FAINE:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Jon.
FAINE:
First of all, Abu Bakar Bashir presented before the courts on a number of charges but not convicted on the main one, the main allegation, that he was the leader of JI. Sentenced to three years jail. Your reaction?
PRIME MINISTER:
Mixed. On the one hand I';m pleased that the Indonesian justice process appears to have worked. He has been found guilty of certain offences. He has been given a jail term. That';s good. On the other hand, because many of us here in Australia believe that he was at least the spiritual leader of JI, and therefore at least knew about the attack in Bali, we';re disappointed that he wasn';t convicted on that and didn';t get a longer sentence.
FAINE:
Does your disappointment translate into criticism of the Indonesian Government';s and justice system';s management of the trial?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not in a position, having not sat through the trial, to make that judgement. I can only express my reaction, as Mr Downer has done. And I thought he put it well on behalf of the Government. It is a mixed reaction, but certainly the system is working to the effect or to the extent that he has been convicted. He was always, even amongst people who were a little critical of the system, there was always a doubt because there was only one piece of direct evidence about his JI leadership. That was the man who gave it by video link from Singapore. There was a worry that the evidence presented in the case would not be strong enough to secure conviction on that particular count. It';s a difficult call for Australia. On the one hand, we are very understandably sensitive about anybody who we think was associated with the Bali attack. On the other hand, we do respect and congratulate the Indonesian Government for the steps it has taken against terrorism and the efficiency of the investigation of the attack in Bali and the fact that people have begun to be convicted and many people have been brought to justice in relation to that. So it is a mixed reaction.
FAINE:
One interpretation of this is that it';s a victory for terrorism. They';ve failed [inaudible] guy in charge is only in jail for a couple of years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is the interpretation that some people will put on it.
FAINE:
Why is it wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can';t make a final judgement on that unless you actually went through all of the evidence. But we are ourselves disappointed that it didn';t go further, but we can';t condemn it totally.
FAINE:
Did the Indonesian Government do enough?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m not really in a position at the moment to make a… how shall I put it, a researched observation on that. I';d have to get advice.
FAINE:
I';d take that [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No, you can take it for what it actually says, and that is I';m not in a position at this stage to make that judgement and you shouldn';t put those words into my mouth.
FAINE:
Well as this matter stands then, we have…
PRIME MINISTER:
If you don';t mind me interrupting, we are dealing with another country.
FAINE:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
We don';t control the justice system of any country and people sometimes debate court verdicts in Australia, don';t they?
FAINE:
Indeed, as we have recently [inaudible] Pauline Hanson.
PRIME MINISTER:
So there are… it';s not something that is confined to other countries.
FAINE:
Alright. Well, if Indonesia is unable to deal with the threat of terrorism to the region, does that mean we should…
PRIME MINISTER:
It would be unfair to say that Indonesia is unable to deal with the threat of terrorism. Indonesia has done quite a lot and Indonesia has cooperated very closely with the Australian authorities - not only the police, but also the security services. All of us must redouble our efforts to cooperate, and I can only repeat that I have a mixed reaction. Some of it is positive and pleasing. Some of it is disappointing.
FAINE:
I understand in a speech you gave last night, you were backing Australia';s current position in relation to Iraq and our contribution to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein';s regime, and calling for the United Nations to be involved in maintaining some rule of law in Iraq. Will Australia change its position? Will we contribute to UN forces in Iraq in the long-term?
PRIME MINISTER:
Jon, what I said was that I would support a greater UN involvement. I don';t think I went further than that, spelt out the form of it. I think everybody would support greater UN involvement, particularly if it brought the forces of other countries. Australia already has just under 800 people in the Iraqi region. That seems to be forgotten. We still have 800 people in the region. Some several hundred of those are on a naval vessel, but others are actually in and around Baghdad. We have the air traffic controllers. We have people in the Iraq survey group. We have people who are guarding the Australian headquarters group. So whilst it is not a large number…
FAINE:
Not combat troops.
PRIME MINISTER:
No. But we made it very clear at the beginning, before the shooting started, that if we were involved, we could only be involved in the sharp end. We could not afford to commit a large number of peacekeepers. And the demands on our forces in places such as the Solomon Islands since have demonstrated that we do have obligations elsewhere.
