AUSTIN:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
I suppose I could reply rhetorically why wouldn't I, it's a great place to visit.
AUSTIN:
You must be really worried about your party's travelling here in this state.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Queensland is a state that I visit regularly whether it's close to an election or a long way away from the election. I am certainly no stranger to Queensland, I have come here on a regular basis not only as Prime Minister but in all the other capacities I've had in politics. You asked me about the importance of Queensland politically, yes of course it's important. Queensland is growing faster than any other part of the country, it has a growing number of seats in the House of Representatives, there are a lot of marginal seats in Queensland...
AUSTIN:
That hasn't gone unnoticed.
PRIME MINISTER:
I would be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge that I have a political interest but it's not a Johnny-come-lately situation. I have been a frequent visitor to and a person concerned about the particular interests of Queensland and people in Queensland for a long time. You may remember earlier this year, long before we starting talking about the lead up to the election, I spent a lot of time her listening to the concerns of people here in the sugar industry. I went to Far North Queensland and talked to people over the weekend, I then came back to Brisbane and then ultimately we announced a sugar package in Bundaberg. So it's a well trodden path that of mine in Queensland and I feel very comfortable, I always find the people of this state very welcoming, but very direct, I was up here a couple of weeks ago to see the wonderful rerun of the grand final, the final in the World Cup Rugby and fortunately on this occasion the tables were reversed.
AUSTIN:
If you want to speak with the Prime Minister, 1300 36 06 12, I know we've got a full board at the moment. It strikes me as odd, you as the leader of a nation facing what are probably the biggest issue this country has to deal with at the moment, and you spend four days in the place, it's quite, I'm surprised you're not in Canberra sort of knocking heads together in the intelligence division or talking with the Department of Foreign Affairs about the Free Trade Agreement or checking what's happened in Indonesia.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, one of the things you can do now in Australia, and they've been able to do for a long time is be anywhere in the country and not out of touch with who you need to talk to. That's one of the benefits of modern communications. 15, 20, 30 years ago it was different, you did feel out of touch if you left Canberra. I don't feel out of touch being out of Canberra, in fact, a lot of your listeners probably think the less time I spend in Canberra the better because a lot of people feel that if you spend too much time in Canberra you can become remote from the concerns of ordinary people.
AUSTIN:
Let's look at the report delivered into Australia's intelligence agencies by Mr Phillip Flood. Who's going to do the honourable thing and stand aside, actually step up to the microphone and say I'm responsible, I'll do the right thing and allow someone else to have a go. Who are you going to say mate, you've got to go, that was an appalling intelligence assessment, you didn't ask the hard enough questions, you didn't filter it, you didn't check it, and you dropped me right in it and we're now at war in the Middle East?
PRIME MINISTER:
That question overstates the deficiencies that Mr Flood identified. What he said was that he thought the intelligence was, I think, thin, ambiguous and inadequate...
AUSTIN:
Incomplete.
PRIME MINISTER:
Incomplete, that's what he said ...
AUSTIN:
... very diplomatic...
PRIME MINISTER:
...well no, but I thought one of the most interesting reactions was a former intelligence officer who was interviewed briefly on AM this morning, the gentlemen right at the end, not Mr Wilkie, I think the one before him in which he said that intelligence is always thin, incomplete and ambiguous. You never get a clear perfect case, you never get a beyond reasonable doubt case, you never get spy agencies coming to you and say look we're absolutely certain that this is going to happen, they always qualify things and I knew that we weren't being presented with a beyond reasonable doubt case, we were presented with a strong circumstantial case, and the assessment of ONA on the material they had was that there was a strong circumstantial case that Saddam had the weapons and that was a judgement that I took into account when we made our decision.
AUSTIN:
You head Cabinet's National Security Committee. It is correct that you as the head of that committee, well the committee itself, hasn't reviewed the annual reports from the spy agencies for a couple of years? And that Phillip Flood described your actions as regrettable in his report?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we review the material they give us and the question of, when you say we haven't reviewed the annual reports, we see the annual reports, I'm quite frankly...
