, for Australia, a very significant involvement in a conflict that, of course, has not been without peril and danger and is still in no way free from further peril and further danger. But we have become involved for the reasons I have explained, which I think are in our medium and longer term national interest. And I'm encouraged by the signs that there is greater support for that view now within the Australian community. I respect the fact that many still disagree - that is right and proper in a democratic tradition, but I believe history will judge the decision to have been right. But more importantly, the world albeit through the agency of a limited number of countries has taken a stand against not only a regime that was evil and tyrannical in no ordinary way in itself, but also a regime which if it had been allowed to continue down the path it was going would in time by its example and also by its actual behaviour have represented a very significant threat.
And it's on that basis that I rest very strongly and secure the case of Australia's commitment, and I conclude by again saluting the enormous professionalism and skill and courage of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who have acquitted themselves so magnificently over past weeks.
[ends]
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, thank you. As I'm making way over to where my colleagues are, I'd like to ask you the first question. If Saddam Hussein is captured, will you favour him being put on trial in Iraq and facing execution at the end of that trial, or should it be held outside of Iraq? And wouldn't it be more convenient for the coalition if Saddam Hussein perished during the current fighting?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what I have said all along, Spencer, is that I want him brought to justice. I have never been particularly specific about how that should be dispensed. I don't think I need say anymore. Justice is infinite.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Patrick Condren from Channel Seven. In your speech you talked about one of the key reasons to go into Iraq was the potential for Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction, given that the invading forces haven't found any evidence of that doesn't that make a mockery of that particular reason?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you don't really think they would have found iron-clad evidence in three weeks of the military operation? I mean, it doesn't surprise me at all. I mean, there weren't signposts on the road saying 'WMD 5 Ks ahead'. It doesn't work like that. We know that they have gone to great lengths to conceal it. I can only repeat what I've said before that we had plenty of intelligence very strongly suggesting the possession of these weapons. I don't think the real proof of it will be found until some time after the hostilities have been completed, we've had an opportunity of talking to scientists and others in an atmosphere where they feel free from reprisal and intimidation. I think until then you won't really see the evidence.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Cathy Border from Channel 10. You've already expressed dismay at the stunt that we saw yesterday with Greenpeace with the 'HMAS Sydney'. But does it show a far greater need for a security reassessment as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the security of the waterways in Sydney Harbour are the responsibility of the New South Wales Police, in the same way that the security of the, you know, waterways here are the responsibility of the Queensland Police. I talked to, I had a brief chat with General Cosgrove this morning about the incident. I think it was a regrettable incident, I don't think, I think the danger that they posed to the lives of, and the good health of the police officers, was quite unacceptable, and I hope that the law takes it proper course, I'll say no more to that in relation to their behaviour. I do praise very much the calm way the sailors responded and they got about their business. We're a free open society. I think people, even if they behave in a stupid way, providing they don't endanger other people and they don't prevent other people going about their business, they've got a right to protest. I don't think the sailors felt threatened and I don't think they had any reason to feel threatened. I do think, though, that it was monumentally stupid behaviour because of the threat that it posed to the lives of the police. I mean if you want to behave in a stupid way and put your own live at risk, I suppose it's hard to stop you, but it's a bit unfair to drag policemen and women into as well.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Louise Willis from ABC Radio current affairs. You stated in your speech today that your preference is for a US-led interim administration and not only that it is your preference, that is what it will be. Have you sidelined the United Nations in that decision, or what role will the UN play in post-war Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I haven't sidelined it, I'm just stating the obvious. When you have a regime toppled by the armies of other countries, there is only one effective authority in the immediate aftermath of that. And that effective authority are the armies of the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular. And there are no armies of the United Nations there. The intervention was properly based in law on previous resolutions of the United Nations, but they were not blue-helmeted forces, they fought under, fight under the flags of their countries in a coalition which has, although there are separate national commands for both the British and the Australians, the overall coalition operation of course is in United States hands. And I'm just stating the obvious that Saddam Hussein regime toppled, the occupying force is the military of the United States and the United Kingdom and follows from that that that is the immediate source of authority of power. There's no United Nations present there to do anything. So, that's the point I make. And from a practical point of view, you have to have an interim period but that doesn't mean to say that the United Nations can't be passed for that interim period; it doesn't mean to say you can't have special UN representatives working with the Americans; it doesn't mean that the United Nations doesn't have a major role in relation to humanitarian and other issues. I'm not sidelining the United Nations, I'm trying to state the reality.