PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say that this has been a very good meeting. It has continued the momentum that came out of the Auckland meeting last year. The clear emphasis that is now placed on economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security – they';re the main goals of the forum, and the focus of the Secretariat and all the other resources of the forum will be on those goals. There was a very good spirit and I congratulate the New Zealand Prime Minister on calling a special forum. I think it has been very valuable.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the new role of the Secretary General, that';s something obviously you were very keen for back in August. What sort of role do you imagine him taking?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he needs to be more active. I don';t mean he personally, but the role needs to be an active role, a coordinating role. I think although no government will surrender sovereignty to somebody in that position, we do need to get more energy into it and there is a feeling now that the forum can achieve something. The last year has been the best year that I have known for the forum since I have been Prime Minister of Australia and there is a sense around that we';ve turned a new page and that we are going to get somewhere.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you have mentioned the need for more pooling as well of course announcing more contribution from Australia. What do the Pacific Island nations contribute to the pool, do you think? PRIME MINISTER:
Well when I talk about pooling, I mean pooling of resources to achieve outcomes. I don';t mean financially supporting the forum. Obviously Australia has to carry a greater financial burden than other members because we';re far and away the wealthiest country in the forum. That';s only fair. Obviously New Zealand should contribute something too, and she does contribute. But when I talk about pooling, I mean pooling of the resources in so many areas where acting alone, particularly the small countries, can';t achieve anything. I don';t mean pooling the financial responsibility of running the forum, although that also should be pooled, but that is a separate pooling.
JOURNALIST:
Is there a time when some of these countries could be standing on their own two feet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well some of them do to a large extent now. A country like Fiji.
JOURNALIST:
… smaller islands…
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s very difficult Nigel, very difficult indeed. That';s why we have to get together and we have to help them. Now whether… you know, we can debate the circumstances that have led to it, but there is no point in doing that. I';m just interested in the now and future outcomes. And the whole idea of this reform process is to try and help countries that are very tiny by any standard achieve basic services and have better governance and to stand as best they can together with others on their collective feet, if I can put it that way.
JOURNALIST:
Does the Secretary General now have a greater mandate on issues of governance to not interfere, but to advise the pacific island country?
PRIME MINISTER:
There is greater collective acceptance of the need for better governance. The Secretary General doesn';t have an executive authority in any way to say well, you';ve got to change this or that practice. But there is a very strong feeling now that unless standards of governance are lifted where they should be lifted, then we';re not going to achieve much. And certainly I have made it very plain for Australia that our continued support is conditional on standards of governance being up to scratch.
JOURNALIST:
So you would expect him to be more active on an issue than perhaps…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I expect him to do what I';ve said.
JOURNALIST:
You say that this has picked up a momentum from August. Are you sensing a mood back home, you';re picking up momentum when you picked up the paper this morning?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the only thing I would say is that Mr… the only thing I would say is that Mr Latham made a major policy error relating to the stationing of our forces in Iraq for opportunistic political reasons. He took a decision that was against the best interests of Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Were you reading that as a turning point?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t talk about things like that. I';ll leave that to the experts.
JOURNALIST:
You';ve got to be fairly cheery about Newspoll compared to a couple of weeks ago.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';ll leave it to the commentators. I enjoy reading your commentaries, even when I don';t agree with them.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the US Central Command has suggested there could be a need for more coalition troops in Iraq. Would Australia be prepared to provide more military assistance?
PRIME MINISTER:
We don';t have any plans to provide more. We have about 850 forces or troops there, personnel there at the present time and they';re playing a very important role, and they';ll stay there until their job is done.
JOURNALIST:
Is that leaving the door open if asked to provide more?
PRIME MINISTER:
We don';t have any plans, and I';m not leaving… I';m not even looking at doors. I';m sort of quite content with the room I';m in.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, when you look at the situation in Iraq at the moment, do you see June 30 as a realistic handover date?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven';t had any advice suggesting that it';s less realistic. Clearly there has been a lot of focus on particular events in Iraq over the past few days and certainly the situation has been more intense, but the latest advice I have is that the Americans remain committed to the goal of the 30th of June. But that will not affect the stationing coalition forces because the handover to the Iraqis was never the point at which our obligations finished, despite what Mr Latham and Mr Rudd have said.
JOURNALIST:
So how do you define the job for Australia in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we continue the tasks that we have assigned ourselves. In relation to the air traffic controllers, it';s running Baghdad Airport, getting in readiness when they';re able to do so, a handover of that responsibility to the Iraqis. It means participating in the Iraq Survey Group. It means the HMAS Stuart remaining where it is and continuing its duties. In other words, continue what they are now doing. The question of when their task is finished will be something that we';ll make a judgement on as time goes by.
JOURNALIST:
Will you go there and have a look?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';ve said before that if I were planning a visit, it';s not something that I would telegraph in advance.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) foreshadowed retirement from politics of the Communications Minister. Was that a surprise for you, and what';s your view on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it wasn';t. I knew that Daryl might well decide to do this. I';m sorry that he';s going to leave politics. He has been a very valued colleague. He';s a very dedicated, decent, intelligent man. But I fully understand his reasons and I know that they are entirely as he has described them.
JOURNALIST:
What do you say to those people who accuse Australia and New Zealand of bullying the smaller Pacific Island nations? PRIME MINISTER:
Well they';re wrong.
JOURNALIST:
The modernisation that you';ve referred to of the forum, does that… was there much focus today in the meeting on the modern problems of counterterrorism, border protection and immigration and those sorts of…
PRIME MINISTER:
It wasn';t a meeting Greg where we got down to discussing the substance of these particular issues. It was a meeting designed purely to deal with the Eminent Persons Group Report, which was to carve out in stone what the goals and objectives of the forum should be. This is not the meeting for that kind of focus.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think after today';s meeting there is any greater hopes for some sort of economic… European Economic Union style arrangement?
PRIME MINISTER:
We';re running ahead of ourselves, come on.
JOURNALIST:
Were you pleased to hear the Fijian Prime Minister embracing the potential for a Pacific Union down the track?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he';s a very constructive Prime Minister and he takes a very responsible attitude, but I repeat what I said – it';s just all running ahead of oneself and it';s counterproductive and it achieves nothing to be talking in those sort of grandiose terms. Let us crawl before we walk, and we may have to crawl for quite some time.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what did you do in response to the letter from the Afghan Ambassador in November 2002 asking you to maintain a military presence in his country?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that letter was referred to the Defence Minister, as was appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
Why did it take seven months for the Government to get back to the Afghan Government?
PRIME MINISTER: Well the Afghan Government knew our position. Thank you. [ends]