AUSTIN:
Prime Minister John Howard good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Steve.
AUSTIN:
Can we deal with Mark Latham';s allegations first of all that you are playing politics with troops in Iraq, that the deployment is symbolic driven by political timelines rather than military strategy.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the best way of dismissing that inaccurate and insulting description of the troops as having only a symbolic presence is to refer to the incident involving HMAS Stuart only three days ago. That crew was involved, the crew of the Stuart, was involved in rescuing five Americans out of the water after their rubber dinghy had exploded, or rather had been the subject of an explosion by an apparent suicide attack which was aimed at dislocating and destroying the oil refineries in southern Iraq. There were two Americans killed in that incident, the bodies of those two Americans as well as the others in the water were taken on board the Stuart and I';m further advised by the Navy that subsequently the Stuart co-ordinated a response that prevented two other vessels, apparently part of the original attack, from damaging or potentially destroying the oil refinery. Now here you have in the last three days Australian Defence personnel being directly involved in repelling an apparent terrorist attack on an oil installation in Iraq. Anybody who says that is symbolic doesn';t know what they';re talking about. You try and tell the crew of the Stuart that it was symbolic, you try and tell the Americans who were fished out of the water by that crew, by the rescuers from the Stuart that it was purely a symbolic act. I think that is not only insulting but it';s also ignorant. To suggest that it is purely symbolic to guard our civilian personnel in the Australian embassy in Baghdad, I met these people only a couple of days ago, they need that protection, it';s not symbolic, it';s real. Our men and women are contributing very significantly to what is a very important exercise, if we leave Iraq now Iraq will never be a democracy, and when I say we I mean collectively the coalition, not just Australia. Iraq will never have a democratic future and the terrorists will have had an enormous victory and that';s the reason why we';re not going to leave until our task is completed.
AUSTIN:
I';m sure Australians applaud the professionalism Australia';s Defence Force personnel in Iraq and I think what';s uppermost in Mark Latham';s mind is the fact that the forces we';re providing, while doing a very professional and talented job, are not vital to the work there and that';s (inaudible) United States position in Iraq rather being a required element of the United States forces in Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s a very interesting attempt by you to sort of explain Mr Latham';s position. But I prefer to deal with what he said and not with some explanation of what he said and not with some explanation of what he might mean. He used the expression symbolic, in other words what he';s effectively saying is that it';s a nominal presence of no great value and that it';s something that can be done by somebody else. Well I suppose you could always say other people can do things but in the long run the contribution has to be judged on what it represents and what it represents a significant professional element in the total coalition effort and the idea that, whatever people';s views were about the original deployment, the idea that we should pull out at the present time and bear in mind that Mr Latham';s policy is that we should leave as soon as possible after the 30th of June, he';s only talking about the troops being home because by December because he knows that there';s not likely to be an election until later in the year and he therefore wouldn';t be able to implement his policy until December. But he is in fact saying that they should leave after the 30th of June. Now that would be sending a terrible signal, not only to the people of Iraq but also to our allies, it would give great comfort to those who are trying to deny the Iraqi people a democratic future, it would give great comfort to terrorists around the world who';ve been calling for this. I think it would do great damage to the reliability and the reputation of Australia but what is most reprehensible about what Mr Latham has said is his apparent belittling of the role of our forces by saying their role is symbolic. Now that is insulting and it';s ignorant and it';s demonstrated to be such by what I have described as the actions of HMAS Stuart and her crew, only three days ago, we';re not talking about something months ago, we';re talking about something that happened three days ago, the incident happened while it was actually in Iraq…
AUSTIN:
Which must have bought home the reality to you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course. But more importantly Steve, forget about me or you or Mr Latham, it bought home the reality to the crew, these are the people that he said were there symbolically in some symbolic gesture, I think that is both insulting and ignorant, I am appalled that he, by all means attack me, criticise me, criticise the President of the United States and his Labour colleague the British Prime Minister but understand the impact on the men and women concerned by saying that their presence is only symbolic. They';re very proud of the work they';re doing.
AUSTIN:
I';m sure that, I fear you may be right, I fear that to pull out now may send the wrong signals and that';s what many people fear, that';s where this echo of Vietnam comes from. Let me play you a caller to this programme, her name is Helen, she';s a mother of one of our Defence Force personnel working in Iraq, she phoned this programme on Monday, the Anzac Day public holiday, and she told me a brief story, let me just play her to call to you now.
CALLER:
My son happened to be in the spot when John Howard was yesterday, shook his hand, had a long conversation with him, and a beer might I add. And he said it';s been a greatest morale boost of all time because morale where they are at the moment is absolutely appalling and he said it was just fantastic, he said the troops were just so thrilled. And I';m thoroughly fed up with people saying to me well you know you';re going to, I back my son every inch of the way, it';s his second tour of duty to Iraq. As far as I';m concerned these boys are doing what they want to do, otherwise they wouldn';t have joined up. They do want to come home. They are frightened, a lot of them are very scared. But yesterday was the greatest morale boost that they';ve ever had.