AUSTIN:
Did you review them, did you say guys how are we travelling ...
PRIME MINISTER:
But that sort of thing happens on a regular basis. I don't know that the test of whether you are reviewing the performance of an agency is whether your review a particular report, I think you get a better impression or you get as least as complete an impression as to how a agency is operating by keeping in touch it. Now...
AUSTIN:
I'll explain why, Ian McPhedran, the defence writer, in today's Courier Mail, I think has picked up on a very strong point that Mr Philip Flood described that action or lack of action by you and your committee as, "regrettable". Now you are the head of the Cabinet National Security Committee and Mr Flood has done a report that found tha it was actually, the evidence was thin, ambiguous and incomplete. Surely, one of the parliament's systematic problem is with you and the National Security Committee?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the National Security Committee operates very effectively. I think the fact that we were able to maintain a very co-ordinated approach not only in relation to Iraq but all the other major security challenges that this country has had over the past few years demonstrates that and in a way I've learnt looking in the matter in which the American and British systems of government have worked through these same issues that we have operated in a far more co-ordinated basis. But look, the issue in relation to Iraq was simply this, that the intelligence agencies had some material, almost all of it was British and American material and one of the findings that Mr Flood did make, I thought a very interesting finding, was that it would have been harder with the material in front of them for the agencies to substantiate the opposite case to the one that they did substantiate, namely that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. In other words, on the balance of probabilities their conclusion was that he did have the weapons.
AUSTIN:
So who is responsible for these systemic failures then - you seem to have the most appalling communications in your office.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that's not right, there is nothing at all, with great respect, there's nothing in Mr Flood's Report to suggest that and that, with great respect, that is just not a reasonable thing to say. There are not appalling communication difficulties in my office at all, I mean, there's nothing in the Flood Report to suggest that is the case.
AUSTIN:
Didn't you have a similar problem with your children overboard comments, that it turned out...
PRIME MINISTER:
That is an entirely separate issue. I mean, we are talking about Flood, we're talking about...
AUSTIN:
Well, I'm only adding this one....
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no...
AUSTIN:
... there is a pattern evolving here in your office....
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, your listeners would be entitled to assume if I didn't react as I have that somehow or other Flood has suggested there was poor communication in my office. He's done no such thing.
AUSTIN:
And I haven't said he has.
PRIME MINISTER:
...implication....
AUSTIN:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
...middle of a discussion about Flood.
AUSTIN:
I'm seeing a pattern here in your office. There are numerous instances...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't accept that because there's absolutely no suggestion. For a pattern to be there it has to occur in a number of cases. There is no suggestion in relation to Iraq that that occurred, none whatsoever. I reject that completely.
AUSTIN:
Okay, well as a result of the report - will Peter Varghese be made as head of the Office of National Assessments?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
AUSTIN:
Who's been reprimanded over the report's findings?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm not in the business of going into discussions I might have with people in individual agencies but can I also say, in defence of the agencies, something that you haven't acknowledged, and that is that the basic finding of the Flood Report was that our agencies in intelligence serve the country very well. He said that the findings of the agencies were more cautious and so far have been more closely born out by events than the findings, than the performance of their counterparts in Britain and America. It is true that he used the words that we have both acknowledged about thinness and incompleteness and ambiguity. It is true he used those. It is also true that he said that our agencies had done a very good job, that their conclusions on the material in front of them were reasonable. He has said that and I think in fairness to the agencies and to get the thing into context...
AUSTIN:
I'm not challenging that at all...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but....
AUSTIN:
...we're going back over old ground Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but I think in all of these things you know as well as I do that you often get reports that have sort of a bit for each point of view.
AUSTIN:
Sure. You're very diplomatic with this report.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, it's all very well to say that. I mean, you can't have it both ways. You can't rely on the bits that you might see as critical of the Government and then ignore the bits that put the thing into a proper balance. I mean, for example...
AUSTIN:
I just want to know who is accountable...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, in the end I am the person who gets it in the neck from the electorate if they don't like the way I've run the country and I accept that and I'm certainly not going to make scapegoats...
