PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen, the only thing I want to add to the news conference that we had this morning was to indicate that during our discussions, one of the additional things that was agreed between the President and myself was that there would be a contact established and an exchange of ideas between our various regulatory authorities, particularly the ACCC and its counterpart in the Philippines, in the context of regulation of the mining industry. There has been in the past in the Philippines some concern expressed by potential Australian investors about the degree of regulation that affects companies that seek to invest here or to establish operations here, and the Philippines administration has obviously responded to that and responded to it in a very definite way. And one of the issues that we agreed upon was that there should be exchanges and contact between our ACCC and the relevant authorities in the Philippines. I think that will probably lead to smoother regulatory procedures and a better understanding of some of the concerns that are held by Australian companies. I was very encouraged by the announcement in relation to the coal quota. That is not only valuable in its own right, but it';s also in earnest of the willingness and determination of the Filipinos to expand economic contact and trade in that area. Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
How much is that coal…
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s worth $33 million American. Do the sums.
JOURNALIST:
A year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, a year.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, the President suggested this idea about a summit on North Korea. Is that something that the Filipinos have raised with you before and how much value [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
That has not been raised with me before. What is in mind from the Filipino point of view is that we might co-host something in the context of what she explained. And I am quite positive about it, except that I wouldn';t want it to cut across things that are now occurring, and she accepts that.
JOURNALIST:
How do you see the two things working together?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think what you do is you work through the current procedures and see what comes of that.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] quite possibly Prime Minister, would you expect such a summit to [inaudible] to early…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think it';s to early. I mean, our view is that we are concerned about what is happening in North Korea obviously and countries in the region – particularly close neighbours such as the Philippines who have proposals to try and improve the situation. We';re not going to dismiss any of them out of hand.
JOURNALIST:
Would you then expect to raise this idea when you meet with the Japanese [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m sure this will come up, yes. I';m not going to be sponsoring it because it';s not our proposal, but I';m not responding to it in a negative way.
JOURNALIST:
The President has suggested that…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I know and what I';ve said is that we should not allow that proposal, even though it may have a lot of merit in its own right, to cut across what is now occurring. So we should allow what is now occurring to work its way through before we go to something else.
JOURNALIST:
Are the Chinese aware of the proposal…
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, did you discuss with the President both of your discussions with President Bush in the last few months?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, in a glancing sort of way. We didn';t compare notes. I complimented the President on a very successful visit to Washington, which clearly it was from her point of view and it has resulted in increased American commitments in relation to terrorism and other things in the Philippines, and it was a very important and valuable visit.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the Philippines only a couple of days ago took Australia to the WTO and lodged a formal complaint. Do you think that was somewhat unfortunate timing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh no, these things happen. I';m not concerned about that. We';ve had an exchange stretching over a long period of time on this issue and the Philippines is entitled to use the procedures of the WTO. It certainly hasn';t in any way affected this visit. You can see by the announcements on coal and so forth that it hasn';t done that.
JOURNALIST:
But it does certainly highlight I guess the vexed issue of trade. And just specifically in terms of Japan and the beef tariff. You said this morning on the Jones program that you would raise that matter.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will raise it, yes.
JOURNALIST:
You';re not anticipating…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I';m going to raise it. I';m not going to say what I anticipate obviously before I';m there. Break it down. I will raise the matter, and we don';t agree with what has happened, and I will be putting that view to the Japanese.
JOURNALIST:
Don';t we lose some credibility though if we';re complaining about trade barriers in one part of Asia and putting up trade barriers effectively [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t accept… that would be a valid comment Karen if quarantine is a trade barrier. It';s not. It';s based on science. I';ve never accepted that. I don';t. And I';ll always argue that our quarantine procedures are scientifically based.
JOURNALIST:
So are you confident that our quarantine procedures will survive in the case of the WTO [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
My advice is they will. I can only act on advice.
