LAWS:
The Prime Minister joins me now from our Canberra studio, Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John.
LAWS:
Well where do we start, you've been doing too much.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John that sometimes happens in government but this idea that yesterday was some giant manipulative conspiracy...
LAWS:
...is ridiculous.
PRIME MINISTER:
...is ridiculous. It's a conspiracy incidentally that involves not only me and the Attorney-General and the Director-General of ASIO, the head of the Australian Federal Police, the Ministerial members of the National Security of Cabinet, the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Minister for Homeland Security and the Premiers of the six States.
LAWS:
Now if one person that I can think of would like to put paid to what you said it would be Kim Beazley, but he went along with it and accepted it because he'd had information not only from you but from the intelligence people as well, hadn't he?
PRIME MINISTER:
I gave him the same information that has been given to me this week on this issue. I quite literally invited him and his Shadow Minister around to my office on two occasions. On the first occasion the Director-General of ASIO was present. I handed him the same material and he was able to read the same material that had been given to me.
LAWS:
Why...
PRIME MINISTER:
And I did that on two occasions, I did it on Tuesday evening at about 7.20pm and I did it again yesterday morning and prior to my meeting with him at 7.20pm on Tuesday night, I had a telephone hook-up with the six State Premiers, five of them in one go and then a separate telephone conversation with Mr Beattie in which I summarised as best I could the material that has been presented to us. Now the idea based on that, that this is some conspiracy, okay it coincided with the introduction of the workplace relations legislation, but John can I say I'm proud of the workplace relation changes, I didn't want them to receive less publicity. I defend those changes, I believe in them, I believe they're good for the Australian economy, I believe they will lead to more jobs, I believe they will lead to higher incomes for people in the years ahead. So the idea that in some way something I believed in very strongly for more than twenty years, I would want to smother is itself absurd. So on both counts this idea that it was all manipulated timing is ridiculous.
LAWS:
Okay you would have obviously made the announcement whether or not you were endeavouring to get the new regulations through. I mean if you were pushing the bill through obviously it would have been ...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I had to John, can I just interrupt John and say the reception on this line is not the best, I hope you can hear me well.
LAWS:
Sorry, I can.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well your voice is just a little bit distorted so as long as your listeners are hearing everything clearly that's fine. John I had to give an explanation for the urgent amendment, I had to, I had to say something. You can't amend an act of Parliament, recall the Senate...
LAWS:
Without a reason.
PRIME MINISTER:
...without giving a reason. And if I had said to Mr Beazley, Kim you know and I know why this is being done, let's just put up the amendment and say we've agreed that it's necessary and I give no explanation and he gets up and says I agree that and goes along with it. Well to start I wouldn't have expected him to have gone along with that I mean he is entitled, consistent with respecting the national interest, he's entitled to clearly hold the Government to account for everything it does, that's the job of an opposition, I don't object to that. But I had to give an explanation, I mean I heard some people on the radio this morning say by even saying I'd got any material I was tipping people off. Well you are dammed if you do and you are...
LAWS:
Dammed if you don't.
PRIME MINISTER:
...dammed if you don't. It's the eternal dilemma of somebody in my position with intelligence material at my disposal which gives rise for particular concerns. I had to amend the law to give the authorities a capacity to respond more effectively. Now that doesn't mean that something is going to happen in the next few days as some people have suggested this morning. What it means is that as issues work out operationally, if I can put it that way, having this new law will mean that the response to situations as they emerge and they can change every day and new situations can emerge, the authorities will be in a stronger position to deal with it. Now I had to give a reason for the urgency and I had to use words that disclose the minimum information consistent with explaining to the public why we were doing it, and I do think the public understands that if you start talking the detail of intelligence advice, you wreck the capacity of bad people to be brought to account.
LAWS:
Is it true and I think I can ask you this at least, is it true that it's a home-grown threat?
PRIME MINISTER:
Let me put it this way, the concerns we have are not totally related to matters distant from Australia.
LAWS:
Okay that will do. The sedition regulations, when do they in fact come into effect?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the sedition changes will come into effect when the main bill is passed.