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Sam Strutt from The Australian Financial Review. When will the Federal Government decide Australia's exact involvement in a post-war Iraq? And will that definitely include military forces involved in a peacekeeping mission?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've said as far as military forces are concerned that we won't be making a contribution of a major peacekeeping force. We don't see a role for two or three thousand Australian troops being there for an indefinite period of time as part of a peacekeeping operation. Apart from anything else, we have a number of those challenges, in particular still East Timor, in our own region. We had a capacity to provide some special niche forces that made a very powerful impact, and we've done that. And when their task is completed, they will come back to Australia. As to all the other elements of Australia's involvement, you asked - have we defined them precisely? No, we haven't because the nature of the post-conflict stage has not been defined precisely by anybody at the present time. I mean, this doesn't happen very often and you have to build from the ground. And importantly, we are in on the ground floor with the office of reconstruction. We have people there, I've outlined some of them and there'll be more added as time goes by. We'll have a role that is commensurate with our capacity and our interests and certainly very commensurate with the fact that we have made a very major contribution to this operation.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Paul Osbourne from AAP. You talk about building from the ground up, to what extent do you have a moral obligation to stay on as leader to see the building of Iraq? And what do you see as the completion point for that? Do you see it as democratic elections in Iraq or some other point?
PRIME MINISTER: You sound like the compere of The 7.30 Report. I've been asked that question before, no disrespect to Mr O'Brien, I've been asked that question before, I think you know my answer. What's the next question?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Graham Lloyd from The Courier Mail. You opened your speech saying that this was the first challenge in the post-Cold War world. How has that challenge been met and how does the post-Cold War environment look? How deep are the friction in the old Europe, if you like, and the former eastern European countries coming into the mix? And what lessons do we draw from this in terms of challenges that may lay ahead in North Korea and in Iran and possibility in the future in this region?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as always you have to think carefully before you jump to conclusions about the lessons that we draw. I believe very strongly that by having taken a stand against Iraq, the world is more likely to be able to peacefully handle North Korea. What has happened in a Iraq is a reminder that there is a point beyond which the world community, whoever might be the agents of the community and however limited their numbers from time to time might be, the world community won't continue to be pushed around. As far as North Korea is concerned, it is a very worrying threat, particularly to our region. We are still in the genuinely diplomatic phase of it. Remember Iraq was the end of a 12 year process, it's only a few months since North Korea confessed to having broken the agreement it made in 1994. I think there's quite a lesson in that. I think it's demonstrated a few myths about European solidarity, I, one does feel the concept of a common foreign policy to the European Union is a tad into the future, to say the least. I don't think you should ever lose sight of the fact that nationalism is still a very potent force in world community and that countries will, despite regional and collective associations, they will pursue their own nationalistic foreign policies. I think it's a reminder of the still great strength of the Atlantic association between the United States and the United Kingdom. Bear in mind that it was an alliance between a centre-right American President and a centre-left British Prime Minister - who in my view has displayed conspicuous political courage on this issue, I see him as a very strong Labour leader and I think he has shown very great courage within his own party. The point I was trying to make at the beginning of my speech was that when the Cold War ended the assumption was that we would, we emerged, as it obviously the case, with one superpower, and that's the United States and we would have a fairly uninterrupted period of relative tranquillity and peace. What of course has happened in the years that have gone by is that it's been characterised by two things - by the emergence in recent years of international terrorism and the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states, and the two of those coming together which is the essence of our concern in relation to Iraq. And the other factor of course was the breakdown of regional tension and a breakdown of nation states that had been held together by the pressure of the Cold War. And of course the Yugoslavia was the most conspicuous example of that but that process had been in train elsewhere.