JOURNALIST:
Did you discuss the WTO [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
In a very, very cursory way. Look, it really was not a sore point at all because I understand they';re entitled to raise complaints. We did agree on this forum arrangement in order to deal with issues in this general area that might come up in the future and I think that was a step forward.
JOURNALIST:
How would that forum work?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well how it would work is that we';d have a standing body – we';ve got to work out the details of it, people from both countries – so that anything in relation to particularly agricultural matters could be referred to it to see if it can be resolved before people resort to other means.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, the President seemed to think she had won a concession from you on pineapples. Are you going to allow them to enter Australia and then be inspected in quarantine.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, there hasn';t been any alteration. She put a proposal to me in relation to the processes, not the conditions of entry.
JOURNALIST:
So what';s different? Did you generally agree to that, or what';s different?
PRIME MINISTER:
She put some proposals and I said we';d consider them. But there hasn';t been any alteration in the decision.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, I think it was in December last year you mentioned this notion of pre-emptive strikes against terrorists and threats to the region. It wasn';t raised this morning, but do you still stand by that position?
PRIME MINISTER:
Do I still stand by… well Glenn it wasn';t discussed this morning. It obviously isn';t… well Glenn I always take the view that Australia should do everything in its power in cooperation desirably with its friends and neighbours to thwart terrorism.
JOURNALIST:
And would that include [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, it';s a purely hypothetical question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, why do we need to strengthen… we signed another MOU. Why do we need to further strengthen cooperation? What';s been missing thus far in terms of our police cooperation on counter-terrorism measures? Has anything prompted this or is this just part of a…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s a product of the much closer cooperation between our agencies as a result of Bali and as a result of the 11th of September, and naturally when you have that cooperation you express it in a Memorandum of Understanding. It';s a very natural thing to do.
JOURNALIST:
Will our police have any greater access to arrested suspects or…
PRIME MINISTER:
Every country has to respect the laws of other countries, and the key to it is cooperation and we';re in the business, and our police are in the business of working with the police and the agencies of other countries. We';re not in the business of doing other than respecting their sovereignty in these matters.
JOURNALIST:
How important is it to seal agreements with countries like Malaysia…
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we have one with Malaysia. We have one with Malaysia already. Yes we do. That';s my understanding. I';ll check and if I';m wrong I';ll apologise.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you';re aware of Mr Fraser';s criticisms. How do you view the impact of our reinvigorated relationship with the United States upon our relations with the region?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I regard our… well let me say two things about our relationship with the United States. It';s always been very close. You use the word reinvigorated. Well I';m not saying it hasn';t been reinvigorated and that';s quite deliberately. But the idea that it has damaged our relations with the region is ridiculous. And to give you an illustration – Iraq. I mean there is a totally false view around that the region was opposed to the coalition of the willing. The Philippines wasn';t, South Korea wasn';t, Japan wasn';t and Singapore wasn';t, and I don';t think Thailand was particularly opposed. And even China, although critical, not vigorously so. The idea that in some way we were over here and the rest of the region was over there, is just inaccurate. I mean it is plain inaccurate and it';s one of those things that has been running around – one of those canards that has been allowed to run, but it should be stopped dead in its tracks because it';s just not true.
JOURNALIST:
Did Mr Fraser raise his concerns when he spoke to you…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, and I wouldn';t…
JOURNALIST:
Should he have done that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, look he';s been out of politics for 20 years. He';s entitled to have any view he likes about any subject and I fully respect his right as an eminent Australian citizen to have any view he wants on any subject, and it doesn';t alter the relationship between us one iota.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, one of the eminent views he had was about David Hicks.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Isn';t it true that we did go into Afghanistan, and in a sense go into Iraq, to defend people';s rights…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it was.
JOURNALIST:
… and due process. How can you conceivably say that those rights and due process have been observed in this case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I think you';ve got to just, you know, hold your horses a bit on making judgements that due process hasn';t been observed.