AUSTIN:
Alright. Fair enough. That is good.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to say, well because something went wrong I'm going to fire you. I'm not going to do that.
AUSTIN:
Will you be seeking a please explain from the previous head of the Office of National Assessment, Kim Jones, who retired in December last year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think Mr Jones did a good job as head of the Office of National Assessments and if you look at the Flood Report, if you look at the totality of it, what Flood said was that on the material available their conclusions were reasonable.
AUSTIN:
Alright, do you still believe that Iran and North Korea are rogue states, that they're also part of the axis of evil that George W Bush announced when he said Iraq, Iran....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, everybody uses their own language. I mean that was President Bush's language.
AUSTIN:
You don't believe that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think, I prefer to describe those countries and indeed, to describe other countries in my own language and I'm not going to be cross-examined on the basis of do you agree or not agree with that particular description? I'll use my own description and my own description obviously is that North Korea has broken undertakings it gave the international community, it is in breach of all sorts of protocols and understandings, it is in breach of its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. So that's the language I choose to use. I don't necessarily adopt or reject the language of another leader.
AUSTIN:
Alright. Now, as the National Security Committee head of Cabinet - what level is counter-terrorism alert code at the moment in Australia? Where are we? We've got a four stage level?
PRIME MINISTER:
Medium.
AUSTIN:
Medium. So it stays there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, when you say it stays there, it's depending on what happens.
AUSTIN:
Alright. Okay. Can you guarantee the safety of Australian athletes who attend the Olympics?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I can't guarantee it. No. No, I can't. I can't guarantee that, no. I can say that people are, that there is no specific threat. But it is impossible for me to guarantee. You're asking me for a guarantee. I can't and I think you know I can't do that and I hope by my having to directly answer that very direct question people don't get alarmed and think that there is any particular danger. I want to say, we are not aware of any specific threat to the athletes in Athens. We are not aware of any intelligence that suggests that.
AUSTIN:
I'll take our first call in just a moment. But here's the scenario as I see it - we're at war in the Middle East, we've got incomplete intelligence, we've got athletes going to Athens, we can't take own security forces in there with any sort of weapons to defend them or look after them or protect them, we don't have anyone who's been stood aside in the ONA to say look, we can set a standard of improvement in this particular office. Australians can reasonably say - boy, are we in hot water.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think that is a super charged, extravagant, alarmist description if you want my opinion.
AUSTIN:
I've listened to your warnings about terrorism very closely and I think you're right, the war on terror is very important. But it looks to me like we attacked the wrong country mate, and we did it with flogged intelligence and now we've enraged the Middle East and we're sending our athletes into a country that's a plane, a hop, skip and a jump away.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that is your editorial comment and let me respond to it by saying that I don't think you can divorce what is occurring in Iraq from the war on terror. The terrorists don't. When you see hooded people threatening to behead hostages, aren't you dealing with terrorists? Anybody...
AUSTIN:
Absolutely, no question.
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly. Is there anybody who says that Iraq has got nothing to do with the war against terrorism? I believe that if a democracy ultimately emerges in Iraq the Middle East will become a more stable country. For the very first time, we'll have a democratic Arab state, it will join Israel as the only other democratic state. Australia was a target and Australia's way of life was a target for terrorists before the 11th of September and our first negative reference from bin Laden was in relation to our intervention in East Timor and all of these things occurred long before our involvement in Iraq. Now, as far as our athletes, if I could return to that, let me just assure your listeners, the Government has received no intelligence suggesting that they are at particular risk. When you ask me, can I guarantee something - I have to honestly say I can't guarantee something, all I can say is that all of the advice is that all of the advice is that they are at no particular risk and the Australian Olympic Committee is satisfied with the security arrangements but in relation to their safety the Government continues to assess the situation and if there needs to be any change in the stance we have taken then obviously that change will occur.
