MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, welcome to AM. Why do you think you have failed so far to convince the Australian public?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Catherine, public opinion on this issue is far from settled. What my obligation now is to explain why we are doing what we are doing, and the main reason is that we now face a world in which the greatest potential threat to security and peace is the possession of chemical and biological and potentially nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states like Iraq. And if the world community allows Iraq to stare it down, to intimidate it out of doing anything on this occasion, not only will Iraq retain her weapons, add to them and potentially use them, but worse still other countries will copy Iraq knowing full well that if the world was not prepared to take on Iraq, then it won't be prepared to take them on. Now that is the major reason why I believe that Australia, with a long history of - in its own judgement - doing what it thinks is the right thing and the things that are in the long-term interests of world security and its own security, should be behaving as it is.
MCGRATH:
Well can I ask you this - given the seriousness of the situation that you have just outlined, why wasn't Parliament back this week or why isn't it being recalled next week, so that parliamentarians can debate this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well parliamentarians have already had a number of opportunities of debating this issue. The Parliament will be meeting on Tuesday week on the 4th of February. There is no way that a final decision on this issue will have been made by then, and indeed unlike 1991 I suspect that Parliament will have a further opportunity to debate this issue before in accordance with the constitutional processes of Government in Australia, a decision one way or the other is taken.
MCGRATH:
Well can I ask you this, because you're very tapped into public opinion, you would have read the letters to the editor in today's newspapers, heard what people are saying on talkback. There is some scepticism out there and some people are feeling that you're perhaps not levelling with them. They want an open debate, they want to discuss it. Why not allow Parliament to be back, why not talk about the war now, what would happen if the war were to go ahead, so that Australians can be involved?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you are using language that you choose to use. My responsibility is to do what I'm doing with you now; that is to level with the Australian people and explain why we are acting as we are. There is a debate going on right now. What do you think this discussion is? This is a discussion over ABC national radio in which I am explaining the reasons why we are doing what we are doing. The question of public opinion is very important. I always respect public opinion. In the end, as a responsible leader, I have to take the decisions after listening to people and weighing the evidence that I think are in the best long-term interests of Australia. And I believe the stance we are taking - I know it has been criticised by many, but that is the nature of debate in a great democracy such as Australia - but you have to keep going back to that fundamental issue - if the world allows itself to be stared down, there is a real danger that other countries will say if Iraq can get away with it, we can do likewise because the world won't do anything. And I believe that over the weeks ahead that will be an increasingly powerful and persuasive argument, not only in Australia but in other parts of the world.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister can I ask you this, because there are some key questions that people would like answers to. Do you think the United States should go back to the UN Security Council? There is increasing speculation from America this morning that they may not do so.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what will happen is that Blix will make a report on the 27th of January and we will see how that is received, not only by the United States but by the rest of the Security Council. It is inevitable in one way or another this issue will go back to the United Nations. The point I want to make is that we can't be certain that the UN outcome will be black or white. It's very possible it could be a shade of grey. There are a range of possible outcomes. You could for example have a resolution authorising force carried 13-2, one of the two is a permanent member and a veto is exercised. Now what does Australia do in those circumstances? If you follow what Mr Crean for example said a short while ago, in those circumstances even the Labor Party might consider supporting Australian involvement. You could have a resolution that was different in terms than 100 per cent explicit endorsement. You could have one that acknowledged the justice of some kind of action but expressed it in different language. There are a whole range of possible United Nations outcomes...
MCGRATH:
But what you're saying is that you need a resolution...
PRIME MINISTER:
Please can I finish, please. What I'm saying is that there is a whole range of outcomes and until we know precisely how it works its way through the United Nations Security Council process, it's impossible to speculate about what the final Australian response should be.
MCGRATH:
Can I clarify this though - it must go back. There must be a UN Security Council resolution.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well under the terms of the resolution there has to be a report back to the United Nations. What form that report takes, I don't know yet. How the Security Council deals with it, I don't know. And I think it's also important that in the days before the 27th and indeed in the days after, we don't jump to conclusions about the final attitude of countries. I mean I hear some reporting this morning where I think the soundbite is failing to match the headline, suggesting that France and China and other countries have taken final positions. They haven't taken final positions.
MCGRATH:
Can I ask you this though - France and Germany, China and Russia have expressed concerns. With the French and German leaders, what do you know perhaps that they don't, that they're forming their opinion?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I make a judgement according to Australia's interests. I don't copy the decisions of any country - the United States, Germany or France or indeed any other country - I make a decision based entirely upon Australian interests. Now what is in their minds is a matter for you to ask them about. On the information available to me and bearing in mind the need for the world to deal with this new threat of rogue states having biological, chemical and potentially nuclear weapons, I think the world community has to deal with this issue and unless it does it will in years to come regret its failure to do so. If it doesn't stare down, Iraq will not oblige by giving up her weapons. She'll add to them and potentially use them, and other countries will be emboldened to do exactly the same thing.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, you're sounding very committed, very strong on this issue this morning as you have consistently, but the key question really left is this - if the situation develops where the US is going it alone and you believe as it turns out at that time, if you believe that it's not the right thing for Australia, how would you turn around and get our troops out if you made that decision? It may be hypothetical, but people want to know.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is very hypothetical. What people want to know from me, and what I've been talking about this morning, is why we're doing what we're doing. They also want to...
MCGRATH:
But can you answer...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm answering your first question. Please don't interrupt with another. The other thing they want to know from me is how the thing is going to develop, and until we know the final outcome from the United Nations Security Council, that question is impossible to answer. But we have not made a final decision or even a tentative decision to be involved in military conflict. What we have done is put ourselves in a position that if we do decide to join an international military operation, we are able to do so with a maximum guarantee of safety and security and acclimatisation for our military forces. This idea that you would wait until there was a final decision before you even deployed, would not only relieve Saddam Hussein of pressure but it would also potentially expose our forces to unnecessary risk and danger, and that's not fair and it's not something that I'd ever be part of.
[ends]