LAWS:
Which will be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is our hope and I think it's growing to a belief now that it will be before the Parliament rises for the Christmas recess. I believe that we have just about tied up the last detail with the States and it may be possible for that bill therefore, to be introduced into the Parliament today or at the latest next Monday. Now that is subject to one more process with our own party room which is the normal thing. But as soon as that bill is introduced, we will commence debate on, there will be a committee, a Senate committee inquiry into it which will have a couple of weeks to sit, the precise number of days don't hold me to but something in that order, and the idea would be to pass that law into effect well not later than I hope a couple of weeks or even less into December.
LAWS:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
But that's subject to the timetable of Parliament and I don't take these things for granted and even though we do just have the numbers in Parliament, you've got to treat the institution with respect. But the aim and the wish, the need, most importantly the national need is to have this legislation enforced as soon as possible and certainly before we rise for the Christmas break.
LAWS:
Given that you told us about this security concern, will you be telling us about everyone?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends entirely on the circumstances. Generally speaking, no but I had to give a reason...
LAWS:
To change the law.
PRIME MINISTER:
... to change the law. There is no way that I could get up in the Parliament and say we are going to change this law...
LAWS:
And we are not tell you why.
PRIME MINISTER:
...and we are not going tell you, give you any reason. I mean people then would be entitled to say I was being arrogant and treating the Parliament, and even more importantly the public, with contempt.
LAWS:
Why has the threat level not been increased?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because the existing threat level according to our advice covers the current situation. The next threat level has in contemplation an imminent attack.
LAWS:
Okay so the threat level as it stands now is sufficient?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah it is.
LAWS:
Once these sedition laws go through, will characters like this Sheik Abdul Zoud, the cleric at the Haldon Street prayer hall in Lakemba who spends his Friday nights applauding the efforts of Muslim fighters and has a website that is pretty seditious, will these people be spoken to?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to, for reasons you will understand that, including I'd never want to prejudice any action that might be taken by authorities in relation to anybody. It will for example under the laws that we are contemplating, be an offence to encourage people to do harm to Australian soldiers overseas.
JOURNALIST:
So it wouldn't matter who it was but if...?
PRIME MINISTER:
It wouldn't matter who it was, I mean that plainly is wrong and unacceptable and even people who are violently critical of what my Government's policies have been in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea that anybody should be allowed to encourage violence and the doing of physical harm to Australians fighting in the name of this country overseas is something that Australians will not accept.
JOURNALIST:
Is it the case that ASIO and the Federal Police want to make to make application for control orders on a number of individuals well before the Commonwealth Games, is that the motivation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I can't say that. I don't want to comment on that. The way the system operates John is that if ASIO and the Federal Police, under any legislation, have reason to want to do things, then they act in accordance with the law. It has never been the case as you will appreciate that the Federal Police and ASIO negotiate with the Government what they might do. They act independently within their legal authority and they do it very carefully and very circumspectly. But clearly having control orders will add to the armoury of dealing with this threat. Because what control orders will introduce into the Australian law for the first time is the capacity in relation to people who are suspected of preparatory or terrorist activities, or people who have trained with a terrorist organisation in the past; it will enable a control order to be obtained from a judge that will put limits on what the person can do and the control orders can operate for up to a year and that could involve home detention, it could involve restrictions on going to certain meetings, it could involve a whole variety of things. Now I don't like the fact that we have to do this. I don't like it at all. In many ways it's as distasteful to me as it is to the most rampant civil libertarian in the country. But we are living in different times, and anybody who thinks that we're not, is frankly, out of touch with reality. This country is not immune from the possibility of a terrorist attack. It is not. And people who think it is are just kidding themselves. And people who think we don't need to take preparatory action are also kidding themselves. Now does that mean I can promise you because of all of this we'll never be subject to an attack? No. This is the frustration. You can do all the things in the world and something can still happen and people will blame you and so that's the nature of the situation. But I mean the blame that might descend upon the Government would be miniscule compared to the tragedy that would be involved if we did have an attack in this country. And I will do everything in my power to stop it.
LAWS:
Do you fear it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't fear it in a sense that it interrupts my capacity in any way to carry out my job or to live my life. It's something that I factor into our existence. And what I encourage my fellow Australians to do is to live their lives. I mean in the end, it's an additional risk that we have. But life is never riskless and there's always the risk of accident, tragedy, injury, death as we go about our daily lives, I don't want to sound too gloomy, but it's just something you factor in. A lot of people, an earlier generation, grew up worrying about whether we'd all be annihilated in a nuclear war.