AUSTIN:
It makes a difference, doesn';t it. Helen, how do you feel with the debate that goes on in this country while your son is over there? What goes through your mind?
CALLER:
What I think… well, I think at this stage, I think we';re heading towards a similar situation very much like Vietnam. I sincerely hope it won';t. But I can see it as an unwinnable war. I';ll be glad when he comes home. But if this is what we have to do, it';s what we have to do. But I really don';t think it';s a winnable war.
AUSTIN:
That';s an edited call, Prime Minister, of this programme on Monday, so bear that in mind. But Helen there, her point is that while we';re proud, she';s proud of her son and we';re proud of our troops, it does look like we';re getting bogged down in something else with the Americans, which a great populist, or the great populist of Australia believes can';t be won. There won';t be a solid outcome and we';ve learnt nothing from history.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well I think that was one point she made. I think she made a couple of other points too about the value of my going to Baghdad and I hope that it was seen by our armed forces there as a genuine desire on my part to express to them my personal admiration and also the gratitude of their country. I thought everything she said was a perfectly understandable human reaction, of course men and women would like to come home. Nobody likes being in a theatre of danger and could I say to Helen that I hope the task is finished soon and her son can come home. I don';t share her comparison with Vietnam, but I respect her view. I don';t dismiss other people';s views on these issues.
AUSTIN:
What is a better comparison?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t know that you have to automatically compare every situation with some other situation earlier in time. I mean, Vietnam involved on the one hand an assertion by those who supported our involvement, that represented an attack by the communist north on the south. Those who opposed the involvement said it was essentially a civil war. Now you can';t compare that situation with what is now unfolding in Iraq. It is an entirely different situation and what is at stake in Iraq if the west weakens and pulls out and if it';s all right for Australia to pull out, why isn';t it all right for America and Britain to do the same? I mean, it';s either in-principle right or in-principle wrong. It can';t be in-principle right for Australia having originally been involved in a military operation but not in-principle correct for the United States and Britain…
AUSTIN:
Just let me clarify that…
PRIME MINISTER:
And if we all go without having handed over a stable environment to the people of Iraq, then they won';t have a democratic future, there';ll be even more chaos in the Middle East.
AUSTIN:
Can I invert that proposition, is what';s always right for the United States always right for Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I didn';t say that. I';m talking about the circumstances of Iraq. You know I didn';t say that. We took a decision, correctly in my view, to be involved and I believe that we should finish the job. The situation at the moment is at a very delicate point, if over the next two or three months the coalition and the great majority of the Iraqi people who want a free democratic future succeed and I think that country will have quite a bright future and a great example will have been set amongst Arab states in the Middle East. If on the other hand, through a combination of circumstances, the initiative is lost there';s not an orderly transfer to an Iraqi government authority and democracy is not allowed to emerge, then I think a very bad signal will be sent and it will have serious consequences not only in the Middle East, but it will embolden terrorism around the world. If the coalition….
AUSTIN:
This is what troubles me Prime Minister - the last time you were on this programme I asked you how long…
PRIME MINISTER:
Could I just, please, it will embolden terrorists around the world because they will know that if you apply enough pressure the west will crack. Yes?
AUSTIN:
Alright. Now when you were on this programme, the last time you were on this programme I asked you this question. Prime Minister, how long before we find those weapons of mass destruction? You answer to me was one word, “soon”. Now that was around about eight to ten months ago. It seems like our intelligence was wrong there and many people fear that our intelligence is wrong in a number of areas.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the intelligence that we had at the time indicated a very strong likelihood, a very strong probability, however you want to describe it, that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Now the Iraq Survey Group has not found stockpiles, it has found clear evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction programmes. That intelligence was overwhelmingly British and American, there';s nothing novel about saying that in our intelligence sharing arrangement the American and the British concentrate in certain areas of the world and we concentrate on others and we share our intelligence on that basis. Now this has been examined and reported on and no doubt people will continue to talk about it. But in good faith, that material was made available and it remains our very strong view that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction programmes, certainly Iraq was in repeated defiance of and completely out of line with successive United Nations Security Council resolutions and the legal basis of our intervention last March, March of last year rather, was Iraq';s non compliance with Security Council resolutions. Now I';m perfectly happy to talk about the past but it';s also relevant to talk about the present… what is at stake is whether Iraq has a democratic future. Nobody in Iraq wants to go back to Saddam Hussein and progress is being made, they';re spending 26 times more on public health in Iraq now than they were under Saddam Hussein, hospitals have been refurbished, schools have been reopened, electricity supply is better and in the face of this progress there is a determined attempt being made by some to prevent that progress continuing and prevent the democratic experiment in Iraq succeeding.