AUSTIN:
Twenty minutes past nine. I've hogged enough time with the Prime Minister. Let's take some calls. Prime Minister John Howard is in the studio with us. We're going right around the state of Queensland. Prime Minister, Pat from Hyde Park, which is a suburb in Townsville, has phoned in. Pat, you're speaking with the Prime Minister John Howard. Good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning all. I'd like to ask the Prime Minister without the tired old arguments relating to it'd cost too much or that our rights (inaudible) already protected or that it gives too much power to the judiciary - why won't he allow our people to have a bill of rights to protect them from governments like his?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think bills of rights restrict freedoms, they don't enhance them, because once you sit down and write out what are generically understood rights you run the risk, through the language you use, of limiting them. So my objection to a bill of rights has got nothing to do with the cost. Now I might point out to you that it's the view that's shared by the longest serving Labor Premier in Australia, Bob Carr. We don't often agree on things but we do on this.
AUSTIN:
Further south than Townsville, Charles from Woombye, you're speaking with Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister, my question is a change of pace, I want to know would you support a referendum to make a small change to the constitution that would allow voters to start the referendum process to change the constitution? Only the Parliament can start that process at the moment.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think on balance I wouldn't, I haven't thought about it much in recent times, but I do take the view that we are a country that at a federal level, and in Queensland have elections every three years, which is very frequent, and I'm not sure that a state of I guess perpetual debate about future change is necessarily a recipe for stability. I'm on balance against it, but I don't want to suggest to you that I regard it as a totally outrageous proposition. I have a soft objection to it at the present time, not a very strong one.
AUSTIN:
Graeme, from Caloundra on the Sunshine Coast also, Graeme, you're speaking with Prime Minister John Howard. You there Graeme? I'm sorry, I've got the wrong call, my apologies, let me get this right, my apologies to you Graeme, I've got you now.
CALLER:
Oh yes, good morning John, welcome to Queensland.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
CALLER:
You enjoy the weather up here? Much better than bleak old Canberra. But John, my questions relates to the savings of elderly people where they were stolen by using a ponzi device ...
PRIME MINISTER:
A which device?
CALLER:
A ponzi device, interest and dividends were paid from capital and thus these were taxed twice because savings are taxed before they're putting it into an investment and then again as dividends or interest ....
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I see, I understand what you mean yes.
CALLER:
...taxed again. Now it's illegal to pay money from capital in this manner but the ASIC say it's not a criminal offence so they cannot act. We're talking about $1 million, we've got no money to litigate. So what can we do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry, you're talking about a particular case or you're talking about a general...
CALLER:
...well ponzis are general John.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry?
CALLER:
Ponzis have been general, involved in these solicitors mortgage failures, right, where investors have put money in with solicitors to develop property and the developers have failed, either in a private manner or otherwise ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
...and to sort things out solicitors have paid some of these people back with their own funds.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
... right, as interest or dividends.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
CALLER:
...and this has happened to a group of people that I speak with, or speak for, and we've been to the ASIC and they say that look the bank statements and the annual accounts, we can't read them and you know what's happened is we've been paid our own capital back as interest and the ASIC say it's not a criminal matter.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Sir, could I suggest that you leave your number and address with the station and...
AUSTIN:
We'll pass it on.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll get somebody to have a look at it, it sounds a bit intricate...
AUSTIN:
He's got a very specific case, it's very detailed.
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't really give a sensible answer without having more detail.
AUSTIN:
Graeme, we will pass it onto the Prime Minister's Office so they can try and get a handle on the idea, so that might help. George from Bulimba in Brisbane, George, you're speaking with Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Mr Howard, good morning, how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very well.
