MITCHELL:
In our Canberra studio is the Prime Minister. Mr Howard good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, terrorism. Police are quoted today saying there is no specific threat to buildings or places in Australia. Is that right?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to comment on the whole raft of speculative comments that have been made by people. I'll go back to explaining what we did. We were given information. That information was shown to the Leader of the Opposition and his Shadow Minister for Homeland Security. I summarised that information in a telephone conversation with the six State Premiers who unanimously agreed that if we thought it appropriate, they would support the passage urgently of legislation to give the authorities a more effective capacity to deal with a terrorist threat in the future. Now, as to all of the speculation that has come since, people talking about this or that building, or this or that level of threat, you always get that. And I know that some people are saying to me, "why don't you give us more information?" And some of those same people are saying "well you shouldn't have done it in the first place." I was and remain on the horns of a dilemma. I have, by putting this legislation through urgently, I have signalled to the Australian public, and I have told the Australian public that the situation because of specific information, is more challenging than what it was a week ago. But I'm in no position, because I don't want to prejudice operational behaviour by the authorities, I'm in no position to publicly say what that information is. And therefore I cannot respond every time somebody says "well what it really means is that Howard is being told x, y, z" and then somebody says to me, quite legitimately, "well is that right?"
MITCHELL:
But it is creating a climate of fear isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil, what do I do? Nothing. And this idea that some how or other you could have urgently amended the law without saying why is unreal.
MITCHELL:
Well are you concerned that what's being said has in fact tipped off the people who are a threat?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't believe that.
MITCHELL:
But they must know you're talking about them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil, once again, I don't want to get into that. But can you see the dilemma? Can you understand that if we are given information, it's credible? We are told that if the law were changed in a particular fashion, that would strengthen the capacity to deal with the situation. I talked to the Premiers. I talked to the Leader of the Opposition. I provided all of the information that I have been given this week to the Leader of the Opposition. I mean all of it. I handed him the document that I'd been given. And I showed it to his homeland security spokesman and they both read it in my office and then handed it back to me.
MITCHELL:
Well his homeland security spokesman said he still wasn't sure if it was a stunt by you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that wasn't, with respect, I don't know whether he said that. He certainly didn't say that to me.
MITCHELL:
I heard him say it but...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I'm not going to...You've got to sort of take a point on that. They are still the Opposition and I understand that and I think on this issue Mr Beazley and Mr Bevis have acted in a responsible fashion. I want to place that on record. And so have the State Premiers.
MITCHELL:
Is security being increased at any buildings?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well once again, they are operational matters for the police. I mean, I am not the Commissioner of Police, nor is Mr Bracks in Victoria, or Mr Rann in South Australia, or Beattie in Queensland, or Mr Iemma in New South Wales. You cannot have a situation where the Prime Minister is giving an hourly commentary on what the police are doing. That is not my job.
MITCHELL:
True.
PRIME MINISTER:
I do not direct the police. The police operate independently and it's not my place to say to the police you should arrest people or you should not arrest people. They do that on the basis of evidence and their own assessments. And it should not be assumed that there are going to be arrests. Whether there are arrests is a matter for the police and clearly we are kept informed if anything in particular is going to occur. But in the end, what we do is we are provided with security assessments. And we make judgements on the basis of those and other advice as to whether changes to the law are needed. We were given certain assessments. We made those judgements and we judged it sufficiently important given the information we had been provided that change should be made immediately. Now I cannot go into the detail of the information I've been given because clearly that would completely compromise the operation of the authorities. But I want to make it clear the day to day judgements about what police go where and what police do and who's taken into custody and who's questioned and so forth, that is a matter for the police.
MITCHELL:
Are you prepared to say whether it is related to Operation Pandanus as has been speculated on?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to respond to any speculation I'm sorry. I wish I could be...
MITCHELL:
We have this situation, I've got people approaching me in the street saying you know people, you'll have the inside word, where is the danger? Now this is the atmosphere we've got. That you and others are in the know and the average member of the public isn't.
