SPEERS:
Prime Minister, thank you for your time. Firstly, on Iraq - a series of rebel attacks has left about 85 dead, 350 wounded, is this the sort of violence that you had expected in the lead up to the handover of power?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, firstly, I call them terrorist attacks, that's what they are. Let's not use any of these namby-pamby words like insurgents or rebels. You're dealing here with terrorists, you're dealing here with somebody who has claimed responsibility for beheading people. It is exactly what I expected and it could get even worse over the next few days because there is a determined attempt by Al Qaeda, by the terrorists to stop democracy emerging in Iraq and that is why they are doing this. And it is a huge test of will for the Iraqi people. I feel for them. I admire the courage and the resolution of Dr Allawi, the provisional prime minister. I wish them well. It reinforces the need for everybody to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Iraqi people at the present time.
SPEERS:
You call them terrorist attacks, but clearly what we've seen happen in the last day has been well co-ordinated. Are these groups a lot more organised than perhaps we've been led to believe?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is dispute as to whether they are all that well organised. But whether they're attacks that could have better organised or less well organised is hardly the point. There is a determined bid by a group of people who do have a capacity because they are indifferent to life and indifferent to the normal behaviour of civilised people to stop democracy emerging.
SPEERS:
Is the Coalition operation at risk of failure?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't believe it's at risk of failure if everybody stands firm, if people start cutting and running yes it is, but if people stand firm in the end there's a real hope that the Iraqi people will have democracy. That is what is at stake and the world should understand that if the terrorists succeed in knocking Iraq off its democratic course they will have won an enormous victory and that will have implications for terrorism around the world.
SPEERS:
Well, in that case, have you given any thought to sending more Australian troops to Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
We've received no request to send more forces, we are making an important niche contribution and not only is that important in its own right, the training of the Iraqi army, the work we're doing in Baghdad International Airport, the C-130s that do an enormous number of medical evacuations as well as other things, that's important, not only for what it represents on the ground, but it's also a very important symbolic contribution and any weakening of that would send entirely the wrong signal to the worst possible people at the worst possible time.
SPEERS:
Some have suggested that the crisis facing Australia over the lack of water in this continent is a bigger threat than that posed by terrorism down the track. Would you agree with that assessment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they're pointless comparisons David, they're both important issues and certainly we have a big challenge in relation to water and today's meeting is a huge challenge to co-operative federalism. We talk a lot about the federal system and how wonderful it is, it's only wonderful if it can solve national problems. I'm a nationalist, I believe in outcomes that are important to Australia and if people go into that room as Australians first and foremost and seek an Australian solution then we'll get a good outcome.
SPEERS:
Peter Beattie has threatened not to sign any agreement today if it doesn't benefit Queensland. If no agreement can be struck today, given what you've said about this being a very important test, would you be willing to consider using... the Commonwealth taking over state powers on water regulation?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, let's not talk about failure and I'm not going to respond to individual comments. Premiers have a habit when they walk into these meetings of saying certain things, I understand that. It's the outcome that matters and I'll be working very hard to finalise an agreement that was reached in principle last year. See, it oughtn't to be too hard because we've already reached in-principle agreement. The National Water Initiative and the Living Murray proposal, both of those were agreed in principle at the last meeting. And over past months we've been negotiating the detail and what we've got to do is seal that detail today and if we can do that then we can sign two inter-government agreements and $500 million, which has already been pledged, $200 million by the Commonwealth and $300 million from the states between them, some of the states, and that money can immediately begin to be spent cleaning up the River Murray and that is tremendously important, particularly to the people of South Australia who do face the prospect of not having adequate fresh drinking water in the next 18 years for three out of five days in a working week. Now that is an unacceptable outcome for them and it's an unacceptable outcome for any part of Australia. And they're the sort of issues that are at stake and I just hope everybody, and I believe there's a good chance they will, approaches this matter in a spirit of doing the right thing by the country.
SPEERS:
The key sticking point is how to compensate farmers when they may have to give up water access for scientific reasons to save the nation's rivers. The National Farmers' Federation has suggested a three-way split - farmers, the Federal Government and the states picking up the share of that unknown cost. Is that a good idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we can reach an outcome on that but...
SPEERS:
Is that a fair...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not going to, David, look, I've got a meeting to go to and I think it's courteous of me to tell the Premiers first what my final position is and I'll do that and I'll pay them that courtesy. We will go into the meeting with a determination to try and get a fair outcome. We've always played our part. And you've got to remember - this is an area where the states have the power. Let's not talk about the role of different levels of government. States over the years have been responsible for the allocation of water, not the Commonwealth. And if too much water has been allocated it's not been by an action of any Commonwealth government, it's been through the action of state governments. So they have responsibilities in this as well as roles. And it's for them as well as the Commonwealth to come to the party and help.
SPEERS:
Well, Bill Heffernan, one of your close colleagues, has suggested you take that responsibility off them, that there should be a referendum for the Commonwealth to take over responsibility in this area.
PRIME MINISTER:
A lot of people say a lot of things, David, let's deal with the here and now.
SPEERS:
You're not only looking at the issue of rural water usage but also in the cities as well. Now most of us are now used to these temporary water restrictions and what that means. They should be made permanent do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, once again, I don't have any power of them. I mean, I don't control the allocation and the sale of water in the cities of Australia. I mean, what is the point of having state governments if they don't discharge those responsibility. I mean, we are a federation. The law gives the states roles in that area.
SPEERS:
But it needs national leadership, this problem doesn't it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, but look, premiers say... think they provide all the leadership that's needed within their own... look, we'll talk about all of these things but let's not sort of muddy the waters, no pun intended, by talking about things that are just the next stage. My focus today is to seal the National Water Initiative and to get that water flowing in the Murray Darling, to get those six or eight icon sites that need to be repaired in the Murray Darling. We've got $500 million waiting to be spent.
