JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, David Kay has quit and says there were no weapons of mass destruction before the war. Does that concern you? Does that undermine the case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, we made our decision based on the intelligence that was available at the time. That intelligence was comprehensive. I have no regrets about our decision, no regrets at all. We took an honest decision based on the intelligence available to us. As a result of the military action, Iraq no longer has a loathesome dictator, and potentially thousands of lives have been saved as a result. There is no doubt in my mind that the developments that have occurred in relation to countries such as Libya giving up its weapons of mass destruction have in some way been influenced by what occurred in relation to Iraq – I';m not saying completely, I';m not making that claim at all, but I think it has certainly conditioned the circumstances in which countries view the future and in which countries react. But let me just repeat again… and I don';t apologise for what we did, it was in our view the right thing to have done based on the intelligence that was available. That intelligence was not manipulated by the Government and I stand by completely what we did, and those who criticise us in the Labor Party or elsewhere, if their advice had been followed, Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.
JOURNALIST:
But was the intelligence wrong, or do you still think there are weapons there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the investigation still continues. Nobody has said that the matter is closed. Colin Powell hasn';t said that. And I think the search and the investigation will go on. But we reacted to the intelligence we had at the time and I remain confident that the right decision was taken. I do not regret it, I do not retreat from it, and I never will.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the US administration and Mr Kay are now deliberately backsliding though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if you want a comment on what the American administration is doing, you';ll have to ask them. I mean I speak for the Australian Government and I have just explained to you what my position is and what my attitude is.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you believe that the Citizenship Act should be amended to spell out more the obligations of Australian citizens?
PRIME MINISTER:
My first reaction Paul to that sort of proposition is that you can';t legislate patriotism. I think if you try and say as a matter of law what people';s obligations as a citizen are, you';re getting into dangerously regulatory territory. You have laws of behaviour. You have a criminal law that says you will not do this or you will not do that. But once you start spelling out what people';s specific obligations are, I think you get into dangerously Orwellian territory.
JOURNALIST:
Does the Federal Government or the Federal Parliament have any role to play in making sure Australian parents carry out their responsibilities?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there are a whole range of ways in which Parliament can encourage and influence parents, but in the end you derive your values and your attitudes to how you bring up your own children from your own parents. I mean I learned more from my mother and father about how to treat my children and how to bring them up, than I ever would from a Member of Parliament, from a lawmaker, a social worker, or indeed anybody else. And in the end in our community, we have to understand that the great formative influences on young people are their parents and that';s why it';s very important that people take parenthood seriously. You can';t change a law to change behaviour. That has to come from a variety of things, including the values that you in turn inherit from your own parents.
JOURNALIST:
With the trade agreement Prime Minister, how confident are you that you will get from your friend President Bush the outcomes that Australia is looking for?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it always was a tough ask and it still remains a difficult proposition because in the end in trade, friendships don';t always amount to a lot. That has always been the case. There is a very strong lobby of opposition in America to any concessions on the agricultural front, but unless we get concessions on the agricultural front, then the free trade agreement is not worth signing. But we';re still in discussion. There is a lot of political goodwill from the Americans. There is no doubt about that. But I have never made extravagant claims. I have never said it';s a certainty. And I have never said it';s the sort of thing where sentiment and political friendship will triumph over local and sectoral self-interest.
JOURNALIST:
Are you concerned that American domestic considerations will scuttle the FTA?
PRIME MINISTER:
Steve, there are always domestic considerations. I mean we have people saying in Australia that certain things should not even be discussed, and they';re speaking from their own sectoral point of view. I mean I have been the target of representations from certain groups in the community saying that, you know, you should not even talk about things. I mean the Americans are not alone. We should understand that every country has groups that apply pressure. Steve, we';re reaching the critical point. I remain of the view that it is possible, but it';s difficult. We';re not going to sign a free trade agreement that does not advantage Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Are you planning to pick up the phone and speak to President Bush over the next few days to try…
PRIME MINISTER:
Let me not deal with what may or may not occur in the future. Mark Vaile is doing a great job. I have every confidence in the job that he is doing. I am in daily contact with him and we';ll just see how it materialises.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given the reception you';ve had today, you must be tempted to call an early election.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh come on Steve, it';s Australia Day. Mate don';t contaminate Australia Day with such crass political questions.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you think too many sportspeople are being awarded the Australian of the Year?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don';t. Sport is an important part of our life. But can I just take this opportunity again of asking people to think holistically about these things. It';s not a question of sport or the arts. We can have both. It';s not a question of sport or science – we can have that as well - or sport and humanitarian treatment of people, all of those things, all of those things you can have. And this idea that we elevate sport to a position of undue prominence… the Federal Government on my last calculation spent a lot more money promoting the arts than it did promoting sports, and that excludes the very generous money it gives to the ABC each year. And the ABC promotes the arts, and may I say promotes the arts very effectively, and I pay tribute to the ABC for the work it does in promoting the arts. But let me say this, that this idea that we sort of promote sport to the detriment of other things is wrong. But sport is an important part of the Australian psyche and you only have to move around this country and listen to people, you only have to talk to people about what they do with their time, what they watch on television. Anybody who thinks that sport is not part of the fabric of Australian life misunderstands this country quite dramatically. Thank you.
[ends]