MITCHELL:
In the studio with me first, and he'll be taking your calls, the Prime Minister. Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Hard to imagine, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is. When I heard it, my mind flashed to that terrible case in England, but fortunately this little girl has survived. But it seems just unbelievable. An innocent little girl set alight. It's terrible.
MITCHELL:
It's certainly affecting the whole country I think. Prime Minister, something else affecting the whole country - terrorism. Now the Foreign Minister spoke about this yesterday. Are you aware of the arrest in Perth of a man allegedly planning an attack in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am aware of that and I'm aware also that it's going to court today. The Federal Police Commissioner has had something to say about it, and as it's an operational matter, I won't comment further.
MITCHELL:
Well what about in broader terms?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is a reminder, without wishing to comment on the detail and specificity of this case, it is a reminder that the terrorist threat and issue is alive and well, and we have no reason to imagine that things of a serious nature could not occur in Australia. I've said that repeatedly. I hope I'm wrong. I hope it never does happen. We all hope it never happens. But we cannot afford to be complacent, and the conviction of Jack Roche a few weeks ago on his admission is another reminder we are not divorced from these dangers.
MITCHELL:
Do you think we do become a little bit complacent?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. I think everybody does. I think even the Americans, some of them might begin to become complacent. It's human nature. You look for the more optimistic side of things and as each day, as each month goes by, you think well it did happen once but it's not going to happen again or it won't happen again. That's perfectly natural. I don't criticise people for that. All I can repeat whenever I'm asked and on other occasions volunteer is that there are the dangers there. It's not as dangerous here as it is in some other countries. But there is a possibility and nobody should imagine that we are immune.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe this could last for a generation?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it could, yes. It's impossible to put a time on it. It's a very different threat from what we used to see as a threat to our security and our sovereignty. You always imagined, and we were brought up to imagine because of history, that you could only ever be overwhelmed or attacked or undermined by another country, by the army of another country. This is a different kind of enemy. This is an enemy that does not need to control a country in order to disrupt and terrorise another.
MITCHELL:
Do you think it's a fight to the death?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is in this sense, very much so, fight to the death, because the people you're dealing with are so lacking in scruples. People who would behead hostages, people who would attack innocents in a blind, indiscriminate fashion irrespective of their guilt or innocence in their eyes, people who reward weakness by even more brutal attack. One of the things to understand about terrorists is if you give in to them, you don't buy immunity. You buy contempt and you expose yourself to even greater risk of further attack.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe the terror risk or the assessment of terror risk is higher during an election campaign?
PRIME MINISTER:
My instinct tells me that it could be. I have no evidence to suggest that it will be.
MITCHELL:
Why is that? It happened in Spain, didn't it? I mean I guess...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a perfectly natural thing. I have to... if you ask me is it on my mind - yes. But do I have any evidence to support that intuitive feeling? No.
MITCHELL:
Well I noticed the United States has put an increased warning. Have we put a warning for Australians going to...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes we have. And if there is any reason to increase the warning in this country as we approach the election, well it obviously will be increased. But as of now, I don't have any such evidence.
MITCHELL:
Are you also aware the alleged head of Jemaah Islamiyah in Australia has been questioned in Indonesia? The Indonesian authorities have questioned him and let him go. Do we want to see him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well according to the Attorney General, and I don't want to add to what he has said, there has been a questioning of this man and investigations are being pursued, and at the moment we don't have anything more to say.
MITCHELL:
Part of obviously the whole terrorism issue is our intelligence agencies. We've now got the both the United States and the United Kingdom saying they got it wrong on Iraq. Presumably we have to accept we've got it wrong.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Butler report from Britain was a very interesting report. It obviously acknowledged that there were flaws. But it wasn't as critical of the intelligence services as had been the American Senate Committee report, and interestingly enough Lord Butler said that it would be a very rash person who said that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and they might not be ultimately found. That is a very interesting conclusion. But he was critical. He thought that there were flaws in the intelligence gathering system, although interestingly also he absolved the British Government and the British Prime Minister of any charge of deliberately pressuring and manipulating the intelligence services, as indeed did the American Senate Committee. The American Senate Committee found explicitly that the administration did not pressure the intelligence agencies, did not intervene. Now I believed the conclusions of our intelligence advice, I believed on the basis of a strong circumstantial case. We didn't have direct proof. You never do.
MITCHELL:
But we were wrong too?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the intelligence has been found to in a number of important respects to be flawed.
