O'BRIEN:
PM, it would seem that you're considering a commitment of military and police that could end up more than 1,000, is that so?
PRIME MINISTER:
It could be quite substantial, Kerry. We haven't settled on a final number yet, but it's going to be quite substantial. When you decide on these sorts of operations, which are essentially policing operations to restore law and order, you have to make certain, in the interests of the safety of the men and women you send, that you have sufficient backup and sufficient protection. And the advice that we received today from both General Cosgrove, the head of the Defence Forces, and the Commissioner of the Federal Police, Mick Keelty, was to the effect that it would be dangerous for the police to go in without adequate military backup and that's why in the final analysis you could be looking at quite a substantial contribution.
O'BRIEN:
The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, talked today of an aggressive component from the military. Is everything on the table, including the SAS, special forces?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't expect you would need special forces. We don't expect that kind of aggression level. Can I just make it clear to the viewers, Kerry, that we're talking here about responding to a proper legal request from the Solomon Islands Government. We're also talking about doing it in cooperation with New Zealand and some other countries in the Pacific. I spoke to the New Zealand Prime Minister around lunch-time today and I have no doubt that New Zealand will be involved.
O'BRIEN:
Did she express any reservations at all about the military component of this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are a range of views about the size and I've made it clear that, as far as we're concerned, we're not going to go into this unless there is a force that provides adequate protection to the people we're committing. You can debate the size. There's no dispute from people I've spoken to that you do need a military component. There can be some debate about the level of it. Our advice from General Cosgrove and Commissioner Keelty was clear today and I intend to take their advice because they're the experts.
O'BRIEN:
You've spoken to other Pacific nations.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, the only one I've spoken to is New Zealand. On Monday in Sydney, there will be a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Pacific Island Forum - and that will be chaired by Mr Downer - and that will advance the matter further and there are also bilateral discussions going on between our Defence Minister the New Zealand Defence Minister and Bill Goff, the New Zealand Foreign Minister and Mr Downer. So there's a lot of exchange going on and we're working towards a final decision. There is a strong disposition subject, of course, to getting the necessary request from the Solomon Islands.
O'BRIEN:
What's your message to other nations in the region who might have misgivings about that military presence.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, so far, Kerry, the reaction's been quite positive, because we are dealing here with the potential of a failed state. And it is not in Australia's interest for a country like the Solomon Islands to fall over. It would then become potentially a haven for drug running, for money laundering, terrorism. I mean, it is in Australia's interests to have stability in the Pacific area and particularly amongst the small island states. Many of them find it a real struggle, because of the challenges of independence and statehood, to remain afloat and we're being a good neighbour and a good friend to respond. And, after all, the rest of the world expects Australia to shoulder a lot of the burden because this is our part of the world, this is our patch.
O'BRIEN:
In a sense, this is new ground for Australia, isn't it? I know you've been involved in peacekeeping, but this seems to be taking it a step further, of course, as you say, with the formal invitation from the Solomon Islands, but it raises questions for the future with other nations. I mean, the The Solomon Islands is a basket case, but so is Papua New Guinea. If Papua New Guinea reached the stage that Solomon Islands is at now, you've opened up the possibility of going in there too, haven't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Kerry, it does represent a policy change and new territory. I don't want to start talking about Papua New Guinea's future except to make this comment - that we have a long history of entwinement with that country. And it was once administered by Australia and our future will always be, in a sense, a shared future and we naturally have responsibilities towards the people of that country and the rest of the world sees us as having responsibilities towards that country.
O'BRIEN:
Speak of potential quagmires, Mr Howard, you can't be too happy, I would think, with the stability in Iraq today - postwar casualties keep climbing. I think the postwar casualties are up to 40 per cent of the actual wartime casualties inflicted on the allies. Donald Rumsfeld has admitted the fighting could go for months, where the US was talking of cutting its troop presence back to 30,000 a few weeks ago. They're now talking upwards of 150,000 troops indefinitely. That does sound a bit ominous, doesn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Kerry, of course I'm not happy with the fact that allied soldiers have died since the war ended, but I never expected it would be easy. When you have military conflict, the aftermath is never completely orderly and tidy but it doesn't alter the fact that the causes of the war were just and the people of Iraq are much better off. And the almost daily discoveries of mass graves almost on a daily basis, again, emphasise to the world what a terrible regime it was.
O'BRIEN:
It's still not clear, is it, when America will be able to relinquish its role effectively as the governor of Iraq? You originally were asking and hoping for an early exit.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think I ever made the mistake of trying to put a time on it.
O'BRIEN:
No, you were too canny for that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Kerry, I think also, may I say, I have read a little bit of history - I think we all have - and you don't transition from where Iraq was, with a bloodthirsty brutal dictator, to democracy overnight. I think we expect too much of countries. We impatiently say after a few weeks why haven't they got a democratic government. I think it's entirely to be expected that it's going to take some time, but the important thing is the American goal, our goal, the British goal is for the people of Iraq to own their future. The oil is now flowing. It's being exported. The money is going to the people of Iraq, it's not going, as people said, to the oil barons of the United States. It's going to the people of Iraq.