JOURNALIST:
In two years?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
When you say hold your horses, I mean it';s been nearly two years since…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but he was captured in circumstances that classify him as an unlawful combatant.
JOURNALIST:
The only right that he has, people who are arrested [inaudible] is the right to remain silent. There are no other rights at all [inaudible] military…
PRIME MINISTER:
That is not my understanding of it at all. Well, the presumption of innocence.
JOURNALIST:
Well yes [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s a pretty important right in our system. And the right to counsel is a pretty important right.
JOURNALIST:
But he';s not entitled to the counsel of his choice. His counsel is appointed by the US Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well he';s in a category of an enemy combatant. I can only, you know, put forward the view of the first law officer, and the first law officer has had a very lengthy discussion with the relevant person in the Pentagon, and there are some other procedures that we have in mind to satisfy ourselves that he will be properly treated in the American legal system and I hope to be able to say something more about that soon.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, he hasn';t really had the presumption of innocence though, has he? I mean the [inaudible] Ambassador indicating the US';s view on [inaudible], and even our own Attorney General suggesting very strongly that he has proven ties with al Qaeda. That';s not a presumption of innocence at all, is it? Isn';t it an assumption he';s guilty?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it';s a presumption of innocence before the tribunal that determines what happens to him, is relevant. I don';t think for a moment that tribunal is going to be influenced by what the Australian Attorney General says.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] will you have discussions with the US?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look there are some additional procedures that are in play at the moment.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just on Iraq – the Opposition Leader today said that increasingly it looks as though we went to war in Iraq based on a lie. Do you still stand by your comments I think of last week when you said the community had moved on from that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me deal with… they';re two separate issues. The suggestion that we went to war in Iraq based on a lie is just the sort of political rhetoric you';d expect from somebody who incidentally said that Iraq was in material breach of her Security Council obligations and whose Foreign Affairs spokesman said, without qualification before the war started, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I mean it';s very interesting what is now happening. They';re now saying things that they didn';t say before the war started. I don';t believe that for a moment. My position on the intelligence was as I outlined earlier today. I think this whole African uranium thing has been blown out of all proportion.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, there have been suggestions today that perhaps some of the violence going on in Iraq against American soldiers [inaudible] work of al Qaeda and not the work of Iraqi political operatives. What information do you have about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t have any information suggesting that.
JOURNALIST:
Suggesting al Qaeda activity…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don';t. I';m not saying it';s not true, but I do not have any information from recollection about that.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, on North Korea – is it our gravest regional risk?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look Louise, I';d rather not… I know you';re looking for a story and a line but I just really don';t want to get into that. I';ve stated my views. It';s a very difficult issue and the best thing I can do and the most sensible thing in Australia';s interests I can do is to use careful language, and the same applies if I may say so with respect, to people who report this issue. It should be treated with the gravity that it represents. And I';m not going to get into comparisons of how grave it is on a scale of 10. It is a very difficult issue. North Korea is a rogue state. North Korea does not behave like other countries. We do need to get the maximum pressure exerted, especially by those five countries that the President and I talked about this morning. We';re doing everything we can. It';s a mixture of diplomacy and presenting a united front, but it is a very hard and a very challenging issue.
JOURNALIST:
It';s hard to exaggerate the risk of nuclear…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they';re your words Paul, not mine.
JOURNALIST:
Do you agree with her assessment that the way to go is to… energy is a big part of that, and economic security and energy security for North Korea?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m sorry, I don';t follow your question.
JOURNALIST:
President Arroyo was saying in the press conference that economic security and energy security [inaudible]. Do you agree with that sort of assessment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it';s important also that North Korea foreswear any nuclear ambitions. I mean if it';s good enough for the Ukraine to, once having been on some assessments the third most nuclear country in the world, to foreswear those ambitions, then the capacity is good enough for North Korea. North Korea is in breach of an international treaty, in breach of obligations. I mean, let';s go back to first principles, and that is the legal basis of our concern as well as obviously the strategic ones.
