FAINE:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Jon.
FAINE:
And thank you for joining us. Still questions being asked about your state of knowledge and the Government';s state of information on the weapons of mass destruction that led to and justified the war against Iraq. Overnight in the United Kingdom a parliamentary inquiry, a committee, seems to have had an each way bet, that';s my interpretation of it, on whether or not the intelligence reports were doctored in some way. Do you think there needs to be an inquiry in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is one. There is one by the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence matters, and I have indicated that submissions by agencies that aren';t under the statute required to appear before that committee will be made. I stand by the decision that we took. The major reason why we entered the war against Iraq was the failure of Iraq to comply with Security Council resolutions. I don';t walk away from that. I don';t step back from it. We have the added humanitarian dividend and human rights dividend of having removed a terrible regime, and every day reveals more mass graves. We also have the further dividend of the prospect of a peace settlement in the Middle East, which everybody wants, has been greatly enhanced by the outcome. But I don';t walk away from the principal justification. We made a judgement based on the intelligence assessments. Those assessments were not doctored and of course the British inquiry has found they weren';t doctored.
FAINE:
Only by the narrowest of margins – the casting vote of the chair of the committee.
PRIME MINISTER:
What';s interesting though Jon are the two areas that attracted some criticism in Britain were not things that we touched. I don't recall having talked about weapons being ready in 45 minutes, and the debate about the February dossier, the one that was based on the PHD thesis, we didn';t rely on that. Jon, intelligence assessments are inherently judgements. You never have the sort of proof that you could put before a jury at the Old Bailey to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to construct, often from circumstantial evidence, a strong case. And I am satisfied and I know and I repeat that it was the judgement of the intelligence agencies that in those terms a strong case existed. It was convincing to us. Necessarily it was based on judgements. I don';t retreat from the decision we took. And the other point I make is that before the war started, the debate was not about whether Iraq had a WMD capacity. Everybody said they did. Simon Crean and Kevin Rudd both said that Iraq was in material breach of the United Nations resolutions and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They both asserted those things. The argument was whether we should provide more time to the United Nations weapons inspectors. The argument was whether we should go down the French and German route, that while leaving our troops and the British troops and the American troops in Iraq, whether we should go down the French and the German route. The debate was not about whether there was WMD.
FAINE:
Or not.
PRIME MINISTER:
Or not. And so, I mean it';s convenient for Mr Crean and Mr Rudd, and I accept in the exchange of politics they';re going to do that, but I just remind them and I remind your listeners that prior to the war starting, the debate was about the methodology of dealing with the possession of WMD capacity, not whether Iraq had that capacity.
FAINE:
Leaving aside the politics of it within Australia, the question now is whether or not we were sold a pup, whether we were told a big lie, whether it was by the American intelligence agencies or the British intelligence agencies or some other combination of the two, in order to justify a war where the weapons of mass destruction still haven';t been found.
PRIME MINISTER:
Jon, I don';t believe that the intelligence agencies deliberately set out to mislead us. It is true that we relied overwhelmingly on both British and American intelligence. We made our own assessments. The great bulk of the raw intelligence on which those assessments were based was British and American. I had discussions myself with senior figures in the intelligence community, very senior figures in both countries. I believe that they believed very strongly in their judgements and I think it is still too early to assume that evidence will not be found in Iraq. I just….
FAINE:
The longer it goes on.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is true up to a point. Often, particularly when you are dealing with a regime which relied on terror and intimidation and murder and torture of family members to stay in power, people are intimidated, particularly if they think the people who led that regime are still around.
FAINE:
Sure.
PRIME MINISTER:
Even though it is implausible to us that Saddam Hussein could ever come back.
FAINE:
But they';re still inflicting casualties on even the American [inaudible] troops.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is inevitable Jon. You don';t emerge from a war-like situation to total tranquillity overnight. Now, it';s difficult for the Americans and the British, and again can I remind listeners that there are up to 1,000 Australian military personnel still in Iraq. There will be some hundreds coming home later this month on the Kanimbla, but we still have commandos and engineers and air traffic controllers and people involved in the search for WMD, so there are still Australian personnel there.
FAINE:
Do you still have fears for their safety?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am always concerned about the safety of Australian personnel on military service. We have been blessed in a military sense that we haven';t had casualties. Sadly we have lost two cameramen and it shows the great danger that is involved for journalists in reports in military conflicts. I think the Australians are as safe as anybody can be in an inherently unsafe situation.