FAINE:
That's a tiny commitment to the Solomons.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but… it';s not actually. It';s quite big. We';re not a huge country. We still have about 1,000 people in East Timor and we have people in other parts of the world, albeit in smaller numbers, but we have somewhere in the order 1,500 to 1,800 personnel in the Solomon Islands. That is quite a large commitment. That really is.
FAINE:
But if we';re saying to the United States and to Britain and the rest of the world community, look we were prepared to go in there and commit combat troops to try and get rid of Saddam Hussein, but now somebody else is going to have to pick up all the pieces, isn';t that almost walking away?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Quite the opposite. We were in fact one of the very few countries that were prepared to be very upfront at a very difficult stage in the dispute with the former regime. We were very much on our own and most people who were critical of our decision were telling me that, and they were criticising me and criticising the Government for being almost alone, along albeit with the United States and Britain, in being involved at the sharp end. But we were very upfront about this. I personally made it very clear to President Bush and to Mr Blair and to Donald Rumsfeld before the shooting started that if we were ultimately involved, then it would be in the combat phase of the operation. That we were not in a position to provide large numbers of peacekeepers. And that was the attitude we took in Afghanistan. We don';t have peacekeepers in Afghanistan. We provided our Special Forces and they were gratefully received and admired for the role they played both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. That is really our, how shall I put it, our projection, our deployment, our placement in these things, we have a capacity to provide highly trained specialist forces in small but effective numbers, but when it comes to larger numbers, we do have responsibilities in our own region and we need to be in a position to discharge them.
FAINE:
19 minutes to nine. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it would be premature for people to make a final judgement in relation to that.
FAINE:
When can we?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not yet. The Iraq survey group - which is a group of some hundreds of scientists and others, mainly but not all from the United States, it does include some Australians - are still carrying out their work.
FAINE:
There must be no stone unturned….
PRIME MINISTER:
And… well, when they have an interim report, which I understand will be soon but I don';t know exactly when, we';ll know a little bit more. But until then, I would say that people should hold their judgement and not jump prematurely to either conclusion.
FAINE:
You may wish for that, but I suspect the Australian public along with the public in Britain and a good part of the United States have pretty much made up their minds that there are no weapons of mass destruction.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John, like everybody else who';s in public life, I respect public opinion, I answer it, I deal with it, where I disagree with it I say so, where I agree with it I also say so. But I live in a democracy and people are entitled to make up their minds. I can only answer your questions and I can only repeat what I';ve said before and I';ll go on repeating it because it';s true, that the assessments that we received from our intelligence agencies were correctly represented to the public. We didn';t exaggerate what the intelligence told us, people may have disagreed with the conclusion we reached on the basis of that intelligence, that';s a different thing. But we didn';t misrepresent or exaggerate the intelligence that we were given. And if I may so, from the evidence that';s emerging in the Hutton Inquiry in Britain, it does not appear that the British Government misrepresented the intelligence given because the interesting thing that';s emerged from that inquiry so far is the testimony of the chairman of the joint intelligence committee, John Scarlett, who testified that the intelligence agencies were responsible for the preparation of that dossier and I think that has to be said in Mr Blair';s defence albeit from 12,000 miles away.
FAINE:
Yes, although his senior spin doctor,of course..[inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a separate issue… well the allegation, bear in mind, was that it had been doctored in Downing Street. Now, okay the Hutton hasn';t made his inquiry ,made his finding yet. I may be demonstrated to be out of line. As a citizen of Australia, I';m observing what I hear and what I hear most interestingly out of that inquiry is the testimony of John Scarlett who';s the chairman of the joint intelligence committee and he said that the material was not doctored by Downing Street. Now that to me is fundamental of this issue, of course there's a terrible personal tragedy in relation to Dr Kelly…
FAINE:
[Inaudible]should never be forgotten…
PRIME MINISTER:
…. no it should not be forgotten and that';s why I raised it albeit less anybody listening to the programme thought that I was insensitive to that.
FAINE:
16 minutes to nine. We do have to make time for some calls. But are you embarrassed by the disclosures in the Bulletin magazine today that the terrorism hotline was not put into the telephone book?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it certainly should have been. We assumed Telstra would do it, we did.