AUSTIN:
It';s 13 minutes to nine. This is 612 ABC Brisbane. I';m Steve Austin, I';m joined by Australia';s Prime Minister John Howard who';s in our Sydney studios. On the issue of intelligence, Prime Minister, you would have heard ABC radio news this morning and the statements by Captain Martin Toohey who was investigating accusations against Lt. Col. Lance Collins. Captain Toohey has said that he fully supports a royal commission into Australia';s intelligence agencies, that he has been treated, sorry he said: “The Government';s been engaged in a shabby tawdry cover-up over the Lance Collins affair.” And he says: “I';ve been treated in a most disgraceful manner, I';ve been second guessed and my professional reputation has been slurred.” Now this is another very credible, loyal, faithful, member of Australia';s intelligence and defence services serving the country saying there is some sort of problem with our intelligence, that the Government simply gets policies… sorry gets the intelligence, sorry I';ll get this right, the Defence Intelligence Organisation simply gives the Government what it wants to hear.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that';s wrong and it';s an insult to the Defence Intelligence Organisation. Look, Captain Toohey is entitled to his view as is Lt. Col. Collins. They';re both entitled to their view. I reject completely this idea that we have tried to smear Captain Toohey. All that happened was that a contrary legal opinion contrary to Captain Toohey';s opinion by the Army';s senior legal consultant, a Melbourne QC, was released. Now I';m sorry that Captain Toohey is sensitive about that, but lawyers often disagree. I';m a lawyer myself and lawyers are always disagreeing. I';ve never… you know it';s very hard to get five lawyers in one room and get them to agree. That';s the stuff, I guess, of the profession.
AUSTIN:
I';m sure, but this guy';s made a career of it, hasn';t he?
PRIME MINISTER:
Who?
AUSTIN:
Captain Martin Toohey.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well, but hang on, the man who… I';m not traducing his legal reputation or his qualifications. I';m simply pointing out that all that has occurred is that an opinion he gave was subject to review and scrutiny at the request of the Chief of the Defence Force by the military senior legal consultant who is a Melbourne Queen';s Counsel and that Melbourne Queen';s Counsel came to a different view. Now that doesn';t represent an attempt to second-guess him or to besmirch his reputation. It just means that two lawyers have disagreed. And there was another legal opinion that was closer to that of Captain Toohey';s but it was conducted in different circumstances and really was focussed on whether there was a correct process more than come other aspects. Look, the fact that you get a different view from another lawyer doesn';t mean that the reputation of the first lawyer is being attacked. I';m not attacking Captain Toohey. Nobody in the Government, I have to say with great respect, I haven';t known of Captain Toohey until this arose. Why would I or anybody in the Government have an interest in attacking him. Of course he';s a loyal officer.
AUSTIN:
His words were shabby, tawdry, cover up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I don';t agree with that and I don';t think that is a fair description. I';m not going to use language like that to describe anything and certainly not in this situation. There is a difference of opinion. Lieutenant Colonel Collins and others have raised the question of a Royal Commission. I';ve looked at that and I';ve indicated that I don';t see the grounds for a Royal Commission and that is the view that is shared by a lot of people, not just people inside the intelligence organisations, but people outside them who have had a great deal of experience. In the end, I';ve got to make judgements on these things. We';re having an inquiry being carried out by former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Philip Flood, former head of ONA. Somebody who fits the description of the person recommended by a Joint Party Inquiry into the Iraq intelligence issue. This is a committee comprising of not Liberals, but also people like Kim Beazley and Senator Ray who said, we should an independent person conduct an inquiry and they gave a job description. Philip Flood fitted that description and he';s now doing his work and I';m in no doubt, if he wishes to he can look at the allegations that have been made by Lieutenant Colonel Collins.
AUSTIN:
I';m very mindful of the time. We';ll move on if we can. It';s nine minutes to nine. If you';ve just tuned in, I';m speaking with Australia';s Prime Minister John Howard from our Sydney studio. Prime Minister, you';re flying into Queensland late today and meeting sugar growers in Bundaberg. What will you be offering sugar growers formally? Will it be more than the $250 million package?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m not going to give all the details of the package. But it will represent a consolidated and comprehensive and very fair and I hope effective response to the problems the industry is facing. We have put a lot of work into preparing this package. We have talked extensively to people in the industry. Inevitably it won';t satisfy everybody. We have to balance the legitimate concerns and interests and difficulties of the sugar industry. We have ongoing obligations to Australian taxpayers and what we';ve come up with and what I will announce tomorrow will give the industry hope. It will provide support for those people who can make a go of it. It will recognise that some people want a bit of help to get out of the industry. It will also have a premium on reconstruction and diversification and that is very important. And the sugar industry has had a tough time. I went to North Queensland a few weeks ago and I met hundreds of people in the industry both in Rockhampton and in Cairns and talked to them at great lengths about what was happening and I';m satisfied with what we';re going to produce tomorrow will fairly respond to their concerns and I hope that it will be seen by the industry as a genuine and quite substantial attempt to put the industry on a sound footing.