LAWS:
Yes, yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is, I mean most people around roughly your age and my age, which is not all that different, would have passed through that period. And somehow or other people got on with their lives and they kept their sense of humour and they kept their Australian attitudes.
LAWS:
And that's what we've got to do now.
PRIME MINISTER:
And that's what we've got to do now. It's just that in a way this is the modern equivalent of that period that we lived through with the threat of nuclear annihilation. When you look back on it now it was quite, certainly in the 1950s and 60s, it was something that people did talk about and worry about a lot. And everybody said well if you do this and you do that you'll stop it happening. If we put down our nuclear weapons then they will miraculously put down theirs and everybody will sit down in harmony and reason forever.
LAWS:
It didn't happen.
PRIME MINISTER:
It didn't happen and the thing that in the end ended I suppose the worry about nuclear annihilation was in fact the strength and the determination of Ronald Reagan in particular to so expand and strengthen the American military capacity, it became economically impossible for the Soviet Union to match it. So it's a bit of a lesson from history, that you don't necessarily defeat these threats by retreating.
LAWS:
Industrial relations. Did you expect such as warm reception as you got?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I did. It was part of the theatre of Parliament. It was very obvious from the beginning of Question Time that their aim was to have as many people named so they could demonstrate their opposition to it. I mean this is an issue where clearly there's a fundamental divide. The Labor Party more than ever is filling its parliamentary ranks with trade union officials and of course this legislation doesn't really affect workers in the way that Mr Combet and others are suggesting. It does affect unions, it does put a greater reliance on the individual capacity of workers, but it doesn't destroy unions, it doesn't stop people joining unions or having unions negotiate for them. But I think it's a great reform. I believe in it very strongly and I think it will be good for the Australian economy. In the end somebody's job security and wage level is determined ultimately by the strength of the economy. Because if you don't have a strong economy, businesses don't make money and when businesses don't make money, no matter what laws you have, they let people go or pay people less.
LAWS:
Are you going to stop the WorkChoices commercials now having spent about $50 million?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they have terminated. They have terminated.
LAWS:
No more then?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have any planned at present, any more planned at present I'm sorry.
LAWS:
Did it get up to $50 million?
PRIME MINISTER:
The figure was 44 including some education, and this is the latest information I have, was in the order of 45, just under 45.
LAWS:
Okay, I was surprised at a bit of the reaction from some of the people. How many were thrown out, 11? That's going to be some sort of record, doesn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that is a record, but then this is stuff that they, as a labour movement, because they are so much a product of the trade union movement. I mean membership now is more trade union oriented than it's ever been. It has less diversity now than it had when I first entered Parliament and a lot of the trade union officials in those days had had a lot more practical experience too.
LAWS:
The big employer groups are saying that these reforms are needed to slow wages down. Is that the effect they will have?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't know who said that. But that's not the Government's view. The Government's view is that these reforms will in fact underpin stronger real wages, because they'll contribute to a stronger economy.
LAWS:
Greg Combet says that the - he didn't have a lot of arguments I've got to say - but he says the minimum wages would be something like $50 less than they are now if you had your way?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if I had my way, I've been Prime Minister for nine-and-a-half years.
LAWS:
If you had your way it would be $50 more.
PRIME MINISTER:
And real wages have gone up 14, 15% and I'd like to have an economy that was productive enough for them to go up even more. That's true. But you can only have high real wages without rising unemployment if you have strong productivity and you only have strong productivity if you have a strong economy. See the problem with these arguments is they become too legalistic. At the end of the day if you wanted to eliminate every possible malicious act by any conceivable employer in Australia, you'd have a system that was so heavily regulated that nobody could open the door of their shop for business through fear that they might do something wrong to their employees. We've got to strike a balance. And what this legislation seeks to do is to generate more flexibility. There are protections, but there are also changes that make the entirely reasonable assumption that in 2005 some employees, a growing number, are better able to negotiate for themselves than anybody else, because they know what's best for them more than a union or an employer organisation. And what this legislation does very much is to provide that flexibility.
LAWS:
Okay, Prime Minister thanks very much for your time. As usual you've been very generous with it and I hope we get to talk again very soon.
PRIME MINISTER:
So do I John. Thanks a lot.
[ends]