JOURNALIST:
So your message is that North Korea has to [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I';m… the order that you are ascribing is yours.
JOURNALIST:
Well in that context Prime Minister, what is wrong with North Korea';s idea of getting a guarantee of sovereignty from the United States in return through their nuclear [inaudible]. Why…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I suppose one of the – you know, this is not a final word on the subject – but one of the disabilities of that is that North Korea gave undertakings before and systematically, systematically walked away from them. It was only American intelligence that found them out and when confronted with it, they owned up. So you have to understand from the American point of view, from our point of view and from Japan';s point of view and South Korea';s point of view, we can';t just blithely ignore that track record of deceit.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the President this morning when she talked about denuclearisation of North Korea, said that you made a point of saying that you wanted it closely monitored for compliance.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that was in the context of the issue that I just had an exchange with Glenn Milne about.
JOURNALIST:
How would you see that being done? Through the IAEA or how would that be done?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that is a question that we can address further down the track if there is agreement reached – if agreement were reached. I mean obviously there are different ways of doing it. But I';m not ruling any in or out. I don';t think we';ve reached that level of specificity.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, just back on Japan again. Given this [inaudible] that they';re going to ramp up their beef tariff, what real prospect that you';d have any kind of free trade agreement with Japan…
PRIME MINISTER:
You have to understand the history of the expression ‘free trade'; in the context of our relations with Japan. It was never publicly proposed by us, a free trade agreement. It was my recollection, without checking the detail of the record, my recollection is that it was raised in a press briefing between the Japanese Prime Minister and some Australian journalists prior to his coming to Australia last year.
JOURNALIST:
So are we not pushing for…
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, hang on, let me finish. And then when we had our discussions in Australia, there was a reluctance on the Japanese side to repeat that particular aspiration. And what we';ve been talking about since is something that falls short of that. And, you know, I';m not expecting any outcome to be more than what we have been talking about. But when you';ve got a relationship with a country like Japan, I mean I tell you what, there aren';t many free trade agreements we could make with many countries that would produce as good a customer as we';ve got in Japan. So I mean in the end it';s outcome that matters.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] objective?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the objective is to maintain our level of trade with Japan and if possible, increase it. Frankly I don';t mind how we do that. The arrangements are less important than the outcomes.
JOURNALIST:
Would you expect Australia to take Japan to the WTO? Is that something that would be…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s not something that is currently in my contemplation.
JOURNALIST:
The issue of the African intelligence [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
The African uranium, yes.
JOURNALIST:
Right. The six other sources of information that you have.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, the six other sources were… I';m citing what the Director of the CIA said on that.
JOURNALIST:
Is that intelligence going to be made public in some form?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you';d have to ask George Tenet that.
JOURNALIST:
You haven';t seen, no one in Australia…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well as it happens, I have read the 86 page document. Yes, I read it on the plane last night. Very interesting document. But it';s a classified document and I can';t make it public.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, our intelligence agencies – are they getting the raw intelligence from the CIA or are they getting….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look it varies, it varies, it varies. The raw intelligence in relation to the African Uranium issue on which the British Joint Intelligence Committee relied was not made available to our intelligence agencies and it';s also my understanding it was not made available to the Americans either.
JOURNALIST:
Is that a concern to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it';s not a concern for me because even in a very close intelligence relationship there is some raw intelligence that is withheld. There is nothing unusual about that at all. Even between the Americans and the British there is some raw intelligence that is not shared.
JOURNALIST:
But that makes it difficult for you doesn';t it if you have to stand in parliament and….
PRIME MINISTER:
No no not if you accurately describe what happened. And if you go back and have a look at my speech what I said was that it was a judgement of the Joint Intelligence Committee that blah blah blah. And I also went on to say that it was the judgement of the CIA in a published document that blah blah blah in relation to reconstitution of the nuclear program. Both of those were published judgements. They weren';t taken from secret intelligence reports. There was the British dossier of September, and there was a published report of the CIA.