FAINE:
…assumption.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don';t think it is a big assumption…
FAINE:
Well how much money was spent on setting up the hotline and (inaudible)…?
PRIME MINISTER:
…. Well there were an enormous number and, indeed, I suggest that the great bulk of people who may have used it probably got the number from the newspaper advertisements, from the much much maligned fridge magnets and all of those sorts of things. So maybe in reality the absence of it in the White Pages, and I think our own lifes experiences is that when you have those emergency numbers you either know them or you have them stuck up somewhere in a prominent place in the kitchen, you don';t normally thumb through the White Pages. But look, it was a mistake by Telstra, we assumed it and I apologise for the fact that it';s occurred but…
FAINE:
But don';t blame Telstra for it…
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay, well look if it makes you happy I will accept personal responsibility for it. And next time I will go through everytime I get the White Pages I will go through them and make sure that every emergency number has been listed.
FAINE:
Prime Minister, no one's suggesting that should happen either but when you';re talking about responsibility and accountability you set out a plan of action and you expect it to be carried out.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it should have been and I am sorry that it didn';t happen and I am critical of those responsible for it not occurring.
FAINE:
A keynote policy in your re- election strategy was that the people who came to Australia on the Tampa would not set foot on Australian soil and yesterday 14 of them did. Is this an embarrassment to you and does this mean…?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, quite the opposite. In fact, on the 4th of September two years ago, that';s two years ago tomorrow, on this very programme what I said was this, “what we have said is that we will take our fair share, we';re not taking them all, we';ll take our fair share, we always do”. What I said two years ago was that people who came to this country, sought to come to this country illegally would not be allowed to set foot on Australian soil and that has happened. These people who';ve come from Nauru are people who have been assessed as having legitimate refugee claims and we always allowed for the fact, always allowed for the fact as attested to by those very words in this transcript two years ago on this very programme we always allowed for that fact.
FAINE:
Two years ago, Prime Minister, you attempted to characterise all the people on the Tampa…
PRIME MINISTER:
Now we';re changing the subject slightly.
FAINE:
Two years ago at that time you attempted to characterise all… the great bulk of the people who had no legitimate claim…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John, the great bulk of the people were not found to be legitimate refugees, some were and we said then, and I';ve just repeated the words, that we';d take our fair share now there is not inconsistency.
FAINE:
Why did they have to spend two years in conditions that can only be described as appalling in Nauru for their legitimate….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the process of checking people in this situation is always very difficult. Now, many of the people in Nauru, of course, were assessed by the international organisation for (inaudible). I'm not saying all of them were
FAINE:
You';ve got your elbow on the button.
PRIME MINISTER:
… I';m not quite sure whether these were or not. But there are processes that are involved and those processes always take a long time.
FAINE:
Alright, we need to move on and to get some callers to air. But just before we do, I have your code of ministerial conduct here. I can';t find anybody except you who thinks that Wilson Tuckey should still be a Minister in your Government. Your ministerial code of conduct says that Ministers should not intentionally mislead the Parliament or the public. He clearly has. Ministers should avoid giving appearances of using public office for private purposes. He';s not just given the appearance of it, he';s actually done it. No conflict or apparent conflict between interest and duties, well that has. He shouldn';t use the influence of public office to gain an improper benefit for himself or another. He clearly did. He shouldn';t use office facilities for anything other than official purposes or abuse the privilege which is attached to ministerial office…
PRIME MINISTER:
I am aware of all of those and what I would say in reply is that it is a code, it was never said at the time that if there is any breach of that code somebody should automatically be sacked. Somebody, whatever the innocent purpose might write on their ministerial letterhead, a letter that is of a personal character… I know what you';re getting at and I accept the point you';ve made… I mean, you asked… with respect John it was a very long question and I am trying to answer it and explain to your listeners why despite the fact that he was very foolish and he did make mistakes, I made a judgement that looking at the totality of it, it didn';t warrant his sacking. Now, I accept that I';ve been criticised for that but I don';t believe that Wilson set out deliberately to mislead the Parliament. I think the answers he gave were somewhat convaluted and I think his whole conduct in the thing was foolish and I';ve made that very clear to him.