PRIME MINISTER:
I do understand that. I do understand that. But what am I to do? Am I to compromise what capacity our police might have to catch people who are wanting to do damage to our community? Do I do that? Or do I maintain the position I'm maintaining now, which obviously, over time, makes me subject to a lot of criticism, and I'm going to maintain that position because that is my duty. I understand this, and as time goes by, people are going to criticise me more. They're going to say, some of them will say "he made it up." Well he didn't make it up. And the Leader of the Opposition knows that he didn't make it up and so do the State Premiers.
MITCHELL:
Are you disappointed that your standing is such that so many people seem to be cynical about it. They say "look at the children overboard, look at weapons of mass destruction. Why believe him now?"
PRIME MINISTER:
Well,I am not surprised that some would say that because there's a section of the community that disbelieves a lot of what I say because I've been a Prime Minister now for almost ten years. Many of them are my implacable political opponents and they don't like the fact that I'm still Prime Minister. I understand that. We live in a competitive political environment and I can only act on advice that I've received. You talk about the weapons of mass destruction. I was given intelligence in relation to those and I acted on that. And I don't apologise for acting on it. And I will go on defending the decision I took in the circumstances at the time. I'm not going to back track and say that was a mistake because the intelligence we had at the time indicated a certain thing. I made a judgement. I don't retract or retreat from that judgement.
MITCHELL:
Will details of this be made public eventually?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't make any commitment in relation to that, I really can't. And in any event, the dominant consideration there would be the operational and legal consideration governing the circumstances.
MITCHELL:
I'm puzzled that you didn't look at making laws retrospective. We have here something that's happened. We don't know what. You're told these laws will make it easier to attack that, but the laws have come in after it's happened. Why didn't you make them retrospective?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's fair to say that in these situations conduct is often ongoing. So it can't be said that it has quote "happened".
MITCHELL:
Okay, so it could be continuing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, and in any event, there is a very strong reservation in the community and in the Government about making criminal offences retrospective.
MITCHELL:
Are we in greater danger today than we were six months ago?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it's fair to say that we have more information about the activities and the attitude of people. I think there have been people in our community for some time who would want to do harm, who are pleased about the terrorist attacks in Bali and in London and pleased about some of the terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world. They have been within our community now for some time. Not a lot, and a tiny minority. It's fair to say that we probably have more; or the authorities have a greater understanding of what people are about now than what they did six months ago.
MITCHELL:
Can you assure us, and this sort of gets to the nub of what I've been talking about, that you will not play politics with terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely. I wasn't playing the other day politics. Now it's quite unreal to think that you could recall the Senate and ask that a bill be put through all stages of the Parliament within 24 hours without having to give an explanation. I mean some people have said 'oh we agree with what he did, but he shouldn't have done it in the way that he did.' What, put out a press statement at five to twelve? That would have really got the conspiracy theorists going. Once I decided to do it, I thought the upfront thing to do was to make a public statement, explain as best I could within the constraints that I'm subject to, why we were doing it. Know that I would get questioned, as you are quite properly doing now. Know that I would get criticised, know that people would say he's doing it deliberately to divert debate on industrial relations. I don't want to divert debate on industrial relations. I believe in these industrial relations changes.
MITCHELL:
I'd like to get to them in a moment.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah I know, but I mean, I think you know Neil the times we've spoken over the years that I am the last bloke who will run away from a discussion on industrial relations reform.
MITCHELL:
That's a fair comment.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know how else I could have handled it. If I'd had tried to do it in a covert way, people would say "ah he's trying to sneak it through without telling us."
MITCHELL:
Can I just ask you about another related issue? An Al Qaeda Lieutenant Omar al-Farouq who is reported to be their link with JI in South East Asia, has escaped in Afghanistan from the American's custody. Is this man a threat to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think any terrorist of that standing in a general way is a threat to all of us including Australia. I am not aware at this stage that he is specifically of a greater threat to Australia than he is to others. It's certainly disturbing that he's escaped and I hope he's recaptured.
MITCHELL:
Okay, well take a break, come back with more from the Prime Minister and come back with other issues in a moment. 9696 1278 if you'd like to speak with him.
[break]
MITCHELL:
Twelve to nine the Prime Minister is in our Canberra studio. Mr Howard will you make a personal plea to the Government of Singapore to try to save the life of Tuong Van Nguyen (sic)?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have already done everything I can do. If there are other opportunities that present themselves, I will take advantage of those. I believe that my personal views on this issue have been very strongly communicated to the Government of Singapore.