JOURNALIST:
Before the war, some of the European countries, the French and the Germans were saying what';s the rush here, why do we need to go to war now. The evidence in Iraq seems to be that there weren';t masses of weapons of mass destruction.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you can';t make that judgement…
JOURNALIST:
There may be programs but in hindsight was there a compelling need to go to war when the coalition of the willing did?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have absolutely no doubt the coalition of the willing did the right thing. It remains the case, and let me just say this very slowly, it remains the case that there was a very strong intelligence assessment supporting our decision that the uranium out of Africa thing has been overblown completely. Not only do you have the remarks made by Tenet, but if you look at what I said in my statement to Parliament and if you bear in mind that British intelligence is still standing by that assessment. I keep reading in the newspapers, I read in the Courier Mail this morning, not by Dennis, but by somebody else that evidence … that the forgery blew the British assessment out of the water. That';s not right. That was only one element. The British have said repeatedly that there were other things on which they base that assessment. Now, you know, when we are dealing with something as precise as this, precision is required of me, that';s fair enough. Precision is also required of people who report this.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you now believe that…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I believe what I told the Australian public, that there was an assessment made by the British Joint Intelligence committee that Iraq had sought uranium. I believe that and I also know that the British are still saying that.
JOURNALIST:
You have now had the benefit of reading all of those… the American and the British. What is your personal view….?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I haven';t read the British, any more than what you have read. What I read last night was the document that was sent to our intelligence agencies.
JOURNALIST:
But what is your personal view about whether Iraq….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, my view as expressed in that statement. I am informed, the statement on the 4th of February, if you go and read it, quotes the British assessment, quotes the CIA assessment, I know that subsequent to that the IAEA judged that there were two forged documents, but I also know that the British have said repeatedly that there is other documentary and non-documentary material.
JOURNALIST:
And you are more persuaded by that argument than by the IAEA or….?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am persuaded that the British still believe that … the British JIC still believe it, and that';s what I said.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can you tell us what you believe?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';ll tell you what I believe. I believe that the British Joint Intelligence Committee reached that assessment.
JOURNALIST:
But that';s…
PRIME MINISTER:
But that';s all I said and I';ve never said anymore than that.
JOURNALIST:
I know that and I';m asking you now, are the Australian people not entitled to know whether you personally believe that Iraq ever tried to buy uranium?
PRIME MINISTER:
But I';ve never asserted that.
JOURNALIST:
I know that and I';m asking you…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what else can I say?
JOURNALIST:
Well, I';m asking you now whether you personally believe that….?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t have enough information in my possession. I don';t have the raw intelligence sources, that';s why I didn';t personally assert. All I ever did was to repeat what the British had said.
JOURNALIST:
You don';t have enough information….
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t have access to all the raw intelligence.
JOURNALIST:
.. great weight on the British intelligence ….did I mishear you before that you said you';d not read the British intelligence.
PRIME MINISTER:
Neither have our intelligence agencies. They haven';t seen the raw intelligence. I said that last week. In the press conference I had, I said it last week.
JOURNALIST:
Isn';t that a concern though to the Australian people if their leader has to make a decision based on…
PRIME MINISTER:
But I didn';t, I';m sorry you see, I didn';t make the decision. I mean if this uranium thing had never been there it wouldn';t have altered the decision. It was right down the scale.
JOURNALIST:
So you had access to all the intelligence…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, hang on, will you let me explain it. I get intelligence assessments, I don';t get all the raw intelligence. Our agencies do.
JOURNALIST:
Do they get all the raw intelligence on the other weapons of mass destruction? As I remember it…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they would have had a lot. Just whether they got all of it I don';t know. I mean, there are acres of this stuff coming virtually every day and it is just beyond belief to suggest that I can go through all of that, or somebody on my staff can go through all of that. That is why you have agencies.
