O'BRIEN:
Prime Minister John Howard is withholding judgement on whether he too should call an independent inquiry here, until he's seen the report from an Australian Parliamentary committee into earlier aspects of this issue. Mr Howard faces a long, hard haul in this election year, with a new Opposition Leader making some early political headway. He broke from his four day campaign in Western Australia for his interview in our Perth studio just a short while ago. John Howard, the evidence just keeps coming in doesn't it that you may have sent Australian soldiers to war against Iraq based on bad information. Are you not starting to feel even a little bit uncomfortable about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry I certainly don't feel uncomfortable in any way about the decision the Government took, it was the right decision and if I were to have the opportunity of retracing my steps with the information I then had available to me I would have taken the exactly the same decision. So far as the nature and the accuracy and the independence of the intelligence is concerned, we have a parliamentary inquiry into that at the moment and that parliamentary inquiry will be reporting I understand within a few weeks and I would have thought it made a lot of sense to see that report tabled in the parliament and for people to have a look at that before they started talking about still further inquiries.
O'BRIEN:
Even you have finally acknowledged that the intelligence data you used to justify war on Iraq may have been inaccurate, but in your mind the credibility of your war still remains intact?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry what I said yesterday was that in the fullness of time some different conclusions might be drawn, I think one or two of the broadsheet headlines took it a verbal or two or an adjective or two further this morning, but what I did say yesterday was that the jury was still out finally on whether there were actual weapons of mass destruction, clearly even David Kay who is quoted in aid of those who seek to denigrate the efforts of American and British intelligence has said that there were WMD programmes and certainly I remain very comfortable about the decision the Government took. I think the world and the Middle East and Iraq are better places because Saddam Hussein has been removed and those who criticised the Government's decision, if their advice had been taken then Saddam would still be running with Iraq with all that that entails.
O'BRIEN:
But before the war you weren't talking so much about programmes, you were talking about arsenals. Surely you have to say that the case for the war that you made, that George W Bush made and that Tony Blair made now appears to be falling apart with a range of things coming to the fore. Colin Powell, who took America's case against Saddam to the UN now agrees with David Kay that the intelligence on a weapons arsenal could have been very wrong, the senior British Government intelligence expert involved in the British Government's central case against Iraq, Dr Jones, now says that document was seriously flawed, and both Britain and America have now been forced to call further independent inquiries. That surely must give you serious cause for concern?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, we took a decision based on the intelligence that was available to us at the time, you will remember that I argued the existence of WMD as the principal reason for involving, I also argued the importance of the American alliance as another reason, not the principal reason...
O'BRIEN:
But it's the principal reason we're concerned about.
PRIME MINISTER:
Just, you know I listened to your question, let me finish. I also argued some of the humanitarian considerations. Now events have unfolded, Iraq is now free of Saddam Hussein, we have an inquiry to report in Australia, let us see that inquiry and then let us examine what is revealed by that inquiry before we start talking about still further inquiries.
O'BRIEN:
Before the war, you told the Australian people time and time again there was no doubt that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons and even then when the Australian people were doubtful about a war how do you think they would have reacted to the idea of going to war, not because Iraq had weapons but because it was in defiance of a UN resolution that demanded the destruction of weapons Iraq apparently didn't have?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, everybody believed Iraq had WMD at the time the war started. The Labor Party believed it, the Russians believed, the Germans believed it, and Jacques Chirac almost believed it. So the idea that now everybody's turning around and saying oh we knew all along that Iraq didn't have WMD, the argument a year ago was not about the existence of WMD, the argument a year ago was about process, about how you dealt with...
O'BRIEN:
It was about whether he had enough weapons, whether he had enough of an arsenal to present a clear and present danger.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry Kerry, the argument was about whether in the light of the evidence of Iraq's non-compliance with successive UN resolutions, the correct course of action was the action taken by the coalition or whether we should further persevere with further United Nations processes. There was no argument at the time about the existence of WMD, the debate was whether the UN process should be further utilised rather than taking military action.
O'BRIEN:
In other words, whether the weapons inspectors under the UN's auspices should be allowed to continue searching.
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry, that is an argument about process, not about existence.
O'BRIEN:
On more domestic matters Mr Howard, Mr Latham's election as leader has led to an evitable comparison about generational differences which I see he's helped along by pointing out this week that he was still studying economics in school when you were Federal Treasurer about 25 years ago. He paints you as a man whose been a professional politician for decades, who's pretty set in his ways. You're not worried that that might strike a chord with voters?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not really. I think people will make a judgement at the time of the election on who they think can better lead the country, who's the more experienced, the more steady, the more dependable, the more likely to preserve the economic strength and the prosperity that we now have.
O'BRIEN:
You'll turn 65 not long before you call the election, you've left open the possibility that you'll serve another full term, that would make you 68 by the end of that term, carrying the burdens of office for more than a decade I might add.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am flattered that you assume that I am going to win the next election.
O'BRIEN:
Well, that is if you win the election, if you win the election that you'll serve a full term and be 68 by the end of it, you don't think that's a valid issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
As far as my time in the job is concerned I said last June that I'd remain leader of the Liberal Party for so long as my colleagues wanted me to and for so long as it were in the best interests of the Liberal Party. Now that is what I said then, that is what I say now, that is will say...