SPEERS:
Have you got a few hundred extra million up your sleeve?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, we've already put $200 million...
SPEERS:
Will there be any more?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, this old idea that every Premiers Conference or COAG was about the Commonwealth providing more money is gone. We provided more money through the GST - I want to make that very plain. The states are collectively over the next four or five-year period nine billion dollars better off than they would either wise have been as a result of the GST. Every single state is better off as a result of the GST. The states cannot have it both ways. They cannot get the extra money from the GST with a capacity to spend as they want to and then despite that as if the GST had never happened come to a COAG meeting and say, well, we can do this providing you give us more money. We have already given the states the more money. We gave them the more money with the GST and this is an argument that applies not only in relation to water, it's an argument that applies in relation to health, it applies in relation to education. Do you know that 44 cents in every dollar that a State Government spends on public schools in Australia comes from the GST and Commonwealth payments - 44 cents in every dollar comes from the GST and Commonwealth payments. So this old paradigm that the states came to a Premiers' conference and said, well look we can settle this if only the parsimonious Commonwealth will give us a few hundred million dollars more. That may have been valid before the GST, but we've given them a permanent river of a few hundred million dollars more to the tune of $9 billion over the next four years.
SPEERS:
This problem of water though does require more than just money, I guess you'll agree?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, of course, it does. It requires a spirit of putting the national interest ahead of a local interest. It requires people to recognise that rivers flow across state borders, the Great Artesian Basin lies beneath a major part of the Australian land mass. It doesn't chop and change and alter according to the borders between New South Wales and Queensland or Victoria and New South Wales and we really do have to take a national approach. And I actually believe that the Premiers want to do that. I mean, they're all fine Australians and I know in the end they will want to do the right thing by the country.
SPEERS:
Is it in the national interest though for Australia to continue pursuing some of these very thirsty industries like cotton, rice, sugar - should we continue pursuing those sorts of industries when they are going to have an enormous drain on our water resources?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, David, the real answer to that is to get a more market sensitive set of rules in place. If people have in the end have got to pay closer to a market price for something they consume, they always consume it more wisely. That's a function of human nature and one of the long term objectives, not so long term, medium term objectives of the National Water Initiative is to have a tradable water rights system and that is a foundation of better pricing signals being set and I believe that the solution many of those problems is to have better pricing signals set.
SPEERS:
Parliament's been called back today for an extra day of sitting before the winter break to push through some unfinished business this week. I think more than 60 bills, are you clearing the decks so that parliament doesn't have to come back?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not necessarily, we're just getting legislation done before a winter recess. But some interesting, I mean, I'm glad to see the Free Trade Agreement went through the House of Representatives last night and may I draw every member of the Labor Party's attention to that fine speech made by Kim Beazley. I mean, Kim Beazley is really showing the Labor Party the way on the Free Trade Agreement. He's been prepared to call it for Australia and to say this agreement is in Australia's interests and every member of the Labor Party should read Mr Beazley's speech. He's been willing to show the leadership on the Free Trade issue that Mark Latham has been so unwilling to do. Kim Beazley is not obsessed with anti-Americanism. Kim Beazley knows the long term value of the American alliance and he knows that it is in this country's interests to sign that Free Trade Agreement and it's a great pity that Mark Latham hasn't taken the same view and it's a great pity that he's not showing the leadership on this issue that Mr Beazley is.
SPEERS:
Well, Mark Latham did support you on prescription drugs earlier this week as well, it's a bit hard to criticise him when he's been so cooperative?
PRIME MINISTER:
After 25 months, I mean, he didn't...
SPEERS:
But is he a more cooperative Labor leader than...?
PRIME MINISTER:
He didn't do it for my health, he did that for the rather crass self interested reason that he said he wanted the money for other things.
SPEERS:
He's fiscally responsible though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's a bit rich though. For 25 months there was an article of face not to do it. I mean, they should have let it through in the first place. Of course, we welcome the fact that they've now let it through, of course we do but that should have happened 25 months ago.
SPEERS:
So is there any other legislation you want to see passed before going to an election, anything in particular?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh David, I don't look at it in those terms. We put up legislation that is good for the country like unfair dismissal laws, laws to prevent the extension of these ridiculous redundancy provisions that affect small business. There's a whole raft of legislation. The disability support pension abuses which Mr Latham incidentally identified. We'd like to see a lot of those things passed, but the question of when the election is held I haven't decided. I mean, I know everybody keeps trying but please believe me, I have not decided when the election is going to be held - please believe that.
SPEERS:
You held a fairly lengthy party room meeting earlier in the week, I think it lasted about three hours. Most of it spent, you listening to the backbench concerns - do you have an understanding now of some areas that you still need to address before the poll?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, I regularly have these sessions.
SPEERS:
This was a long one though.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I had one in October of last year around the time of the visit to Australia of President Bush and President Hu Jintao and I do it on a regular basis.
SPEERS:
And what did you come away from that with?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I came away with a lot of good advice. My colleagues are the best source of political and other advice that promotes a just society in this country than any other group of people I know and I consult them on a regular basis.
SPEERS:
So what areas do you still need to address?
PRIME MINISTER:
They gave me a lot of advice.
SPEERS:
Prime Minister, are you going to be watching the Wallabies play New Zealand on the 7th of August?
PRIME MINISTER:
If I'm close to a television set. If I'm in Sydney and no other things prevent me I'll go and watch it, but I'll be going to watch the Wallabies play England tomorrow night in Brisbane.
SPEERS:
Okay, Prime Minister. Thanks for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]