JOURNALIST:
… fair degree of chat between the intelligence communities via… Before you made your speech to parliament, was either the Australian High Commission in London or the Australian Embassy in Washington aware of the State Department doubts?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, certainly if they were they certainly weren';t communicated to me. What happened with the speech is what I';ve already explained, that it was put together. The intelligence bits were cleared by ONA. The British stuff was in the dossier that was published in September of last year. I didn';t get it from some covert source and the American CIA stuff was in it as well, but can I just go back to the point I made earlier that this thing has been overblown, because even if the uranium thing had not even been mentioned, it wouldn';t have made the slightest bit of difference to our decision. Tenet has said that it doesn';t feature amongst the six reasons why the American intelligence community assesses that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear capacity and then on top of that, for further measure, the British are still standing by it. Now, as I say, I haven';t seen the raw intelligence. Our agency haven';t and that is why we quoted it as a British assessment. The other remarks in the speech were not so qualified because they were based on the assessment of Australian agencies.
JOURNALIST:
On those six points of intelligence. Mr Al Baradei, the head of the IAEA on January 28th, the night of the state of the union address said that there was no evidence that he had seen persuasive or otherwise to suggest that Iraq was reconstituting … nuclear.. and he was there to deconstruct the nuclear program in Iraq. Were you unaware of his comments and you met Dr Blix, as I remember in February, did he not mention this to you ….?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';d have to check. You know, I met a lot of people, I';m not going to off the top of my head say that I can recall everything Dr Blix said. I don';t remember all of the details of that conversation with Dr Blix. My best recollection is that it was a fairly general discussion about the inspection process than what the additional processes were. But those six reasons, I';m quoting George Tenet';s statement. I mean you can read it as well as I can and I';m just pointing that out. I haven';t had access to you know all of the material that Tenet';s had access to. I don';t claim to. I';m just pointing out that that';s what Tenet said and that is a relevant argument about the significance. I know that some people find this hard to sort of accept because it doesn';t fit the script but the uranium thing did not feature large at all in our decision and this whole thing has been blown out of proportion and I think Tenet';s remark on that is relevant.
JOURNALIST:
Was it not a fact that ….
PRIME MINISTER:
No, go and read the speech that I made and you will see that there were qualitative differences to the emphasis placed on chemical and biological versus nuclear.
JOURNALIST:
So how…
PRIME MINISTER:
The assessment of our agencies that Iraq had chemical and biological capability and an aspiration to acquire nuclear weapons. And there was a powerful assessment to that effect and I have absolutely no qualms about repeating that anywhere because that, and that was the basis, and that was a strong assessment, and the uranium thing hasn';t altered that in the slightest. I mean, I know it';s good, it makes a bit of copy and it gives people something to pursue but it doesn';t alter the central fact that we decided on the basis of assessments that I';ve just described and I can';t describe it any better than that and I';m not going to keep saying that because I mightn';t use every word the next time and that will become another issue but…
JOURNALIST:
It was dramatized…
PRIME MINISTER:
What';s that?