FAINE:
So [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no that is not correct, that is not correct. In the end, a code like that is a guide and you have to make a judgement about the totality of his conduct. Most people who have given me a reaction on this have condemned his conduct in terms of foolishness, they';ve not said that he';s a person who set out deliberately to abuse his office.
FAINE:
We';ll take some calls next - 94141 774 to speak to the Prime Minister.
[commercial break]
FAINE:
To speak to the Prime Minister, Pete from Bacchus Marsh. Good morning Pete,go ahead.
CALLER:
G';day Jon how are you going? Both Johns. John Howard, I would say at the moment you have no standing in the Australian public at all after the kids overboard, the weapons of mass destruction, the ethanol lies you told to the Parliament, and the ministerial code of conduct. Before you were elected you told you were going to clean up the Parliament and make sure that no one broke that and they were going to be out.
FAINE:
Repeat the question.
CALLER:
I just put it to him that the ministerial code of conduct is just a farce, that he's just made a fool of himself.
FAINE:
Alright. Well I just asked the Prime Minister about that so where do you want us to go with that question?
CALLER:
I';d just say he got the chance to stand aside on his 64th birthday and he should have.
FAINE:
Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';ve got nothing to add to what I';ve said on that subject.
FAINE:
Alright, thanks Pete. Fred in [inaudible]. Good morning Fred.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Mr Howard, Jon.
PRIME MINISTER:
How are you?
CALLER:
Good thanks. I want to ask you firstly about the Scoresby Freeway, why you';re not paying up the money for it to be toll free?
PRIME MINISTER:
Hey?
CALLER:
Well why aren';t you….
PRIME MINISTER:
We had a deal….
CALLER:
No no….
PRIME MINISTER:
And the Victorian Government';s welched on it. My name';s Howard. Bracks is the fella you should be ringing about that. No I';m Howard, he';s Bracks.
CALLER:
I understand Howard.
FAINE:
Good. What';s your question now Fred?
CALLER:
My question is is it good enough for you to break your promises and have core and non-core promises way back when you were last elected….
PRIME MINISTER:
So in other words so what you';re saying is Mr Bracks has broken a promise.
CALLER:
…..why is it okay for you to break promises and not for the other bloke?
PRIME MINISTER:
What particular promise are you alleging I';ve broken?
CALLER:
Well you';ve broken the promise….[inaudible] promises every term. For example [inaudible] you refused to pay money for the MCG so he had to pay for it….
PRIME MINISTER:
No that was offered on conditions and those conditions were not fulfilled.
CALLER:
They were fulfilled.
PRIME MINISTER:
No they weren';t fulfilled.
CALLER:
The unions have [inaudible]….
PRIME MINISTER:
What we';re saying is that if federal money is going to be spent anywhere in Australia it should be spent in accordance with federal law and most Australian taxpayers would agree with that Fred.
CALLER:
The MCG was according to federal law because you agreed to those [inaudible]
FAINE:
So Fred you think that the federal government';s responsible for the lack of Commonwealth money contributed to the Scoresby Freeway?
CALLER:
Of course I am.
FAINE:
What about Mr Bracks';s changing of the rules?
CALLER:
Well that';s fine, that';s not good either. That';s shocking.
PRIME MINISTER:
We haven';t changed our rules though.
CALLER:
It should never have happened but if Mr Howard can say he can have core and non core promises….
FAINE:
Then so can Mr Bracks.
PRIME MINISTER:
You haven';t given me a very good example….
CALLER:
That';s one.
PRIME MINISTER:
What';s the next one.
CALLER:
The other one is we';re losing money on the Commonwealth Games…..
FAINE:
I';m sorry, is that on hospitals?
CALLER:
The Commonwealth Games.
PRIME MINISTER:
The Games. Well what promise have we broken on that?
CALLER:
Have we received any….
PRIME MINISTER:
But hang on, what promise have we broken?
CALLER:
Have we received….
PRIME MINISTER:
That';s a different question. I think we';re getting nowhere on this.
CALLER:
What about hospitals? Why aren';t we receiving our due amount of money for hospitals?
PRIME MINISTER:
You are. You';re receiving a big increase and Mr Bracks engaged in a shabby stunt of walking out.
