JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can you tell us what you're going to discuss with the President...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll talk about the free trade agreement. We'll obviously talk about Iraq and I'm very pleased that the provisional government has been named. I think this a real step forward. Things have been difficult there and everybody knows that and there's no point in pretending otherwise, but the transfer of authority on the 30th June is a very significant development. And to see Iraqi figures stepping up to the crease and assuming responsibility is a very good thing and we will want to work very closely with them but it marks a new chapter.
JOURNALIST:
Will our role change?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's not going to change in a practical sense. Obviously there's a different relationship after the 30th of June. Our representative office will become an embassy. Neil Mules will become the ambassador. The authority to be exercised by the provisional government will obviously be different from that exercised by the Iraqi governing council. There's quite a significant legal change and there'll obviously need to be some protocols worked out in relation to that but until the particular tasks assigned to our people have been completed in a practical sense the role is not going to change.
JOURNALIST:
Will you be taking a tougher line tomorrow over Hicks and Habib?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll be persisting with the line I've been running now for some time and that is we want them brought to trial. I want an answer in relation to the allegations that they were assaulted. I'm not expressing a view on that except to report what I've previously been told.
JOURNALIST:
Do you want the answer tomorrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't expect to get the answer on that tomorrow but I might. The one thing I do want to emphasize is that there still persists in Australia, in some quarters in Australia, this absurd proposition that they can be brought back to Australia. Now if a foreigner is arrested in Australia for a crime or arrested out of his or her country for a crime, they have no automatic right of repatriation in their home country for trial. The same thing applies to these two people. And on top of that of course, if they were brought back, there's no current law, as I'm advised, that would cover their trial.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the new resolution that the US and Britain are putting to the Security Council sets out a withdrawal date of January 2006 - do you agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm going to get some more information on that. I heard about that new resolution in transit. I'd like to get further briefed on the precise wording of it before I express a view.
JOURNALIST:
You've said there shouldn't be a date though, haven't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
In the past, what I've said in relation to our activities, I have said that it's not a good idea to start setting a precise date but you are talking of course in relation to 2006, you're talking about two years from now, so it's a big difference in talking about next Christmas.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, just back on the Hicks and Habib matter...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Back on the Hicks/Habib matter, you said that on the 2ne of June there was going to be some movement regarding Hicks, which is today. Has anything happened?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've only just arrived.
JOURNALIST:
There's concern in New South Wales that, I think the second person to face the anti-terror laws has been bailed. Are you concerned that the laws are not strong enough?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll leave comment on that to the Attorney General. I understand and I've just been told this that the Attorney General is discussing that matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment further, I'll leave that to him. Geoffrey?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on the issue of weapons proliferation, which you're talking to the President about, there's been some concern in Washington in the last few days about China's role as a proliferator because of its assistance to North Korea and Pakistan, do you have any view on that and will you be raising that issue tomorrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I wouldn't be surprised if that general issue came up. I'm aware generally of that concern. I would like to be further briefed on the basis of it before I accept it as being the case.
JOURNALIST:
What's your main message for the President tomorrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the main message is we've got to persist and to press ahead with the transfer of authority to the Iraqis. Obviously I'll be putting the view to him that the prisoner abuse issue has made the articulation of the case harder but it should not alter the fundamental position. And it'll be very much in my view a realistic discussion. The fundamentals have not changed. We were right to do what we did. Iraq has got a future, a democratic future, if the coalition persists and if there are enough Iraqis who are willing to give leadership in that future.
JOURNALIST:
The President today gave a speech likening the war on terror to World War II, saying it's as important as World War II. Do you agree with those ....?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to give a commentary on individual speeches except to say that the threat of terrorism is the greatest threat that our sorts of countries have in the modern era and that's self-evidently the case but I don't think I'll give a commentary on his individual speeches.
JOURNALIST:
Have you been briefed on the Play School controversy Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Play School controversy?
JOURNALIST:
You haven't been briefed?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I've missed that one Laurie. Has it got something to do with reading?
JOURNALIST:
No, but it's got a bit to do with gay parenting but I'll wait until you're briefed.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I'd better. That sounds too much of a minefield just after I've arrived Laurie, I know you.
Thank you.
[ends]