JONES:
Prime Minister, what's at stake for the Middle East and for the world for that matter, if the democratic experiment in Iraq fails?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well quite a lot. If it works, then for the first time there will be a democratic Arab State. That must be beneficial. It must improve over time the climate in the Middle East. It must be an example to other Arab States. And on the other hand, if it fails, then that will be not only a huge setback for the Middle East but it will be a tremendous victory for terrorism around the world, because they will proclaim that they have won and that will encourage like behaviour in other parts of the world, including our own.
JONES:
There's clearly no history of democracy in the Middle East. There's an ongoing and bloody insurgency in Iraq, an unstable mix of competing religious and ethnic groups. How do you rate your chances?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's quite tough, but the assumption that Arab countries won't embrace democracy is somewhat elitist and it's a mistake. We've actually had an outbreak of democracy around the world over the last 30 or 40 years and the idea that it can't be extended, albeit in its own particular way, into Arab countries is, I think, quite wrong.
JONES:
Do you accept though that the experiment, the project, the democratic project in Iraq, could fail?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hope it doesn't. I mean, I am charged in my current responsibilities to advocate outcomes and to support action to achieve those outcomes. Now, I'm not engaged in an academic exercise. I'm Prime Minister of a country that strongly supported the coalition involvement in Iraq and I'm very committed to a positive outcome, and I hope the Iraqi people can have a democratic future.
JONES:
You'd be aware, Prime Minister, there are great divisions now within the intellectual right on this very issue. We've had Francis Fukiyama, who is one of the people who is a major proponent of bringing democracy to the Middle East and other parts of the world, come out and say, "It won't work in Iraq". On our own programme last night Daniel Pipes. Do these concerns worry you at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
We'll I've read Francis Fukiyama's article and I saw Daniel Pipes last night. No, they don't, because it's part of intellectual debate that you should have divisions. There's been division on the left. You've had people like Christopher Hitchins coming out very strongly in favour of what has taken place. I am not beholden to any one intellectual strain - although obviously I prefer those of the centre-right to those of the left - but this is not a question of being identified with an intellectual tribe. It's a question of an outcome that is in the long-term interests of the Middle East and is in the long-term interests of the worldwide fight against terrorism, and there's no doubt that the worldwide fight against terrorism will be affected and hurt very badly if the coalition's goals in Iraq are denied by the terrorists.
JONES:
There is an intellectual tribe involved in this though. The neo-conservatives in America are the ones who pushed the democratic project in Iraq, to create a model democracy in the Middle East. Have they become somewhat disenfranchised?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think it really matters either way. I mean, I'm not particularly identified with a subset of an intellectual movement in another country. There are some of those people I quite like and quite respect but I'm not necessarily in agreement with everything they advocate. I advocate my own views, and I supported the involvement. I believed that the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was quite solid. In any event, the human rights case for involvement was very strong, the alliance with the United States was a very important factor, and whatever views people may have had about the original involvement, it's quite plain that it's in Australia's interests to see this through and to do what we can, in our own particular way, to help the Iraqi people have their freedom.
JONES:
Would you agree that this is the greatest foreign policy gamble that the United States has actually taken in recent history?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh no. Oh no. No, I think the greatest gamble, in a sense, was what Reagan did so successfully and triumphantly that led to the destruction of the Soviet Union. There were a lot of people who doubted him at the time. A lot of people said that it was an unreal dream. They cringed when he said, "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall," but he was right. So I don't think it is, no. But...
JONES:
When he did that, there was nothing at stake except the status quo. What's at stake here is potentially the destabilisation of the entire Middle East and possibly the export of terrorism to the rest of world?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, we could talk about all night about the... you know, what was the more important gamble. I remain of the view I expressed, but clearly Iraq is a serious issue. It involved a choice made by the United States and other countries. They did, in my view, including Australia, make the right choice and I believe in the long run that will be vindicated. But I don't pretend it's easy and I don't pretend that the bloodshed in Iraq is going to finish overnight. But I have to remind your viewers that if Saddam had remained in power there would have been infinitely more bloodshed. We wouldn't have heard about it. It wouldn't have been on the television screens every night. There wouldn't have been any photographs in the torture chambers under Saddam, and perhaps we would have been in blissful ignorance of it. But these are the sorts of choices that people have to make.
JONES:
Have you ever had a moment's introspection as to whether you were right, and particularly given the attendant risks of destabilising the Middle East, if this goes wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, at the time of course I thought long and hard about it. I've said before that I had sleepless nights and I thought very hard about it, but in the end I came very strongly to the view that it was the right thing to do and I haven't doubted that judgement. But nobody lightly commits their country to military operations and it's always a matter of regret when you find you have no alternative but to be involved in a military operation.