MITCHELL:
Firstly, the family and the lawyers are saying what is now needed is a personal plea from you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have had a meeting with the lawyer for the family for the man and he is fully aware of everything that I have done.
MITCHELL:
Are you prepared to go further if necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
If there's an opportunity and if I believe it will help the man, I will. But I...
MITCHELL:
Can't you create that opportunity by ringing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Beg your pardon?
MITCHELL:
Can't you create the opportunity by contacting them and saying, look I feel very strongly about this personally?
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I have done what I can do and my personal views are very well known to the Prime Minister of Singapore.
MITCHELL:
And that is, this man should not be executed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. For the reasons that I have publicly canvassed, including the fact that he did not have a criminal record, that he was transiting through Changi airport, that he was doing it to help his brother, and that he has tried to cooperate with the authorities and I have made it known to the Government of Singapore that that is my very strong view.
MITCHELL:
When was that done?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's been done recently.
MITCHELL:
So do you still hold out any hope, has...
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not optimistic.
MITCHELL:
Has it been done since the latest rejection?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't want - I just don't want to go into that. One of the reasons is that I believe sometimes faint though the hope may be, faint though the hope may be of bringing about any change, it is more likely to be achieved, that is a change in a fashion that does not involve megaphone diplomacy by one head of Government to another.
MITCHELL:
Could this jeopardise relations between Australia and Singapore?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think in the long term it will, but the Singapore Government is in no doubt about the strong feelings within Australia on this particular case. There is a feeling in Australia that it is a particularly harsh thing that this man be put to death given the circumstances. There's no let up in our hostility to drug taking and there is a lot of sympathy in Australia for the tough drug laws in Asia as there are tough drug laws in Australia. But there are some tough aspects of this case that do make it different.
MITCHELL:
Do you agree it's particularly harsh?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think, I am against capital punishment in Australia- I find it obviously more distasteful in some cases than in others. I mean I think it is perfectly understandable that in a case like this the feeling is stronger than in some other cases.
MITCHELL:
But you said that people find it particularly harsh, do you find it particularly harsh?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do, yes I do. I think given the history of this case, I do, yes.
MITCHELL:
Okay well we've got some other issues, but a quick call for the Prime Minister, Robyn go ahead please.
CALLER:
Yes, Mr Howard I just wanted to ask you, I tend to think you are playing politics with the terrorism issue, I think you're trying to create a climate of fear in the community, can you tell me why you can't be more open about the threat? The people want to know and I think you as Prime Minister should be telling us what is going on.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if I were completely open and I told you everything I'd been told, it would completely wreck any prospect of the police effectively acting on behalf of the community to protect the community. I mean surely you understand that if people in possession of information about the behaviour of others which might constitute a threat to the community then publicly announce that they had that information, don't you think that tips people off, don't you think it means that they alter their behaviour, don't you think it makes it harder to catch them. I mean how possibly can you expect me to do that and then pretend with a straight face that I am still looking after the interests of the community.
MITCHELL:
Thank you Robert. Prime Minister, is the 38 hour week guaranteed or not? If I have to work more than 38 hours will I get overtime?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can be asked to work a reasonable amount of overtime. There's not, there's nothing...
MITCHELL:
Paid as overtime?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that depends if you are covered by an award, yes, if you are covered by an agreement it will depend on the terms of the agreement.
MITCHELL:
So - may be able to work more than 38 hours and not be paid overtime?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends if you are on an award, the award will govern it, if you are on an agreement, the agreement has to specifically deal with it, if the agreement doesn't specifically deal with it the award provision prevails.
MITCHELL:
What are reasonable additional hours?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends on the circumstances and there has been a reasonable hour's case that was determined by the Industrial Relations Commission some time ago and that will be the benchmark for the application of the law.
MITCHELL:
But paid overtime is not guaranteed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends if you are on an award, yes, if it's specified in your agreement yes, if it's not specified in your agreement, then the award provision operates.
MITCHELL:
But not protected by law, I mean not one of those things that can't be moved...
PRIME MINISTER:
No the award condition dealing with overtime stays for so long as that stays in the award.