I think like all significant shifts in world events it will take a while for the processes to shake out. I do think that the relationship between the nations of Europe will be more circumspect. I don't think you'd want to overdo the, I'm not saying you personally, I don't think one should overdo the suggestion that's been made that in some way the British have been isolated in Europe. I don't think they have. If you actually look at it, numerically the number of European countries that have taken the American/British position is greater than the reserve, although three of the very prominent countries, namely Germany, France and Russia have been on the other side. I think it will take a while to rebuild some of those bridges. I think that's inevitable. You've got to be realistic. But there's that old saying, I think it was Palmerston, or it may not have been him but whoever it was said that you don't have permanent enemies, you only have permanent interests. And there are permanent interests in European countries working together, and of course there are permanent interests in Australia always working very closely with our most important strategic partner - the United States.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Scott Emerson with The Australian newspaper. Just a second last question and moving to domestic issues, Australia's attorney generals, including Daryl Williams, are meeting tomorrow. One of the issues on the agenda is double jeopardy laws. An issue of particular interest to Queenslanders given the Faye Kennedy case. They're looking at changes to the double jeopardy rule. Do you support a change to that centuries old law?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do. I think you have to, I'm not in favour of totally throwing it out. I don't quite know how you express it, I'm a bit rusty on law, it's 25 years since I've practised it. But it does seem to me that this particular case is just horrific that a law such as that, I mean it's a simple test of justice, the demented, dogmatic adherence to something because it's been around for a long time and here is a social conservative speaking. I'm not in favour of changing things that work but I'm very much in favour of changing things that don't work and this rule doesn't work, it certainly hasn't in this case and I would be in favour of change, just exactly what form it takes and whether you have some principles of establishing exceptional circumstances and so forth in order to reopen, that's all got to be worked out. But I'm personally in favour of change, yes.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Chris O'Brien from ABC Radio. This is the final question so I'll cheat and make it a double bunger. Just quickly, would you encourage your Queensland Liberal colleagues to accelerate the process of reforming a coalition with the Nationals. And secondly your thoughts on the Qantas job cuts issue that's re-risen today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in relation to the colleagues in Queensland, I would encourage them to work together as closely as possible. The actual form that the more effective cooperation should take is a matter for them to work out in detail. As you all know I'm a very strong coalitionist. I've had an experience in government of leading a Coalition that really has worked together extraordinarily well. I think of all of the Coalitions, we've had three fairly lengthy periods of Coalition government in Australia since World War II. We had the very long period led largely by Menzies, we then had the Fraser/Anthony period, and the current Government has been in power now almost as long as the Fraser Government was in power between 1975 and '83, and I can say the Coalition has worked remarkably well. And I pay particular tribute to John Anderson and the other members of the National Party for the contribution that they have made to it. I note that there's been an historic agreement reached between the Liberal Party and the National Party here in Queensland about three-cornered contests. That's something I very warmly welcome. Those who want a revival of the fortunes of the non-labor parties here in Queensland can only embrace that with great enthusiasm because it means we can focus on the common political enemy. So exactly what form, whether they form a coalition or not, and when and precisely how it comes about, that's a matter for Mr Quinn and Mr Springborg to work out between them and their respective party presidents in their discussions.
Now you asked me about the Qantas redundancies. Well I obviously regret it but I do recognise that the tourist industry in particular is going through a very hard time. The flu virus, the obvious reluctance of a lot of people to travel at the present time because of the activities in Iraq; the still reverberating impact on travel of the Ansett collapse, although that's not perhaps as strong now as it was a short period of time ago. I think there are some temporary factors in the downturn in the tourist industry and it's not uniform throughout the country. I was in Tasmania last week and in all the time I've been visiting that state in public life I've not come across a higher level of enthusiasm about the future of the Tasmanian economy, particularly with the tourist industry, than I did last week. So I understand. I regret the job reductions. I do understand though some of the challenges. And can I finally say that if you think Qantas is facing financial and other challenges, it is a rock solid guaranteed future airline of the upteenth degree compared with many of the other world airlines. And if you're looking around the world for a strong, solid, dependable, certainly going to survive airline, Qantas is your airline, in a much stronger position than many others. Now having said all of that I welcome competition. And I want to say that we do need a strong competitor for Qantas and I want to congratulate Virgin for the role that it played and I'd encourage, you know, a certain percentage of you to travel on Virgin, I'm precluded from patronising either, I have to remain neutral. So anyway, as I say I'm sorry but I think there are some understandable reasons.
Thank you.
[Ends]