FAINE:
Before we move to other topics Prime Minister, still on the issue of Iraq. The failure of the intelligence reports to measure up – would that mean that you as a Prime Minister and your Government in future will be reluctant to, or less prepared to fully accept, intelligence briefings from the USA or the British military because of the failure of some of their intelligence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can';t say that entirely at this moment. You can';t. It';s too early to make that judgement.
FAINE:
But if for instance they now say, well we';ve got a report that Korea is about to do this or about to do that, do you as a Prime Minister say hang on, I';m a bit wary now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Jon, what you have to do is you have to look at the situation according to its own circumstances and that';s what I will do in future. If I can go back to Iraq, we had lots of material put to us over a period of months, and it built the case. Necessarily, judgements had to be made by the agencies. I have no doubt that they behaved in a bonafide fashion. I retain a great confidence in our intelligence assessment agencies, and like all situations such as this, nobody is perfect but the case that was built on the information over a long period of time was a strong one, and it was because of that that we made the decision we did.
FAINE:
Are you surprised that the Australian public are as sceptical apparently as they have turned out to be?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the Australian public has to a significant degree moved on from this issue. That doesn';t mean to say that I am in any way reluctant to answer questions on it.
FAINE:
No. But do you think then the media are more interested in it than the public? Is that what you';re saying?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I couldn';t possibly say that.
FAINE:
I think that';s the implication fairly clearly.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I could not possibly say that.
FAINE:
Effectively I think you are. Let';s move on. David Hicks, the Australian who is in custody at Guantanamo Bay. Over AM just this morning, a little while ago, the head of the American trial lawyers, sorry the criminal defence lawyers, said there is no way any of our members would participate in these trials because the normal rules of procedure are simply not applying. Now you yourself practiced as a solicitor. I don';t know if you ever did any criminal trials, but…
PRIME MINISTER:
[inaudible]
FAINE:
If the basic procedures are not in place, you feel your client is never going to get a fair go.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Attorney-General, who has really handled this for the Government, has had some long discussions with the principal legal person in the Pentagon and we are assured, and we have every reason to believe this will be the case, that the presumption of innocence exists, that there will be access to lawyers. This idea seems to be around that an Australian is charged with an offence in another country there';s some automatic right to bring him back to Australia. [inaudible]
FAINE:
[inaudible] under American rule, the American lawyers….
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well there';s always…the Americans have argued, they';ve made a decision about having a military commission to try these people. I mean that is a decision that they are applying in relation to the nationals of all countries. They regard these people as enemy combatants. I mean bear in mind the claim is, and he acknowledges it, that he trained with al Qaeda. I mean….
FAINE:
Yes [inaudible] foremost expert on al Qaeda says look he';s more significant than we thought he was at first.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes, I mean that is just a view of that man.
FAINE:
It';s an allegation.
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s an allegation. I';m not saying it';s right or wrong. But what is not an allegation is because the man in question has admitted it is that he trained with al Qaeda.
FAINE:
But would you ever agree to represent someone when you were a lawyer when you knew that your communications to your client….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I was never representing somebody who was an enemy combatant.
FAINE:
…if your communication with your client, supposedly confidential, was being eavesdropped by the other side, by the prosecution and that';s what they';re going to do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you have to understand the background of the circumstances of this, and I can only repeat, and I haven';t had the opportunity this morning since hearing that bloke on AM, I haven';t had an opportunity of talking to the Attorney General, but he is satisfied and he's told me after a very lengthy discussions with the legal people in the Pentagon that the conditions are in all of the circumstances acceptable.
FAINE:
Well they may be acceptable to the Attorney General but not acceptable to anybody who conducts….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m not certain about that. I mean you can';t make that assertion on behalf of everybody.
FAINE:
Well it';s astonishing the Attorney General of course here in Australia, Daryl Williams, is a former head of the Law Council would have stood up to champion for these….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can only repeat the advice that I';ve received from him. If you want to pursue it further with him I invite you to do so.
FAINE:
Alright, well we';ll have to follow that up [inaudible]. Meanwhile one of our navy ships is taking 50 or so people from Vietnam off to Christmas Island….
PRIME MINISTER:
I think they have arrived.