MITCHELL:
How do we fix that? How do we make sure it doesn't happen again?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know that you can guarantee it won't happen again because it's a very imprecise science. Even many of my political opponents would agree with that. People weren't arguing from the Labor Party in this country that WMD didn't exist. Kevin Rudd said it was an empirical fact that it did exist. The argument was how you dealt with Iraq's non-compliance, whether you persevered with yet another United Nations resolution or you took the action that we, along with the Americans and the British and others, took. So that was the debate. Not about whether or not the stuff existed. Look, I don't think you can ever guarantee that intelligence services in the future won't get it wrong.
MITCHELL:
But you had no doubt it existed, did you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I believed it existed. I wouldn't have said so otherwise. I did believe it. And I had good grounds, on the basis of the advice that I had, to reach that conclusion, as did Mr Blair, as did President Bush.
MITCHELL:
So we did go to war on an incorrect premise?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in relation to the existence of the WMD, the intelligence has been found to have been flawed. Whether you can say for all time and with absolute certainty that WMD will never be found or that Saddam never possessed it is an open question according to Lord Butler.
MITCHELL:
The Opposition is calling for a Royal Commission into our intelligence services. What's your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we're not going to have one. We've had a parliamentary inquiry, which included people like Senator Ray and Mr Beazley. We're having the Flood inquiry which was recommended by that Parliamentary inquiry and I expect to get that report next week. I don't know what is in it.
MITCHELL:
Do you find it difficult dealing with them now, to trust the intelligence agency or are you spectacle when you deal with them now?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have a suspicious view of them. I think they honestly reached conclusions based on the information they had. I don't think they set about to mislead the Government and I don't think they are....
MITCHELL:
It's not deliberate, but is it confidence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you have to remember that in relation to Iraq we rely very heavily because we don't have the prime source intelligence ourselves on the Americans and British. Just as they from time to time rely on us in certain parts of the world particularly in our own region.
MITCHELL:
Just finally on the terrorism issues, the Philippines withdrawing their troops - is that giving in to terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm afraid it is. I don't want to be harsh on a friend but it is and it's a mistake and it won't buy them immunity. It's a hard judgment to make and I can understand the anguish of people in the Philippines Government dealing with the families of this poor man who's been held a hostage and the anguish of that family. It's a wretched state of affairs but if you give in you won't stop it happening again, you will invite people to do with increasing severity because they will know they succeed.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe it is only a matter of time before an Australian is in that position?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is too horrible to contemplate, but I obviously have contemplated it and I continue to at a matter of time, but I wouldn't be as pessimistic as that - I think we are very careful and I believe there's good reason to think that that caution will be rewarded but if you ask me have I thought about that possibility? Of course I have and my colleagues have and we've discussed how we might react.
MITCHELL:
How would you react?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we can't react in any other way than what I've described and of course...
MITCHELL:
It would change nothing?
PRIME MINISTER:
We can't. You give in, you give in, the game is over and they will increase the intensity of their attacks.
MITCHELL:
That would be about as difficult a thing to face as a Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Terrible. That's why of course I've thought about it. I thought about it this morning when I heard what was on the radio in relation to the Philippines Government, but go forbid it does happen.
[Break]
MITCHELL:
It's fifteen to nine. I have more questions for the Prime Minister in a moment. We'll take a call. Brenda, please go ahead Brenda.
CALLER:
Yeah, two things Mr Prime Minister. You're doing a great job firstly. Second thing is there are no tax cuts for single income earners, disabled workers who are getting themselves to and from work under $35,000 a year. You can't claim any of your travel expenses on tax and currently it's costing me something like $150 a week to get to work, even with you know the half price taxi voucher thing. Has anyone looked at the mobility allowance for a possible tax deduction partially on what it costs us to get to work if we can't catch trams and buses?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we haven't recently looked at that. I will again. I don't want to promise that we're going to make a change. The difficulty once you reach the dam wall as far as travel to and from work is to cauterise it to a particular group of people. But let me look at that again. But I'm not holding out the immediate prospect of change.
MITCHELL:
Thank you Brenda. Prime Minister, the film maker Michael Moore who's made Fahrenheit 9/11 says you've got a half a brain which is ahead of George Bush - will you be having a look at his movie?
PRIME MINISTER:
I won't be going to the Australian premiere of it. I might at some stage see it, but I wouldn't want to do anything publicly to signify endorsement of it.
MITCHELL:
Could it damage you, I mean, if it's very popular - could it damage you by aligning you with this criticism of George Bush?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if it does - I'll wear that.
MITCHELL:
You know, this election could turn a bit nasty, John Howardlies.com, demonstrations, talk about dirt machines - does that concern you that it could turn nasty?
