MURRAY:
And the Prime Minister is on the line now. Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, how are you Paul?
MURRAY:
Very well, thank you Sir. Prime Minister, why did you undertake such a dangerous trip?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wanted to say thankyou to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who were in Iraq and Anzac Day seemed the best time to do it.
MURRAY:
It was extraordinarily dangerous for the outcome though, wasn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, compared with the danger that they face, no. There';s always some element of risk and it';s a riskier environment than most. But you can';t really send people into danger and then be unwilling to subject yourself to some danger to thank them. I don';t think you can.
MURRAY:
I';m told some of the media contingent with you had fears for their safety on the trip, particularly on the flight out from Baghdad. Did you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it was an interesting flight out. We flew at a very low altitude in order to avoid or reduce the possibility of missile attacks. I';m told that if you fly at a very low altitude it';s harder to hit you than if you';re flying at, you know, you';re rising.
MURRAY:
There are reports that a missile had locked on…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, my understanding is that there were no missiles fired, they may… these sensors pick up a lot of things and sometimes they pick up pending missile attacks. That was probably the explanation in this case. Paul, of course there was an element of danger involved in it and not only to me, but to the air crew and to the people who were travelling with me, including the journalists. And could I just say on the subject of journalists, I want to thank the media for, of those who knew on Friday that I was going to Iraq, they didn';t break the security understanding on that. It was better that that be the case. It provided more security and I just want to put on record my thanks to the media for behaving in a responsible way.
MURRAY:
Al-Qaeda is saying today that you rushed to the site of the attack where HMAS Stuart was called in, you rushed there to see what had happened to your troops. Is that true?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, al-Qaeda is saying that?
MURRAY:
Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
Really? I didn';t know that… information Paul, I didn';t know that.
MURRAY:
On the same website where they call you wicked.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';ve been called… I';ve been insulted by everybody, so I suppose al-Qaeda can have a go as well. Seriously though, I didn';t go the site of the Stuart. What I did was when I learned that the Stuart was involved in rescuing Americans who';d been wounded and sadly a couple have died, that when I heard the Stuart was involved in rescuing them in the aftermath of that attempt to blow up the oil refinery, I said for heaven';s sake, the Stuart should stay and do that work and not, as previously had been planned, meet me somewhere else so I could go on board and thank them… I mean, quite obviously their first priority was to do their job and it does incidentally underline the important work they';re doing. I noticed last night that Chris Evans, the Labor Party';s Defence Spokesman, said that effectively our troops weren';t doing anything useful and they were just being kept there for symbolic reasons. Well, I think the Americans who were fished out of the water by the Stuart would not think that.
MURRAY:
At a time when Labor';s calling for us to pack up and leave, you are extending our involvement to the middle of next year, budgeting to spend an additional $150 million on that. Are you holding out the possibility of a bigger deployment? It sounds like we';re in for the long haul.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we';re certainly there until the job is done. I said that there might be some marginal increase in the number there in case if we do decide to add another component which takes us over the current level, I';m not then accused of going back on what I previously said. We don';t have any plans for a big increase. We have said all along that we do not have the capacity given our other commitments to have a large number of soldiers on the ground. Now that has been my position from the very beginning. I made that very plain to both Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush at the beginning of last year. I said if we get involved it';ll be in the sharp combat stage, we don';t have the capacity to have large numbers of troops on the ground, peacekeepers, call them what you like. We did indicate after the war part ended that we would keep certain niche elements there to complete particular tasks and we';ve added to that a little bit by sending people to train the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police and that';s the broad order of what we';re going to maintain. Now it could be that a group might come home and they might be replaced by another group that could take the total a little higher than the current 850. But it would be a small increase and I don';t want people thinking from that that I';m paving the way for a major additional increase because as we currently feel that is not our intention.
MURRAY:
Well, Labor';s Chris Evans says the 15 weapons of mass destruction inspectors have found nothing and they should be pulled out immediately. Are you prepared to do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I';m not prepared to do that. There';s still work being undertaken by the Iraq Survey Group. I met several of those in Baghdad and they';re keen to finish the work they';re doing. The Iraq Survey Group is still working. Now this is the sort of very irresponsible nitpicking that the Labor Party';s being engaged in. I know they opposed the war, our involvement, I know that and I know that they had a vastly different attitude from us on that. But we are there now and it is in Australia';s interests and it will only damage Australia';s reputation if we take a different attitude.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, the Iraqis have asked for you to send Australian Federal Police to train the Iraqi police. Are you prepared to do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there was a request in October of last year, I';ve checked on this, for a significant contingent to go and we indicated at the time because of our other commitments, particularly in our region, that we couldn';t do that and I gather at a departmental level there';s been a limited revival of that. I';d have to say although we';re considering, I';d have to say that I think we have very limited capacity to assist in that area because we have a lot of police in the Solomon Islands, several hundred and they';re going to be there for some time. We';re proposing to send a lot to Papua New Guinea and I think those deployments are very important and I don';t want to do anything to reduce or damage them. And I';m sure you';d understand that is the right priority in relation to those particular people.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, a member of the Iraqi governing council, Mr Barwari, who';s the minister for public works is just… a story';s just come out of the United Nations today where he';s saying Iraqis want complete sovereignty restored by June 30. Will they get it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, they won';t get it. They';ll get transferred to an Iraqi authority on certain conditions. But it will be an Iraqi authority and I think it';s important that people understand that there has been a very significant amount of progress made already in handing over to Iraqis and as soon as we can hand over completely the better. I say in relation to that speaking from Australia';s point of view and I';m sure the Americans and the British and others feel the same way, the sooner that we';re satisfied that the Iraqis can run the show the better. We don';t want to stay there any longer than necessary.