FAINE:
The last assessment I saw of the likely cost of this is somewhere in excess of $10 million. Is it justified?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m not sure that that assessment is right. I';m getting that checked. That was an allegation as I understand it made by the Opposition and I always reserve the right to check the accuracy of those. Look obviously it costs more to take them to Christmas Island than to have them processed in Port Hedland. I';m not going to pretend otherwise. How much more I can';t tell you.
FAINE:
But some millions and millions.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no I';m not sure about that because there are costs in maintaining a naval vessel no matter what it';s doing so this idea that because it costs several hundred thousand dollars a day to run a naval vessel therefore that is the cost of that is nonsense because the naval vessel would be costing that amount no matter what it was doing. So you know, let';s preserve a sense of perspective. We decided they should go to Christmas Island because we believed that if they were processed in Port Hedland that would run the risk of sending a message to the rest of the world that it was still possible to get to the Australian mainland and that in some way our policy on that had been changed. That';s the reason.
FAINE:
Won';t that message in particular, just that isolated part of the general message about making things as difficult as possible for an unwelcome arrival, why is that part of it so important, what';s the difference to people who are there now?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I think it is very important is people still believe that you can';t get onto the Australian mainland.
FAINE:
If they think they can get into the Australian immigration zone…..
PRIME MINISTER:
No no no.
FAINE:
….[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no I disagree with that as an assessment. The key thing is actually getting onto the Australian mainland. I really think there is a big difference.
FAINE:
So setting foot ashore is what you want….
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there is a big difference in the eyes of the world in being processed in Christmas Island which is a long way away from continental Australia and being processed on the Australian mainland. I think psychological there is a big difference.
FAINE:
And it';s worth spending whatever it costs to get that message through?
PRIME MINISTER:
Certainly.
FAINE:
Throughout the world, not just in Vietnam I suspect.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think this message is relevant in a number of countries.
FAINE:
Which countries?
PRIME MINISTER:
Those where people may be who want to illegally bring people to Australia.
FAINE:
So we';re still worried about people coming in particular….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think….look self-evidently John the number of arrivals has dwindled dramatically, to put it as mild as that, over the last two years. It';s still important that we maintain the consistency of the policy, it';s still important that we continue to tell the world that we';ll take our share of refugees a lot more than many of our critics will do, and that the fewer illegal arrivals the more we can take from the refugee camps around the world where people in their millions are waiting for a country like Australia to give them haven.
FAINE:
Given what little we do know about this particular instance it seems likes it';s an Australian citizen who';s trying to arrange some form of unique family reunion…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John you said it, but given how little we know about it I think it';s too early.
FAINE:
Well it';s clearly not a commercial people smuggling…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is too early Jon to make a judgement about that. You just adjured me a few moments about the exhort of the supremacy of the principles of due process. I think we should allow a little bit of due process for everybody on this and when we find out a bit more I can talk a bit more about it.
FAINE:
Taking all of that as you say it seems it';s an expensive point to make if the people smugglers, the commercial racket seem by and large to be put out of business thanks to your policy, and this is a very different type of boat load of people…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well well….
FAINE:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
…there are a whole lot of suppositions there that I don';t necessarily accept. I think it';s very important that we maintain the consistency of the policy.
FAINE:
Alright. Well let';s move on to the next thing. In South Australia, the South Australian government are considering going to the High Court to challenge the compulsory acquisition of land for a nuclear dump in South Australia. Are you happy for this matter to be resolved in the High Court?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well whether I am or I';m not if people have a case they can take it to the court. I mean the federal government doesn';t decide whether something goes to court. I mean I';m subject to the rule of law like everybody else. If there';s a case and the High Court resolves it, well we';ll have to do what the High Court says because that';s the way our system works. But what';s happened here is we had a long investigation as to where this waste should be and we settled on a number of sites and it';s got to be put somewhere. And this argument that oh it's coming from New South Wales, that is just a pathetically parochial argument with great respect. I mean we are Australians before we';re anything else, but more importantly than that Australians in South Australia get the benefit of the isotopes that are the product….
