PRIME MINISTER:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, you were at the brief news conference after the oval office discussion. Over drinks and dinner we continued our discussion and I've just come from there. It was an opportunity to put our views about the way in which this matter should be handled. It's quite clear that work will proceed on endeavouring to get another resolution from the Security Council not as a matter of international law but as a matter of marshalling the optimum level of world support. It won't be easy but let me put it this way, I'm moderately optimistic that a decent resolution would be forthcoming - it was an opportunity to again talk about North Korea, talk about ... briefly we touched on the free trade agreement, we are both very committed to trying to achieve that if that is possible, it won't be easy but there is a lot of commitment at a senior political level, at the highest political level, both in America and Australia to bring that about.
We talked also about climate change issues, we talked quite a bit about comparative domestic politics in the United States and Australia, the President showed quite a bit of interest in the number of things that are occurring in Australia in the education area, and obviously we shared a few partisan reminiscing as you would expect over dinner in relation to world politics but I again, as I have on my past meetings, found a man very on top of the detail of all of the issues that he confronts as President. He's somebody very committed to democratic values, he's somebody very committed to the relationship between Australia and the United States and he's somebody very committed to resolving the challenge of Iraq and the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction and what that might mean if they get into the hands of terrorists.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, President Bush clearly believes that we are already part of the coalition of the willing. What does that mean, does that mean he broadly expects us to support his military effort?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it means what he said: that he thinks that is the case, and he then went on to say that what that means is a matter for me, and what that means is what I've kept telling you. I mean obviously we are because we've deployed people, we've taken a more up-front stance and we've been more outspoken by our words and our deeds any many others. That's self-evidently the case and I don't apologise for that. It doesn't alter what I've said before that the final cost of our involvement is something that we'll decide when we know the colour of what comes out of the UN.
JOURNALIST:
Did you make that clear to him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes. He understands that, they all understand that, but I equally understand that if we had been more up-front, and that itself has enormous value.
JOURNALIST:
When you say that you are moderately optimistic of getting a decent resolution at the UN, does that mean that you are expecting backing from the UN before military action in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it means what I said. I've been at pains during all of this thing to say what I think by direct statements rather than defining it through answers to other people's questions. I am moderately optimistic that we will get a decent resolution out of the UN. We don't need another resolution as a matter of law. There is enough international law there already and there is enough evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, of Iraq being in material breach and that is a matter of bipartisan agreement in Australian politics, isn't it?
JOURNALIST:
When do you think you'll get that resolution?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I can't put any date on it. It will be sooner rather than later. I don't think this thing can go on indefinitely and it won't go on indefinitely. I think it will come to a head.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) are you as dismissive (inaudible) weapons inspectors?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah. I said ... was it earlier today I said Iraq has got to fair dinkum and there's no evidence that Iraq's got fair dinkum. I mean, throwing a few morsels at quarter to twelve is not being fair dinkum.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, has anything in terms of the UN resolution, short of another resolution, directing the UN to enforce the terms of 1441 satisfactory?
PRIME MINISTER:
Let's see what comes out and then we'll make a judgement. I'll answer that question...
JOURNALIST:
In terms of your appeal ...
PRIME MINISTER:
My appeal... well, I think the best outcome is to have the optimum outcome in terms of putting maximum pressure on Iraq would be the strongest possible resolution with everybody putting their hand up. Clearly, that's the ideal and I say again ironic though they may think it, if those who are sceptical and doubting and dragging their feet want to put their hand up for the strongest possible resolution that would actually put more pressure on Iraq than anything else. I don't know that that's going to happen, not through want of effort from Australia, which is not a member of the Security Council, or the United States. I mean, I have no doubt that if the United States could get that, I'll push very hard for it, no doubt.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, during the course of today did you have any discussions about contingency military planning that went beyond pre-deployment?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we didn't get into the military side of it.
JOURNALIST:
You had no discussion (inaudible) with Secretary Rumsfeld?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's been, as I've said all along, there's been military discussion and contingency planning going on for some time, but the President and I, apart from sort of acknowledging that, you know, knowing it's happening, we haven't got any detail of it. They're operational, potentially operational things and we tend not to get into the detail of that.
JOURNALIST:
You had no discussion with Secretary Rumsfeld?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, we had some discussion, but once again not in enormous detail. He's not a military person himself anymore than I am.
JOURNALIST:
About contingency planning?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, well, I mean, we acknowledged that it had taken place.
JOURNALIST:
But the pre-deployment (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Contingency planning and pre-deployment...
JOURNALIST:
But about contingency planning beyond the predeployment?
PRIME MINISTER:
No we didn't discuss that.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard did the President impart to you or consult you on anything in particular such as would explain the short notice and fairly urgent nature of his invitation for you to come here this week?
PRIME MINISTER:
I didn't regard that as odd. You don't, in a situation like this, 24 hours is enough notice and I got a lot more than that. No, that was not an issue.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister did you feel humbled by the President's glowing praise?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well how I do answer that without getting into difficulty?
JOURNALIST:
Were you embarrassed?
PRIME MINISTER:
No (inaudible).
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister Mr ElBaradei reported in the Washington Post today saying that he has some confidence about the weapons inspection process and he thought that it was a good alternative (inaudible) path of war. Is he wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't seen what he's said and he's going to report to the Security Council on Friday. The question is whether Iraq is disarming, that's what it's about. I mean this is not a question of, as I said, you throw a few morsels at quarter to 12, I mean this has been going on for years. Let's wait and see what they have to say. I think everybody knows that it's been going on a for long very time.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard can Australia still back out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Back out? Of course Australia can back out, to use your expression and not mine. And Australia would do that if the circumstances suggested it was in Australia's national interest to do so. But the final decision as to whether we, to use your expression