JONES:
The reason it's relevant, I suppose, to keep asking the Prime Minister these questions is because before the war you said quite clearly, "I couldn't justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I've never advocated that."
PRIME MINISTER:
No I did say that. I'm very conscious of what I said. My justification, legally, for the invasion or the involvement in the operation against Iraq was Iraq's repeated non-compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council and her failure to respond to those resolutions in relation to weapons of mass destruction. That was the formal legal justification, and I remember clearly what I have said. But I did also, of course, draw attention to the human rights abuses and I also gave very great prominence, very great prominence indeed, to the importance of the American alliance. I said that we should take the American alliance into account in any major foreign policy decision that this country takes.
JONES:
Would you agree though that the main post facto justification, now the weapons of mass destruction have failed to appear, has been regime change?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the stockpiles have failed to appear. Certainly regime change is talked about as a clear benefit, but it is a clear benefit. And nothing alters the fact that those who have continued to oppose what the coalition did were in effect arguing for a continuation of the Saddam Hussein regime, because there was no way that it was going to voluntarily disappear. There was no way, in my view, that it would have disappeared except by the military action taken by the coalition.
JONES:
So do you now favour the concept of regime change?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's an academic question, Tony. I mean, we've had a set of circumstances in Iraq.
JONES:
I don't think it's particularly academic.
PRIME MINISTER:
You're talking about Iraq.
JONES:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I'm saying is that Iraq is better off without Saddam. Of course Iraq is better off without Saddam. But that doesn't retrospectively alter the arguments that I gave at the time. Of course Iraq is better off. Most people would believe that Iraq is infinitely better off despite what's going on at the moment, infinitely better off without Saddam.
JONES:
Let me ask you this. What have you learnt from the war in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've learnt that if you just leave things as they are in the hope that they're going to change without taking action, that rarely occurs. I think there are some aspects... I think we all, I think everybody recognised that maybe there were some aspects of the post-coalition operation phase that might have been done differently, but they're questions of nuance and I'm not going to go into that. I think overwhelmingly it was the right decision and the decision that I certainly don't regret.
JONES:
If America and the coalition allies do manage to get away with this, if you like, if the project in Iraq works, can you imagine ever again a military invasion of a country on the basis of regime change?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, I think I'd phrase it differently than, "getting away with this". It sounds as though you've furtively like a thief in the night done something that's a bit dodgy. I don't accept it that way. Look, you have to look at each set of circumstances according to those circumstances. I'm not going to give a blanket 'yes' or 'no' to that kind of question, because I don't know what future events in history are going to confront our country with and it's quite foolish of me to try and answer that question either yes or no.
JONES:
So do you imagine that sort of military experiment could happen again?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not going to venture a view on that. It's too serious an issue and put in that clinical way, is too hypothetical a question for me to try and answer.
JONES:
I was wondering... what I guess I was getting at - is that one of the lessons one might draw from this experience in Iraq, that it actually is a very dangerous and risky business to get involved in. It can lead to tremendous unforeseen consequences.
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, I always knew it was going to be difficult, but I'm not going to get drawn into a hypothetical response about a set of circumstances that don't confront me.
JONES:
If I can, sticking with international stories just for a moment, the Australian Free Trade Agreement with the United States, it appears, has now been supported by Senator Kerry, the Democrat contender for the presidency. Are you aware of his support? Has it been expressed to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've been given reports, authoritative reports, that he entered a statement of support before the US Congress, I think on the 24th of this month. He had some qualifications. I think he actually said that Australia had got a very good deal in relation to dairy and beef and I agree with him, we did. But I think the important thing is that you now have both sides of politics in the United States supporting the Free Trade Agreement. I hope that we might have a similar bipartisan response in Australia.
JONES:
Prime Minister, on another front, Britain's Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith said the US military tribunals, in a recent speech, plans at Guantanamo Bay don't offer sufficient guarantees of a fair trial according to international standards. Now shouldn't you, given what's been said there, revisit the legal advice you've been given?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, it's some years - much and all as the High Court of Australia respects the decisions of the House of Lords and the Privy Council - it's some years since Australian courts have felt automatically constrained to bow to those judgements. Equally it's some years since an Australian Attorney-General felt automatically bound to accede to the views of a British Attorney-General. We reach our own conclusions according to our own assessment, and our own assessment says that the assurances we have received, including in relation to the death penalty and the serving of sentences in Australia, mean that the principles of Australian justice which still largely, but not totally, reflect an international justice standard, will be satisfied.