FAINE:
In terms of medical treatment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes medical treatment. I mean this is the waste from the activities that generate the isotopes for medical treatment. That is available not just for Australians living in New South Wales, that is available for Australians all over the country and so it should be. So this idea that in some way oh well it';s just a New South Wales problem is really elevating states' rights to an absurd level. I mean we are a nation increasingly in so many respects and we have to find national solutions and the national solution was found. I know it';s not popular but the alleged dangers have been grossly exaggerated and I know it';s easy for a state premier and I hear Dr Gallop is saddling up in Western Australia as well. Now this may appeal at a parochial level but if we fall back into this kind of states' rights jingoism I don';t think it does any of us any good. I mean we';ve got to accept that a place for this waste has to be found somewhere in Australia.
FAINE:
You have a process that';s worth talking about, the compulsory acquisition rather….
PRIME MINISTER:
Do you know why the compulsory acquisition….
FAINE:
Because they were about to pass the law….
PRIME MINISTER:
They were about to try and frustrate the implementation of a decision which was the product of a very orderly scientific independent objective investigation.
FAINE:
So the Commonwealth is basically saying to the state well you may have a view on this but ours is going to override it? It';s like Tasmanian Dam isn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, I mean this is a national issue and in our constitution, in our federation, providing there is a due process and it';s done objectively and independent that is how in the end it';s got to work out. I mean that';s why we federated.
FAINE:
So basically what you';re saying is if you like it or not we';re going to put it there?
PRIME MINISTER:
No what I';m saying is that when a decision is made by the authority that has the right to make the decision under the Australian federal framework then that decision ought to be implemented and shouldn';t be frustrated by an individual state government. That';s what I';m saying.
FAINE:
Prime Minister, here in Melbourne the Jewish Community Council of Victoria has sought and failed to get an injunction from VCAP, the Victorian Criminal Administrative Tribunal, to stop the showing of David Irving';s controversial film at an underground film festival. They';re contemplating an appeal. Do you think the film should be shown?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s a matter for the authorities. Let me say this - I think David Irving is a poor historian when it comes to the holocaust. I think his proposition that the holocaust either didn';t occur or occurred in a substantially less grievous manner than manner than historically depicted, that is plainly wrong, that';s outrageous and I understand why it is offensive not only to Jewish people but to others around the world who suffered in different ways from the Holocaust and in a way it';s offensive to me as an individual who';s tried to study history in some way. I mean the idea that the Holocaust didn';t occur is just too preposterous for words, I was part of a government that denied him the opportunity of coming to Australia because we didn';t think that was in the interests of a harmonious tolerant society we want. The question of whether the film should be shown is really a matter for the authorities, I think people may see a difference between denying him the right to come to Australia and denying the showing of the film…
FAINE:
Well its been portrayed as a free speech test case isn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I understand that and I';m not saying that it ought to be banned, I think that';s a matter that can be left to the authorities. But my view about David Irving is very clear.
FAINE:
Whether it extends, or how you balance your view on David Irving against the free speech…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we had to make that balance in relation to letting him come here and we came down in favour of banning him, I';m not sure that it should be taken any further.
FAINE:
Seven minutes to nine, it';s NAIDOC week, National Aboriginal Islander Day of Commemoration Week, which I';ve always had trouble getting used to the fact that there';s a week dedicated to a day, but you';ve announced a summit to tackle violence in indigenous communities, what do you hope to achieve?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would hope to get the views of the people I';ve asked and I';m very pleased at the response, we have a very good cross section of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, people like Noel Pearson and Lowitja O';Donoghue and Jackie Huggins and Mick Dodson and this is an opportunity for them to share their knowledge and their feelings about this issue with me, it';s not easily solved, it';s not even something that is primarily a question of resources, resources are important, money';s important but the main thing is to help those people in Aboriginal communities who are trying through their leadership to bring about a change in behaviour, a change in attitude, particularly amongst Aboriginal men, let it be said towards their women folk and towards sadly their children as well.