PRIME MINISTER:
I hope it doesn't turn violent. People have been saying nasty things about me for the last eight and a half years. So I'm pretty inured to that, but I hope we don't have violence. That's not in anybody's interest. But I'm sure sensible people in the Labor Party would share that view.
MITCHELL:
I notice abortion has returned as a bit of an issues - would you refer to be able to ban late term abortions if that was possible?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, this is a vote that which is always determined on individual conscience. So anything I say about it, I'm speaking if it is possible to have such a separate personality as John Howard the individual Member of Parliament and not as Prime Minister. I have a conservative view on abortion. Late term abortions I find rather repellent. As to how it develops the debate, well let's wait and see. We don't have any proposals and I wouldn't expect any proposals to alter in anyway the Medicare arrangements but it is an issue that people are entitled to debate. We can't in this country have a situation where there are certain things you cannot talk about. If people want to express their concerns then people have a perfect right to do so and obviously the decision of the ABC to film an act of abortion has provoked debate and it's produced some interesting alignments. Some people who've been strong supporters of abortion have expressed, how shall one put it? Slightly varied views on the whole subject. It's a debate that will come and go. I think it will be handled differently in Australia than it has been in the United States and I would hope that that difference would remain.
MITCHELL:
Speaking of Medicare, the AMA says bulkbilling is dead - how would you revive it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't agree with the AMA that bulkbilling is dead. In fact, the most recent figures show that bulkbilling is on the rise and the whole aim of our recent changes amongst other things was to lift the levels of bulkbilling and particularly in areas where they'd fallen very sharply. I don't accept that view of the AMA.
MITCHELL:
Is it because of problems with some loopholes in the safety net?
PRIME MINISTER:
I talked to the Health Minister about that and we're not persuaded that it's anything like what was alleged in the Herald Sun yesterday morning.
MITCHELL:
How big is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we don't believe it's very big at all and we are policing it and so is the AMA and we would expect the AMA to crack very hard on any abuse by its members.
MITCHELL:
I noticed you were critical yesterday, saying, well issuing a warning - you could have all state Labor and a Federal Labor Government, but there are benefits to that aren't there? They reckon they can get $2 billion in efficiencies out of a new form of federalism within the Labor Governments and I think you and I have talked before about the inefficiencies, particularly in the health system where money is wasted on two bureaucracies. I mean, they're the least to benefit in having all Labor Governments.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they claim that. Interesting this issue. At the Premiers' conference last year, the famous walkout, I in fact offered to have an inquiry into overlaps and all those sorts of things. That very day at that very meeting and instead of discussing that the Labor Premiers got up and walked out. Although, one of them was a bit reluctant to do so, namely Mr Beattie, because he understood that it probably wasn't very sensible and yet that sort of thing that I was willing to embrace a year later, they have embraced as some kind of magnificent reform. It's very easy to say, you're going to save a lot of money, all they're promising at the moment is to have an inquiry which will last a year and we don't know what the result of that inquiry is and in a sense we're going to the next election with a blank cheque on health. But the danger I see in wall to wall Labor governments, coast to coast, is especially in the area of industrial relations, it's not good to have a system, an arrangement, an outcome where there are no checks and balances. When you have Labor governments everywhere, inevitably, views antagonistic to Labor are going to be crushed and it will be particularly advantageous to the union movement in the area of industrial relations. I think it will be a thoroughly bad outcome.
MITCHELL:
Is that offer still on the table?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if the states are interested in talking, of course I'm interested in talking, I've always said that.
MITCHELL:
Word has come through that the Senate, the US Senate, has just passed the Free Trade bill. What's your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is fantastic, that is terrific, this is a once in a generation opportunity to lock this country in to the biggest economy in the world. This agreement could only have been negotiated by the Howard Government, this would never have been negotiated by a Latham Government, I doubt that it would have been negotiated by a Labor Government led by another person either and I want to thank the Senate and the Congress and I now turn to the Labor Party, the last redoubt of opposition to this agreement which is in Australia's long term interests. I mean this is not about the American alliance, this is not about George Bush or John Howard, it's about Australia's future. We have a once in a generation opportunity and we should grab it with both hands and we have an alignment of circumstances, a coming together of the planets, whatever metaphor you want to use, which we won't again have in a generation or more and we must take it, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Labor Party continues to dither, they've had months, they don't need a Senate report, we have a treaties committee which has examined it and the treaties committee has given it a big tick, we don't need another Senate inquiry, we don't need that, that was just a delaying tactic to give themselves political room to move.