JONES:
Are you relieved that the US Supreme Court may now get involved and offer another avenue of appeal within the American justice system?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am neither relieved nor unhappy because I recognise the rule of law and the Supreme Court has made a judgement that the United States administration could detain enemy combatants. It's also made a judgement that it's open to any of those people, Americans or foreigners, to appeal. Now I accept that. We live under the rule of law. I'm not going to criticise that. I'm not going to do other than really note it because, like everybody else, I must take account of the decisions of courts established under the rule of law.
JONES:
On the home front, Prime Minister, how do you explain the public difference between your statements today about the family benefit overpayments and those by the Minister Kay Patterson?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've sought, during the day, some further advice on the background of this and I'm just stating the principle that if anybody is overpaid something then those people ought to repay it. And the question of whether you're overpaid something or not can be pretty easily established and I think they ought to pay it back.
JONES:
Senator Patterson says the money will not be clawed back after the election, that her advice is if they've received it, they're entitled to it. Now who's right between you and...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think... Senator Patterson and I had a discussion this afternoon and she'll be making a statement in relation to that matter. At the time of this interview that statement is yet to come out.
JONES:
So, she's absolutely wrong, I take it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, I didn't say that. I think you'd better wait and see her statement and that will explain the situation fully.
JONES:
Could the Minister possibly think that people are entitled to keep Government money that they're not entitled to?
PRIME MINISTER:
She'll be putting out a statement.
JONES:
So, can I just clear up this because we obviously haven't heard the statement - will the money that's been given to people who aren't entitled to it, be taken back from them?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will be asking people who've got money twice to pay the second bit back.
JONES:
And will that happen before or after the election? Whichever comes sooner obviously.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know when the election is going to be Tony, but clearly anybody who has been paid twice will be asked to repay it.
JONES:
What's your message, then, to the families who've effectively been told by the Minister, "go out and spend that money, you're entitled to it?"
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's not accurate, according to what I've been told. But I can't say anything further because I'm waiting on the Minister's statement.
JONES:
Doesn't it potentially create for you a legal problem as well as a political one if they've effectively been told they're entitled to this money and they spent it today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Tony I don't think it's quite as dramatic and difficult as you suggest and I think when the Minister's statement comes out you'll see that.
JONES:
Alright. Finally Mr Howard, The Bulletin magazine is running a cover story tomorrow claiming two Defence intelligence offices tried to smear the then Opposition Leader Kim Beazley in the run up to the 2001 election.. Were you at any time made aware of this possibility of these dossiers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Tony, I've only just heard about this article and until I've got advice on it I'm not going to answer your questions.
JONES:
It is reported the allegations were investigated by the then head of ASIO, Denis Richardson. It's inconceivable that he wouldn't have informed you of it, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, I've only just been informed and until I'm fully briefed I don't have anything to say, except to express the view that I've always held Mr Beazley as an individual in very high regard.
JONES:
Are you at all disturbed that this could point to rogue elements operating within our intelligence services?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, until I've got advice I'm not going to even try and answer that question.
JONES:
Can I ask what steps you'll be undertaking to find out more about this issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony as I always do, I get advice.
JONES:
Can you assure the Australian people at least of this - that no such files exist on current Australian politicians?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tony, until I get advice I'm not going to answer that question.
JONES:
But Prime Minister, I'm talking not about the story now but the existence of...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you're asking me to make statements in relation to the behaviour of other people without being advised by those other people and you know, and your viewers know, that I can't do that without getting advice.
JONES:
Let me ask you a very specific question related to the next election. It has been reported that members of the Government, or staff members of Government Ministers, have been tasked to dig up dirt on Mark Latham?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I certainly haven't asked for "dirt", as you put it, to be dug up on him. But I have made it very plain that anything in relation to his past performance in public life, in relation to policy stances and so forth, are legitimate points of scrutiny, as indeed are mine. I mean, I've just been asked a question about something that happened three years ago. Mr Latham seems to think questions about anything he did before December of last year are questions that should not be asked. I mean I've been in public life for 30 years, and people are entitled to go back into anything that I've done in the performance of my public duties and criticise them and ask me questions about it, and the same thing applies to him.
JONES:
Does that include personal matters?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I'm not interested in personal attacks on anybody. I don't like... I don't think people's private lives - and you know what I mean by that, we all know what we mean by that - I don't think those things should be dragged into politics. They do get dragged in on occasions, but I counsel people not to do that and I would hope that Mr Latham would counsel people not to do it as well.
JONES:
A sort of truce?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. Well that implies that there's a war in relation to these matters. I'm not saying that. I'm simply stating a principle.
JONES:
Prime Minister, we thank you once again for taking the time to talk to us tonight.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's always a pleasure.
[ends]