FAINE:
What about a change of policy, what if they say to you your policies have made things worse in our communities, not better.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s interesting that a number of the people who';ve spoken out on this issue have said that this issue is separate from the debate about what is called the rights agenda, and a lot of Aboriginal leaders are now saying we don';t agree with John Howard, we don';t agree with the Government on things like the apology and the treaty and aspects of Native Title but we recognise that this government is in power and what we should do is put those differences aside and don';t forget them, don';t retreat from our own position, but say right we';ve got to engage the Prime Minister on these issues…
FAINE:
So we agree to disagree…
PRIME MINISTER:
Move on, that';s right, I mean Noel Pearson has articulated this, particularly in relation to substance abuse. I mean he';s made the point that a generation ago the substance abuse problem was not as big a challenge as it is now because the authority of Aboriginal elders in many of their communities was greater than what it is now and he';s made the point well whatever view you may have about the stolen generation and apology and so forth why is it that a generation ago we didn';t have as big a problem as we have now because the stolen generation issue was still there then. Now I';m not asking any of them to give up their criticism of me or give up their criticism and disagreement with government policy on rights agenda, what I am responding to is an evident desire on their part to work with the Government to tackle this problem of abuse and I hope out of this we can learn something but it won';t be easy, it won';t be done quickly and it will require the good will and the co-operation of a lot of people.
FAINE:
What if the summit says to you Prime Minister we think it would make a difference to the self-esteem, to the entire culture of Aboriginal communities across Australia if there was an apology for the stolen generation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I doubt that it will and I think this raising that is, if I may say so with respect, is injecting a piece of negativism into it in an unwelcome way and I don';t believe that that will come out of it, in fact I';m sure it won';t and I';m not saying for a moment they, as individuals or as a group in another context, shouldn';t continue to argue for that and I will continue to explain why it won';t be part of our policy but that it not the issue now…
FAINE:
Are you prepared to change…
PRIME MINISTER:
…..moved on, I think what is we';ve moved aside from that, that debate can go on and I respect the views of other people and they should respect mine and should understand why I have the view that I frequently articulated which I hold to very strongly but I don';t want to inject that into this, I want to try and understand the problem, I want to help, I want to see if I can provide some national leadership on this issue, it worries me, it upsets me greatly because the levels of violence and abuse are astronomically higher, they really are. That';s not to say you don';t have it in the rest of the Australian community, you do.
FAINE:
It';s far worse in Aboriginal communities.
PRIME MINISTER:
Far worse.
FAINE:
Is it our national shame?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is a huge challenge, it distresses me, it clearly distresses Aboriginal leaders and we should try through devices such as this meeting to understand it better and to see if we can find ways to respond, I';ll have the benefit of the knowledge I get at this meeting to share with the State Premiers and let me say a number of the states have already adopted programmes, as has the Commonwealth, to try and tackle the issue and I applaud what they have done in that area and this is not meant to be a vehicle for criticism of people, it';s a vehicle to work together to tackle a huge human problem.
FAINE:
If you can put indigenous politics aside and politics within ATSIC aside, is that, you';re trying to in a way go around all of that…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m trying to genuinely listen to what people have got to say, people who know something about it, people who care about the future of their communities.
FAINE:
Just finally before we run out of time two minutes to nine, you';ve been travelling around the country, the issue about what to do with the money from the further sale of Telstra if and when it happens must be coming up, people must be talking to you about it all the time.
PRIME MINISTER:
No they';re not actually.
FAINE:
Despite the…
PRIME MINISTER:
No I';m not saying that there aren';t opponents but I do not have people raising it with me all the time, I was in Queensland late last week, one person raised it with me. I';m not saying its not on people';s minds, I mean some people may think that well the Government';s got a policy, what';s the point of raising it, but I must report in answer to your question that people raised other issues that were obviously more concerning to them. Perhaps one of the reasons is that we have greatly improved services in the bush.
FAINE:
The National Party';s saying they want money spent on infrastructure rather than debt reduction, are you in any way trying to weigh up and balance the alternatives?
PRIME MINISTER:
What we';re doing is going ahead with the legislation and pointing to the more than $1 billion we will have spent. That amount includes the almost $200 million announced in response to the Estens inquiry.
FAINE:
Another double-dissolution trigger of course.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s not the purpose of it, the purpose of it is to recognise the unreality of Telstra being forever half-owned by the Government and half-owned by private shareholders, that is unreal, it cramps the activity of the company and in the long run it';s not good for telecommunications and finally and importantly you don';t need to own Telstra to tell it what to do.
FAINE:
Prime Minister, that';s a message that we';re getting loud and clear from you and other Ministers in your Government. Thank you very much for your time this morning, we';re out of time and enjoy your visit to Victoria in the marginal seats that you';re touring while you';re here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
FAINE:
Congratulations on your daughter';s engagement.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you very much, we';re very happy.
[ends]