MITCHELL:
I think there are still perhaps, it's a very difficult thing to grasp and understand for the electorate, the average person, where are the benefits? Where are the downsides? What are the risks?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think there are any risks, there are obviously benefits for both sides, there are...
MITCHELL:
The price of medicine?
PRIME MINISTER:
The price of medicine will not be affected by this, this has been one of the great furphies. The thing almost fell apart the last weekend because the Americans pushed very hard to get an outcome on the PBS that would have potentially affected the price of medicines and it was the one part of the Free Trade Agreement that George Bush discussed with me when he came to Australia in October of last year. He raised it and I said look, we're not going to agree to anything that affects the PBS and it almost, the negotiation almost fell apart the last weekend because I rejected a proposal that had been agreed by the negotiators that might have had some affect on the PBS and I said no, I don't care if the whole thing falls over, we are not going to change the PBS.
MITCHELL:
So where's the benefit to me in suburban Melbourne?
PRIME MINISTER:
In long term, just general economic growth, because if you have greater access to the largest economy in the world the potential addition of that to economic growth is enormous over a period of time. I mean I can't say to you tomorrow that as a result of signing this you can walk into your local deli and such and such is going to be cheaper. But I can say to you that over a long period of time as our economy interlocks with the American and its grows with the American economy we'll get advantages.
MITCHELL:
Well where does this rate do you believe in terms of your prime ministership? How important is it on what you've achieved?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's huge, certainly in the trade area, it's the biggest thing we've done on the trade front since I've been Prime Minister and I don't want to sort of get into any kind of sectional triumphalism, there's nothing to be achieved by that. It is good for our country and that's what makes me excited about it. This is a great outcome.
MITCHELL:
Onto something else, New Zealand has cut diplomatic ties with Israeli, now you've got good relations with both countries. Are you try and patch that up, could you try and patch that up?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll think about that.
MITCHELL:
It's not ....
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I don't want to look as though I'm interfering in other people's affairs. I do have good relations with the leaders of both countries, obviously we're very close to the New Zealanders, but I have a very close association with Israel, as does Australia. I'm sorry it's happened, I can understand the reaction of the New Zealand Government, I do understand that, on the other hand we all have to be sensible and think in the medium to longer term about these things.
MITCHELL:
Often you just need a peace broker in something like this.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, let's think about that.
MITCHELL:
Are you concerned by the drug doubts that seem to be being raised around the Australian Olympic team?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, of course I'm concerned in the sense that anything that unsettles our athletes and disturbs the hard training, hard working athletes worries me because it might detract from their performance...
MITCHELL:
... detract from their credibility though, I mean we're now doing searches of what, 1800 of them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the sky is the limit with these things, once allegations are made you can never do enough in response, it's a bit like complaints of corporate misbehaviour, whenever they're made and there's evidence that it happens you end up putting in place rules and regulations and procedures that affect the 99 per cent who are perfectly honest.
MITCHELL:
The vote in the Senate by the way, 84, 16 against.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is fantastic, that is even better than the House. It's better than I thought it would be, I was told by our Ambassador that the vote in the Senate may not have been as wide the margin as in the House of Representatives. That would have to be the best ever vote for a trade agreement in the Senate, the one in the House of Representatives was the best on record and that was three to one, that's what, five to one? Extraordinarily strong.
MITCHELL:
You're standing on your economic record to a large extent obviously, long term will interest rates stay down?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't see any reason why there should be a significant upward movement in interest rates in the foreseeable future. Now I know that sounds qualified, but it has to be because I don't control interest rates, the Reserve Bank does. I can't say that they will never vary a little bit in the future, I can't, but I can't see the circumstances in the medium term where there should be any significant upward movement.
MITCHELL:
Under Labor?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well a different ballgame, I mean I speak of myself, if Labor adopts the sort of policies it had when it was last in government interest rates will go up.
MITCHELL:
Now Prime Minister, Mark Taylor, the Australian cricket captain, the ex-cricket captain once described you as a cricket tragic, I notice the Opposition Leader, this is getting really nasty, this election campaign, he says a cricket tragic is somebody who's not good enough to make the team. What are your best bowling figures?
PRIME MINISTER:
On recollection I think they were six for about 60 or 76, way back in 1959 at Tempe Reserve playing for Earlwood Methodist Church team against some team from Kogarah.
MITCHELL:
So you're not insulted by being told you're not good enough?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, not insulted, and I remain proudly a cricket tragic, according to the Mark Taylor definition, I think that Mark has a better understanding of what it means than the other Mark.
MITCHELL:
Did you talk to Shane Warne after his record equalling (inaudible) quiz show on Channel Nine?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. Okay.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]