O'BRIEN:
... possibility of you serving a full term.
PRIME MINISTER:
You can interpret it in any way you want.
O'BRIEN:
Well tell me if I've got it wrong, but it leaves open the possibility of you serving another full term. Well does it, yes or no?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, I don't have to say yes or no because you asked me to.
O'BRIEN:
Seems a pretty straight forward proposition.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm just telling you that that is my position and that is the position I'm going to maintain. You ask me what people will think, I think people will make a judgement according to the job I have done, and I think if you have to rely on the obvious, that different people are born at different times, to win an argument, then you don't have much substance.
O'BRIEN:
We're now seeing... we're now used to seeing Mr Latham down on the floor with young schoolkids reading to them. I know you have been to plenty of schools in your time, but I was struck by the picture of you yesterday on the hustings in Perth. There you were down on the floor with the kids. He's not forcing you to play follow up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, I have been doing that for years. Yes, I will find you a good half dozen photographs - even in newspapers that don't normally report me very favourably, I'll find you a good half dozen photographs on the floor with children...
O'BRIEN:
[inaudible] maybe he's following you!
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I didn't say that. I just think it is a natural human reaction if you want to talk to children, you sit down on the floor with them.
O'BRIEN:
Okay. On higher education, let me read from today's Australian newspaper. Nearly 70,000 students have missed out on a university place and are nervously awaiting news of the limited final round offers. Another story from yesterday... from the day before's Sydney Morning Herald - "the entrance score for an Arts degree at the University of New South Wales has broken the 90 mark - up from 85.30 two weeks ago - as rising demand and shrinking places puts university out of reach for thousands of applicants". And that's even before the impact of your radical new policy for higher education comes into effect. How are you going to combat Mr Latham on that front?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't understand really what his policy is, so I don't know what I'm combating. But let me talk about ours. Look no government can guarantee that everybody who wants to go to university can get there, and anybody who pretends they can do that is misleading the Australian public. Until you know the results of the further rounds and until you know the number of ineligible applications for university places, it is not possible to determine ultimately the number of people who miss out. I do know this - that in relation to last year in at least some states, the number of people who dropped out of university during the course of their studies equalled or exceeded the number of people who had been denied places.
O'BRIEN:
Before the last election, you promised to make the needs of working families a priority of your third term - balancing work and family responsibilities better. You have talked about it being a real barbecue stopper of an issue. Have you fulfilled that promise, because Mr Latham is clearly gearing up to prove you haven't.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, I would have thought the first obligation you owe in terms of work and family balance is to give people...
O'BRIEN:
This term?
PRIME MINISTER:
This term, yes. Is to give people the opportunity of a job. We now have a level of unemployment that is at a 22 year low. It's at 5.6 per cent for the first time in 35 years. Unemployment is below six per cent and inflation is below three per cent. So the first...
O'BRIEN:
[inaudible] in this regard was about balancing their family and work responsibilities better - not about employment.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well hang on. I mean how can you have any balance, including your work component, if you don't have a job. So that's the first component. And there will be further things said about this during the course of this term, but we have maintained remarkable levels of employment and we have continued of course to support a very generous family tax benefit system that is delivering record levels of support, either by way of the tax system or direct payments every fortnight, to Australian families.
O'BRIEN:
How does your rhetoric gel with the revelation in last week's Australian newspaper that your Government has sat on a Cabinet in-confidence report for a year which showed that many Australian families on modest incomes are paying tax rates of more than 60 per cent.
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry, we haven't sat on anything because it is self-evident that if you have a means-tested social welfare system and you have a taxation system that has more than one rate scale, as people earn higher incomes, they are going to lose benefits or pass into a higher tax bracket. There were high effective marginal tax rates under Labor. They're less under us because we have created a situation under the GST reform that you can go from something in the order of $20,000 a year income to $50,000 a year without passing into a higher tax bracket.
O'BRIEN:
But isn't it true that late in 2002 your Cabinet considered that document that the Australian is referring to, which pointed to the fact that many Australian families on modest incomes were paying tax rates of more than 60 per cent. And the question is...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah well nobody... I'm sorry, nobody is paying a tax rate of 60 per cent. There is no such thing as a tax rate of 60 per cent. The highest tax rate is 47. What you are talking about is a combination of the high tax rate and the withdrawal of a family tax benefit. That has been part of our system for a very long time.
O'BRIEN:
What are you doing about it then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we did a lot about it with taxation reform - a lot about it. We in fact by creating a band between 20 and 50, where you didn't pass into a higher tax bracket...
O'BRIEN:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that report to which you refer was stating something that is already well known. I mean we didn't invent means-tested social welfare. In fact, social welfare was heavily targeted by the former Labor Government and to my knowledge the Labor Party still strongly supports income-tested family tax benefits. I'd be surprised and interested to know if the Labor Party is in favour of completely non-means testing family tax benefits. That would be a very expensive operation indeed.
O'BRIEN:
Mr Howard, we're in for a long year. Thanks for talking with us today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Always a pleasure Kerry.
[ends]