O'BRIEN:
And while we're on Iraq, have you seen the cover of this week's 'Bulletin' magazine yet? George Bush, Tony Blair and you all with very big noses and the question, "Did they lie?" They're referring, of course, to those weapons of mass destruction that you said Saddam Hussein had that no-one can find. Are you beginning to feel just a little bit embarrassed about those pre-war claims?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Kerry, I've had the odd ordinary cover on the 'Bulletin' front page in my life, and the answer is no - I didn't lie about the weapons of mass destruction and I don't believe that George Bush and Tony Blair did. We were given very strong intelligence assessments. There was a wealth of intelligence material presenting what I could describe as a conclusive circumstantial case, and a very strong one, and I certainly didn't, in the presentation of that, endeavour to manipulate it. I think people should be a little cautious in suggesting that further evidence of weapons of mass destruction will not be found. The truth is that everybody in authority, even in the United Nations that were critical of us, accepted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a WMD capacity at the time the war broke out. The argument was about whether there should be further inspections. The argument was about whether you should get the 18th Resolution of the United Nations. But, in the end, the legal justification for us going to war was the failure of Iraq to comply fully with the United Nations resolution which required it to demonstrate they'd rid themselves of weapons of mass destruction. And nobody put their hand up, not even Hans Blix or Jacques Chirac, who said they've demonstrated to the world that they've got rid of them.
O'BRIEN:
The claims are coming thick and fast in America and Britain that the intelligence that you and the allies relied on substantially to justify the war was either wrong or hyped up or, in one case at least, forged. You yourself drew on now discredited intelligence back in February when you were building your case against Iraq, didn't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
There was one element in that presentation where I relied on a judgment of British intelligence, but it was a relatively small part of an overall picture and you say the -
O'BRIEN:
When you say it was a small part -
PRIME MINISTER:
..you say the allegations are coming thick and fast. I mean, there are allegations made every day but the substance of those allegations is very doubtful. I mean, we were given -
O'BRIEN:
Well, it's yet to be tested.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but we were given intelligence assessments and in the end, when you're dealing with intelligence, you have to make judgments. You are never presented in the world of intelligence with one irrefutable piece of evidence. You almost always have a situation where there is a steady accumulation of pieces and information, pieces that present a very strong, compelling, circumstantial case and that was the situation that we were presented with. And it was on that basis that we reached the conclusions that we did. And I don't retreat from that. I don't feel embarrassed. Of course I would like to see further evidence emerge, but I am confident that we did the right thing and I'm also confident that the judgment we made on the intelligence presented to us was a fair judgment and, I believe, in the end it will be further vindicated.
O'BRIEN:
I imagine - speaking of the UN in this - I imagine you've read Hans Blix, the chief chemical weapons inspector, this week talking about the “not very impressive intelligence” that Australia based its assessments on. He says he finds it fascinating that America has "100 per cent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty about where they are." What if this war was based on a lie or, at best, bad intelligence information?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Kerry, you can only act on information that is presented to you and, at the time the war broke out, Hans Blix was not asserting that Iraq had rid herself of her weapons of mass destruction. The argument, let me repeat again -
O'BRIEN:
Nor had he found any.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, of course he also would know from his own earlier conclusions that Iraq had become very adept at hiding weapons and he, in fact, asserted that. And he also asserted on numerous occasions that Iraq had been quite uncooperative. Can I pose this simple question - if Iraq had rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, why did it engage in such elaborate subterfuge to deny the weapons inspectors access to the evidence that would have demonstrated that they had rid themselves of those weapons? I mean, if, in fact, Iraq had become reformed and put away the weapons of mass destruction, it would have been a relatively easy thing to prove that to the inspectors, it would have been relatively easy to let them in after 1998, instead of throwing them out - and yet, oddly, Iraq behaved in a way that was totally consistent with her continued possession of those weapons.
O'BRIEN:
On Telstra - you're now going to have another crack of pushing through a bill of the final sale for 50 per cent, coupled with yet another big spending package for the bush. Where's your evidence that people now actually support you on this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in the end, Kerry, as with all other policies, you have to do what is you believe is right and in the long-term interests of the country. I do not run an opinion-poll on every single decision I take. If I did that, I would be properly and roundly criticised by eminent commentators such as you for being a populist. In the end you have to do what is right. I think, in the long run, it's absurd for the Government to half-own a telecommunications company. I think it's unfair to the private shareholders of that company. I think it inhibits the capacity of that company to grow and expand and invest. I said before the election that we'd only consider further sales when conditions in the bush were up to scratch. The Estens Committee made 38 recommendations and we're adopting all of them. And we believe that we will have therefore have put in place arrangements that meet that commitment and we're seeking parliamentary approval to sell. Although, if we get that parliamentary approval, we clearly won't sell until it is commercially feasible to do so. So even if the bill were to pass in the next three months, it could be some time before a further sale of shares were put on the market.
O'BRIEN:
You've said in the past it makes no sense for Telstra to be half-pregnant, as you've put it. In other words half-public, half-private. But Telstra has made a net profit totally $18 billion since it became part-pregnant. It sounds pretty healthy to me.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I could argue, of course, that part of that was due to the greater commercial focus. Now half the shares were owned by private investors and it would have an even greater focus and make it even bigger profits if it was fully privatised.
O'BRIEN:
OK, Mr Howard, I had hoped to visit the issue of divorce and custody that you put on the table with the parliamentary committee tonight, but we're out of time so we're going to have to revisit that in the not too distant future. But thanks for joining us tonight.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'd be happy to.
O'BRIEN:
Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]