CALLER:
[inaudible] calculations.
FAINE:
Fred if I can join in with you here Prime Minister, the issue with the Premiers walk out over the health agreement, how are the states supposed to run hospitals when all the projections are showing that the Commonwealth is not giving them enough money to do so?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I reject that completely.
FAINE:
So your you saying [inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
I am saying that and in fact I don';t normally bring papers along to this sort of thing as you';ve remarked but I';ve actually researched this and over the last ten years in Australia spending on health has gone up from something like…..has gone up very significant as a proportion of GDP and all of the expenditure increase over that ten year period has been from the Commonwealth where as the state contribution has remained static. But to be more precise, the independent body which is the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare which monitors these things, the most recent figures it has and I acknowledge that those figures are some 18 months behind and they may be revised when further figures come in, but the most recent figures they've produced in relation to hospitals and that';s the very issue you';ve asked me about, show that the state and territory share of funding the hospitals fell from 47.2% in 1997 to 43.4% in 2000/2001, and the Commonwealth share rose from 45.2% to 48.1%. Now in the face of that Mr Bracks, Mr Carr, Mr Beattie and the rest of them have no credibility in arguing that the Commonwealth has withdrawn its money…..
FAINE:
The states'; revenue base is shrinking, the Commonwealth revenue base…
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m sorry……
FAINE:
….with the GST, bracket creep, you';ve got the money….
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay, I';m glad you said that. The money from the GST, every last dollar of it, is going to the states. Can I repeat that? Under the revenue sharing agreement we have all of the money which you quite rightly said from the GST is growing, that money is all going to the states. Some of them are better off this year, all of them will be better off as a result of the GST compared with the old Keating government arrangement which we maintained at the end of the next five year hospital agreement. I mean you couldn';t have put a better argument to support what I';m saying. Not only has our contribution, according to these figures, to hospitals risen while the states has fallen, but on top of that the revenue source that the states need to fund their contribution to hospitals is partly the GST and they get all of that and that as you rightly say is going to rise as the years go by.
FAINE:
June in East Kew good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning. I watched the ABC program on Mordechai Vanunu and I';ve been concerned about him since he was jailed 18 years ago…
FAINE:
The Israeli nuclear scientist who';s been in jail all that time, yes.
CALLER:
That';s right. I';m just wondering why it is that America, Great Britain and ourselves have gone recently to such trouble to seek out weapons of destruction but they haven';t said anything about Israel having the bomb?
FAINE:
Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Israelis dispute the allegations that are made and the other point I';d have to make in defence of Israel of course is that Israelis did not behave with the level anywhere like the level of aggression, or indeed aggressively against its neighbours in the way that Iraq did. I mean our criticism of Iraq is not only the possession of weapons of mass destruction but also the fact that Iraq had not hesitated to use them and would not hesitate to use them in the future. That allegation cannot be made against Israel. Israel';s actions, whatever may be said in criticism of Israel, Israel';s reactions over the years have been the actions of self defence. I mean from the moment the state of Israel was created neighbouring states have tried to destroy it and for the 50 or more years that Israel';s been in existence it';s been a matter of survival.
FAINE:
Prime Minister, we';ve just got a few moments before the news. It seems there';s also a disagreement emerging between Peter Costello and Tony Abbott over whether or not it was the right thing to fight Pauline Hanson with a secret slush fund. Tony Abbott says it was the right thing, Peter Costello says no it should have been done through the courts. He doesn';t approve of trying to destabilise political opponents. Who';s right, which one do you back?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';ve read what Peter said yesterday. I think it';s exaggeration to say that there';s a difference emerging.
FAINE:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER: But Jon, this idea that ministers in the government should all be robots and never have a different approach to a strategy for dealing with another political party. You are talking about something that happened five years ago at a time when Tony was a parliamentary secretary. You';re talking about something where people could have legitimately different views. I don';t think there';s as much difference as you';re suggesting. In the end One Nation fell from public favour through the ballot box because people came to the conclusion that One Nation had no answer to the nation';s problems and of course One Nation was racked by a lot of internal fighting and disputation.
FAINE:
Prime Minister, thank you for coming in and taking our listeners calls and thank you to those callers who did get through..
[ends]