CALLER:
My question relates to the wastage of public money, I get particularly irate about that and particularly when it's wasted by politicians. My specific question is to you, why don't you stop junkets by politicians who go overseas allegedly for study tours. And everyone in Canberra knows, and you yourself would know, that it's a case of wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we'll go over for a study tour and but in fact when they get back they list something from the internet or a publication and that's their study tour report. You know and everyone else knows that goes on, and many thousands of dollars are wasted doing that, why don't you do something about it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Would I would acknowledge that not every overseas visit is as useful as it might be, but I do strongly defend the view that if people, particularly at a national level, I find it very hard to justify extensive overseas travel by state politicians because it's not really concerned with issues outside their own state, they are exclusively concerned with domestic issues. I think there is an understandable scepticism in the public about that, but I do think in the case of members of the Federal Parliament there is a very strong argument for a degree of overseas travel, I mean we are meant to be a country that relates to the rest of the world, we're always being told we're not sensitive enough to the feelings of our near neighbours, we're always being told we don't understand the problems of our region, we're always being told that we live in an insular world in Canberra. Well part of doing something about that is travelling so I would defend a reasonable amount.
AUSTIN:
I think as background to that, Senator George Brandis and Senator Brett Mason travelled overseas on what was a study tour, came back and did a three page report and when it was...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well I mean...
AUSTIN:
...told it was one of the biggest ever handed in.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but to be fair to George and Brett, who do a very good job as Liberal Senators for Queensland, I mean if we're going to start naming people, I mean let's name a few people on the Labor Party side who you may feel have travelled when they shouldn't have. I mean I think what George...
AUSTIN:
I think they all do...
PRIME MINISTER:
...conveniently name two Liberals, I mean hang on, let's be...
AUSTIN:
Well that was the one that came up.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well your questioner didn't mention them, the questioner asked the generic question and I'm trying to answer a generic question. Look I think sometimes it's hard to justify, I think travel overseas by state politicians apart from premiers and very senior ministers is very hard to justify. I think at a federal level, I mean for anybody to suggest that a Prime Minister or occasionally a Leader of Opposition or a senior minister shouldn't go, I mean that is ridiculous, it's plainly part of our job to do it.
AUSTIN:
Should they produce a more detailed report?
PRIME MINISTER:
What a Prime Minister? I get questioned all the time. I mean every time I come back I get asked questions and I'm constantly being scrutinised. Quite honestly I wish I didn't have to travel, anybody who thinks that overseas travel is a junket, can I say to your questioner, they are not junkets, I've never found overseas travel to be a junket and I've found all of it, it's hard work and you certainly don't have, certainly my experience as Prime Minister is you don't have any time for sightseeing.
AUSTIN:
Let's take another call, this one is Esme from Toowoomba, west of Brisbane. You're speaking with the Prime Minister Esme.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
Right, my question is, when the $600 baby bonus was paid it was, the cut off was the 11th of May, on budget night. I have just heard on the radio that this will now be extended to the end of the financial year, so that those people don't miss out. Now my question is, does this also refer to the carers who missed out because they were not registered as a carer before the 11th of May.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it should. I'll have a look, I understand your point, that is a very good point, it hasn't been raised with me before, it shows the value of these programmes. As a matter of principle it should, and I'll have a look at that, it may, there may be provisions for it but I understand your point. Those people who've been added in relation to the $600 are parents who've had children between the 11th of May and the 30th of June or people who for other reasons were, they took it as a lump sum and therefore they weren't on the books so to speak, but they were nonetheless entitled. Now your argument is that a carer who became a carer after the 11th of May, well I mean I think in principle they should, I'd like to check it, but you raise a very good point.
CALLER:
Well I fall into that category because unfortunately my husband's condition has deteriorated since that date, I have had to give up a part time job because it's unsafe to leave him by himself.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I understand.
CALLER:
And because I didn't apply until mid-June I've been told, and it is printed in the Seniors' News winter edition that you must have applied by the 11th of May and I accepted that, until I heard the news about an hour ago that children will be back paid, people who have had children since that date will be back paid.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I look at, I mean I have to say you have a point and let me look at it.
CALLER:
And also...
AUSTIN:
I'm going to have to leave it there Esme, thank you very much for your call though. Prime Minister, I know you've been very patient with us so thank you very much for coming in and I hope to see you back soon. When's the federal election going to be by the way?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't made up my mind.
AUSTIN:
Haven't made up your mind yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
AUSTIN:
Right. Happy birthday for Monday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]