MITCHELL:
Yes but there are certain things you've guaranteed just won't be changed and cannot be changed, overtime is not one of them.
PRIME MINISTER:
No look the fair pay and conditions standard includes the hours, it includes the holiday, sick leave, carer's leave. When it comes to penalty rates and overtime, if you are covered by an award, then what is in the award covers you, if you are under an agreement, if the agreement does not address that issue, then the award provision operates, if the agreement does address that issue then what is in the agreement covers it and that will vary from case to case, workplace to workplace.
MITCHELL:
Are you willing to see union officials jailed if necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is no intention to jail union officials.
MITCHELL:
But it's in the laws.
PRIME MINISTER:
No well hang on, I think, hang on I think what Mr Combet was backing off a little bit on this, this morning. If you don't pay fines, if you don't pay a fine, theoretically you can go to jail, if I don't pay a fine, theoretically I can go to jail. But I think Mr Combet is trying to create the impression that there are new draconian jail penalties in this legislation which is not the case.
MITCHELL:
Does it become a criminal offence to divulge to another person whether somebody's on a contract?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the normal operation of a corporation's law applies there.
MITCHELL:
What does that mean?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it means that if you are breaching what, if you are behaving in a criminal fashion, then obviously it's a criminal offence.
MITCHELL:
But why would it be a criminal offence to say my mate here is on a contract?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can't imagine for a moment the law says that.
MITCHELL:
Why (inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'd like to, well I'd like somebody to point out to me where the law says that and if it does say that well that was certainly not the intended - but I do not believe the law says that.
MITCHELL:
Are you concerned by a High Court challenge by the states?
PRIME MINISTER:
I expect it, our advice is that it will fail but it's in the hands of the High Court.
MITCHELL:
When will these laws become law?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they will be passed, the Parliament willing, before Christmas and they will come into operation, most of them by about the 1st March or 1st April next year.
MITCHELL:
Are you willing to negotiate any of these points?
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil we are not willing to change the basic principles of the legislation, but if there as a result of the Senate hearing or discussions we have with people, if there are some ways in which the policy intention of the changes can be made clearer, or if there are other common sense amendments then we are willing to put them in. I certainly don't adopt the attitude with something as big as this that there is absolutely nothing at all that I am going to change, but I am not going to shift and the Government is not going to shift on having a single national system, on the changes to the unfair dismissal laws in the sense that they won't apply to firms employing fewer than a hundred people and the fair pay and conditions standard, the Fair Pay Commission and the main elements of the bill, we are not going to back away from them, but obviously with a bill as significant as this, there will probably be some amendments which don't alter the substance or the thrust or the intent but rather in some cases further confirm the intent of the legislation that we'd be willing to make and I am certainly open as we go through to the Senate hearing stage, if there are some common sense improvements that can be made to the legislation, I am open to that but they will be not be such as to alter the main elements of it.
MITCHELL:
We'll take another call for the Prime Minister, Jamie go ahead.
CALLER:
Hi Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello there.
CALLER:
I was just wondering if you are free on the 12th November.
MITCHELL:
Jamie how old are you?
CALLER:
Ten.
MITCHELL:
Ten?
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello Jamie.
MITCHELL:
What's on the 12th?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes tell me what's on the 12th November Jamie.
CALLER:
I was wondering if you'd like to come along to our Parish fair?
PRIME MINISTER:
To your what fair?
CALLER:
Parish fair.
PRIME MINISTER:
Your Parish fair, which Parish?
CALLER:
St Justin's.
PRIME MINISTER:
St Justin's, where abouts?
CALLER:
Wheelers Hill.
MITCHELL:
Wheelers Hill.
PRIME MINISTER:
Wheelers Hill yes I know where Wheelers Hill is, I think it might be a bit difficult, but thank you very much for the invitation and I will respond in some way.
MITCHELL:
Could he draw the raffle if he came Jamie?
PRIME MINISTER:
I promise that I will respond in some way.
MITCHELL:
You hold on Jamie.
PRIME MINISTER:
You just give us all the details and some way or another I will demonstrate an interest in that parish fair.
MITCHELL:
Maybe we could send Peter Costello, he likes doing that. Thank you very much for your time Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay Neil, have a nice weekend.
[end]