JOURNALIST:
The nuclear threat… there was a grave fear of a mushroom cloud over America?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I will answer for what I';ve said. Every leader uses different language. I think if you go back and look at the language I';ve used, I';ve used very careful language, very careful. And if you are talking about somebody else';s language, well you';ll have to ask him. I';m not going to answer for the President';s language. I can';t do that. But can I just, while I';m talking about this subject, can I just make a comment about this line that the agencies are sort of cowered into giving unpalatable advice….not giving unpalatable advice. I';m sorry. Yes, you';re listening. I think that is very unfair on them, and can I just draw attention to the fact that when people talk about the politicization of the public service, three of the people who sat through all of the discussions that we had – three of our most senior advisers were Kim Jones, who, if my memory serves me correctly, was the head of the International division in the Prime Minister';s department when Mr Keating was Prime Minister. Dennis Richardson who was Bob Hawke';s last chief of staff and is now the head of ASIO and Ashton Calvert who was a foreign affairs adviser in Mr Keating';s office and no three people have more totally shared the confidences of me and the government through the whole of this thing and I have total confidence in those three men and I think all of them are doing an excellent job and the suggestion that we have some kind of politicized public service as a result of that, I mean, really, I don';t even begin to understand this.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Menadue made that description the other morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Mr Menadue? Well, if he made that suggestion he is wrong and can I say, it is not only inaccurate but it is very defamatory of people like Kim Jones and Dennis Richardson and Ashton Calvert. I mean, they have advised in good faith governments of both political persuasions and the fact that they had those very senior sensitive positions didn';t in any way affect my judgement and I';ve been responsible for approving or directly appointing the three of them in the time that I';ve been Prime Minister. So this argument that I';ve just gone around weeding out the people who work for the former government and putting in people who are going to give… I mean it is very unfair. Now, look the nature of the relationship obviously changes over a period of years. Ministerial advisers bulk more largely now than they used to but that started a long time ago…
JOURNALIST:
I think the argument is that there';s been a cultural shift.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you see that once again is, if you are dealing with essentially with a lot of people in senior positions. I mean I don';t accept that. I mean I worked in… I was a member of an earlier Government. Ministerial advisers played a very major role in the Fraser Government, I can tell you. They played a very major role in the Prime Minister';s office in that Government. Now I';m not saying there is anything wrong. But people like Petro Georgiou and David Kemp played a very prominent role.
JOURNALIST:
Departmental heads didn';t play [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Departmental heads what?
JOURNALIST:
Didn';t play as prominent a role as they do now.
PRIME MINISTER:
You think departmental heads have got more power now?
JOURNALIST:
I';m saying that there is less separation now than there used to be.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t accept that either. I mean I work with departmental heads. I mean I saw Alan… I had worked with Alan Carmody, John Stone and Tim Besley. They were the three departmental heads that I worked with. I felt that you know, they were there to give the Government advice, they were there to implement the decisions of the Government, and I think, you know, they did it quite faithfully. You see, one of the things you';ve got to remember is that the people who the public actually vote for are us, and the role is that you get good advice, you take decisions. And providing you encourage good advice to be given all the time, that';s how the system works. And I think there is a role for ministerial advisers because I think there are activities of Ministers in a political environment that are different, and there are things that you can ask ministerial advisers to do that you shouldn';t ask departmental people to do. And I think this has been… I';ve said it';s been blown out of proportion in relation to something else, but I think people are sort of forgetting the history of this. And somebody said to me earlier this morning that they just finished reading a book about Winston Churchill written by Sir John Keegan, the eminent British war historian, and he said that Churchill spent a large part of World War II running the war surrounded by a small coterie of ministerial advisers. Not a bad illustration. I mean, we won.
JOURNALIST:
So while we';ve got you on the subject….!
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, a little discourse on the governance of Australia.
JOURNALIST:
How did you rate John Hewson as an adviser?
PRIME MINISTER:
He was a good ministerial adviser. Yes he was. John had a good lively economic brain and he was a good ministerial adviser. He had some differences with some of the public service advisers and he was famously described by one as having particular qualities, but I found John was a good adviser.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, I hate to disrupt the flow of this conversation, but just back on Iraq, any recent updates on the search for weapons of mass destruction at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don';t have anything to add to what I have previously said. I remain confident that evidence will be found.
JOURNALIST:
But they haven';t given you any recent briefs on…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t have anything further to say at present.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, did President Arroyo have any updates on the struggle against Abu Sayyaf and other terrorist groups in the southern Philippines?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look we didn';t get into that sort of detail. We talked… I mean we had an hour, but we covered a whole range of subjects. But I didn';t get into that level of specificity. I think we';ve done pretty well, haven';t we?
JOURNALIST:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
You know, you got a nice little seminar on governance.
[ends]