MURRAY:
There are moves now afoot to get the United Nations involved in this transfer or power. Isn';t there a danger that that can just promote the same stalemate that we saw leading up to America taking its action?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it could, but I don';t think it will on this occasion because there seems to be a greater willingness on the part of countries such as France and Russia to support a resolution in the Security Council giving some kind of authority for continued presence, although legally we don';t strictly need that. We believe from Australia';s point of view that there';s enough authority in existing UN resolutions, not only for us to have gone there in the first place but for us to continue. But it would be better for all concerned if we can get a greater involvement by countries like France and Russia and it';s all very well for them to make speeches and give lectures and it';d be a very good idea if there could also be some additional involvement, although I do acknowledge the financial contribution that is being made by quite a number of European countries that did not involve themselves in the military operation.
MURRAY:
Are you worried that this sort of insurgency that';s going on within Iraq at the moment against the Coalition troops has got them well and truly on the backfoot now and certainly on the backfoot in terms of American public opinion?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would think American public opinion is still very solidly behind the administration. Nonetheless, inside Iraq there are some parts of the country that are more difficult, Fallujah is plainly the most difficult area of all from the military point of view and the resistance there and the attacks there on American troops has been fiercer than anything they';ve encountered since the combat operations formally ended last year.
MURRAY:
This isn';t going to turn into another Vietnam, is it, where in three years and four years time we';re still talking about bringing our troops home?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think there';s any comparison with Vietnam. Apart from anything else, the size of the Australian involvement is smaller, much smaller and the political circumstances are totally different. Vietnam, as you remember, was involved on the one hand a claim that it was a communist driven invasion by the north and the south. On the other hand, those who criticise the involvement said it was fundamentally a civil war we shouldn';t have been involved in. Now I don';t want to redebate the issue, but it';s an entirely situation. Every military conflict has some similarity to it, earlier military conflict. But if you think of the politics and the strategic circumstances of the 1960s and now – totally different.
MURRAY:
The only parallel I would draw would just be the intractability of the engagement.
PRIME MINISTER:
Any military operation always ends up taking a bit longer than you would first hope. That';s proved to be the case everywhere and on this occasion, the initial operation was very successful and was very swiftly executed and what we are witnessing at the moment is a very critical phase. If the next two months are won both politically and militarily by the Coalition and by the great majority of the Iraqi people who want a free and democratic future, that will be a great outcome. On the other hand, if the terrorists and the insurgents can block the emergence of a democratic Iraq, then that will be a very big set back. That is really what is at stake because the terrorists and the insurgents are trying to stop the emergence of a democratic Iraq – that';s their principal objective above everything else, is to stop a free and democratic Iraq emerging. If they succeed in doing that, well that will be a setback for all of us and I therefore cannot understand, whatever people';s views were about the original involvement by Australia, I cannot understand why anybody would support doing things at the moment that are going to strengthen the possibility that the insurgents and the terrorists will be victorious.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, can I just you one question on the way out - you are planning to take some action to outlaw gay marriages in Australia, what do you have in mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it';s an issue that';s been under consideration. It';s still being talked about inside the Government. We haven';t made any announcement about it. The proposal simply would be to insert a definition in the marriage act, which gives formal expression to what most people regard to be the case and that is marriage as we understand it in Australia is between a man and woman. This is not directed at gay people. It';s just directed at reaffirming a bedrock understanding of our society. Interestingly enough, the existing law does not contain that formal definition. It';s a common law definition, but it';s not formal one and we have witnessed courts in other countries coming to the conclusion that it may not necessarily only mean that. It could mean something else and we have a view that is what it should mean and that';s what being considered.
MURRAY:
You won';t get into an equal opportunity bun fight in changing the law?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, some people will attack it if it happens, yes. But I';m not seeking to do that. But I just believe that, I think, there are certain institutions that we understand to have a certain meaning and why not say so.
MURRAY:
Very good of you to talk to us today. Thanks for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay then. Goodbye.
[ends]