AUSTIN:
Where has the money gone from the sugar levy? The sugar levy to aid canefarmers, a couple of callers phoned us and asked us where had that money actually gone?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it certainly hasn';t been wasted and some of that money has been used to fund some of the assistance that we';ve been giving, given to the industry since the levy was imposed and if there is any other it will go as a contribution towards the package that I';m going to announce tomorrow.
AUSTIN:
The Queensland component of the package is $30 million – is it mixed…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what Queensland is doing is separate from what I';m announcing tomorrow.
AUSTIN:
All right, but it';s part of the overall assistance to the sugar industry. Queensland';s done a fair bit to try and help sugar growers. The Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie has really gone quite a long way and he';s had the full support of the Queensland Liberal Party in Parliament on that. Are you happy with the mix and the arrangements overall that you';ll be offering canegrowers tomorrow between state and…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';ll have something to say about that tomorrow. My understanding is Queensland';s made a contribution of $30 million.
AUSTIN:
Which is quite a bit from the State coffers.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, 95% of the sugar industry is in Queensland. I wouldn';t have raised the Queensland contribution, but you did, that sounded as though you were going into bat for the Queensland Government with that comment, Steve. I mean after all….
AUSTIN:
Well, it does need to be acknowledged doesn';t it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m not criticising the Queensland Government. But the contribution from Queensland is $30 million, 95% of the Australian sugar industry is in Queensland but look let';s leave that aside. I';ll be announcing the Commonwealth Government';s response and what we';re putting forward is in no way conditional on contribution to the Queensland Government. I';m not going to get into that business. I want to help the Australian sugar industry and I';ll be going there as Prime Minister to deal directly with the Australian sugar industry and this package, of course, is available to people in the industry all over Australia. It';s not confined to Queensland but, as we all know, the overwhelming bulk of the Australian sugar industry is located in Queensland and once they';ve made the announcement tomorrow people will be able to see the contribution from the Federal Government, the contribution from the various State Governments and the Australian public will make up their own minds about who';s done what and whether each is adequate.
AUSTIN:
So can I just ask you a couple of other things, just about the Queensland Government, because the changes Queensland has made to this tree clearing legislation we';re wondering whether the $150 million is from the Commonwealth Government which was promised to the Queensland Government wasn';t it? Queensland has given the Federal Government the greenhouse gain they wanted, they';re waiting on the contribution payment?
PRIME MINISTER:
What happened there was we were in discussion with the Queensland Government about the terms and conditions and they just unilaterally said we';re going to pass this legislation and they just went ahead in the context of the last Queensland election without waiting until agreement could be reached with the Commonwealth Government. We always made is plain that we would make a financial contribution providing the terms and conditions were fair to landowners.
AUSTIN:
And are they?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don';t believe they are. No, and neither do the landowners.
AUSTIN:
Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, because there is insufficient regard being paid to their interests and to their rights of compensation and the process whereby the particular decisions are being taken. Now, I thought we had a good opportunity in this area to reach an agreement and we were in discussion but then along came the Queensland election. Some people say the decision was made by the Queensland Government that green votes in the south east corner were more important than the concerns of the land owners. Now, some people were unkind enough to say that.
AUSTIN:
Now, does this mean that you won';t be giving the Queensland Government any of the $150 million promised?
PRIME MINISTER:
You say we promised it. We said that we would make a contribution subject to reaching an agreement on the terms of conditions that would apply to any restrictions on land clearing. The Queensland Government denied us an opportunity of reaching that agreement by unilaterally legislating and saying they were going to do it come what may. Now that is not the stuff of sensible discussions with the Queensland Government. I';m always happy to deal in good faith with the State Government and I try to and on quite a number of things I';ve been able to deal effectively with the Queensland Government and we';ve been able to develop joint approaches. I mean, for example, Mr Beattie';s approach to some of the challenges in relation to Aboriginal communities and welfare payments and alcohol is the same as mine and I think we very much support each other on those issues and are very supportive of what';s happening in your land (inaudible) area.
AUSTIN:
I';m running out of time. I';m going to have to go Prime Minister. Thank you very much for your time this morning. We';ll see you tomorrow in Queensland or later on today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you very much.
[ends]