PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen I'll give a brief report on the meetings I've had today and then I'll be happy to take questions.
I met the new Chairman of the Fed this morning and we talked about oil prices and the future of the American economy. He confirmed what is obvious, and that is the American economy is growing at a very strong rate, but he expects some moderation of that rate of growth. His view about the future of oil prices is probably no different from that of many other economic commentators. There's going to be no early relief. Much will of course will depend on world demand and refining capacity.
We talked a little about the development of nuclear alternatives-that was a major part of the discussion that I had with the Secretary of Energy, Mr Boardman who, Mr Bodman rather who I had met in Australia in January when he came to the Asia Pacific Partnership launch. We did talk about the new grouping that the United States is proposing-and I think it's important to understand that what's involved with this new grouping is the creation of a group of countries that will be involved in the processing of uranium and therefore Australia's relationship with it is a little different than has been the subject of discussion and comment in some sections of the media.
Australia as everyone knows is a country that has some of the largest reserves of uranium in the world. And what I indicated to him was that we would want to be kept fully informed of how this proposal developed. That as this stage Australia was a willing seller of uranium, subject to the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and our own separate safeguards arrangements. We would continue to be in that position, but we would want to be kept informed of any progress towards the formation of what could be regarded as a fuel reprocessing group. And what's involved in relation to this is an anti-proliferation strategy to reduce the number of countries involved in processing of the development of nuclear fuel, and obviously Australia would have to take in to account its own interests as the repository of such large resources of uranium.
The question of waste disposal of course is an issue for those who process uranium and develop nuclear fuel, rather than the supplier of the uranium-which if Australia were to remain as a bare exporter would be the situation obtaining in relation to us. So I think what can safely be said about this is that it's a proposal that we want to follow and it's not something that we're proposing at this point, certainly to join, and it's designed to reduce the number of people who process nuclear fuel. And we'll obviously keep a very close look at it and we'll follow it very carefully.
I also had discussions with, as you know, with Dr Rice and then with the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. In both of those discussions we talked extensively about Iraq. We all agree that the formation of a government of national unity is very important. We're very hopeful all of us that the new Prime Minister will be able to bring together a government of national unity in a way that his predecessor clearly wasn't able to do. And if that were to occur, that will make a big contribution to responding to the insurgency and bringing the country together in a more united fashion.
We also took the opportunity of discussing in some detail the situation in East Timor, in the Solomon Islands, and in the Pacific generally. I indicated that this was an area where Australia accepted a major responsibility, a lead responsibility. We did not...if there were a request for assistance in East Timor, that was not something where we required American involvement, except perhaps beyond provision of some lift capacity, if that became necessary that we believe that that was something that could be fully covered by Australia.
We did, as the Secretary and I indicated immediately after our meeting at the Pentagon, we did talk about Mr Hicks-and I don't think I have anything much to add to what both of us said on that subject. Dr Rice and I also discussed the...and as I did briefly with the Secretary of Defense, but largely with the Secretary of State, we discussed at some length the situation in relation to Iran, and the developments there, and there's an obvious desire on the part of both Australia and the United States to pursue, we hope, to a successful conclusion, a diplomatic solution and that's certainly my position and we intend to do everything we can.
We are hopeful that we can obtain the passage of another resolution through the security council-well that will probably be resolved in the next little while. I don't know that there's anything much else that I can say. There may be some elements of the discussions that I will recall as the questioning proceeds, but they appear to be the peaks, if I can put it that way, the high points of those discussions.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you acknowledge that Australia as a supplier of uranium has a moral, or a self interest, responsibility to see what happens to it.
PRIME MINISTER:
We have a self interest in it yes.
JOURNALIST:
Why doesn't that extend to management of waste? Why is that entirely up to the processor and shouldn't we as a supplier also have a role in handling waste?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the reason I said what I said was that the concept of nuclear leasing implies that the party providing the fuel takes back the spent rods, if I can put it that way, after the use has been expended-that's why the expression leasing is used, because when you lease a house to somebody and the tenancy is ended, then the vacant possession comes back to the lessor, if I can use the legal expression, and that's the reason why I said that. And it's not anything, any other reason, I mean we accept responsibilities for waste that we are responsible for, and if we sell uranium, we sell uranium to another country that is quite separate from providing nuclear fuel. See nuclear fuel is not uranium; uranium is the raw material-if I can put it that way. It's like bauxite to alumina, and I think there's some confusion on this. People are seeing the supply of uranium as being the equivalent to the supply of nuclear fuel, but fuel is the processed uranium.
JOURNALIST:
So it is ruled out sir, guaranteed?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon.
JOURNALIST:
It is ruled out, guaranteed the waste won't be coming back, or....
PRIME MINISTER:
Look there's nothing to rule out. See with respect you've...I think with respect you're misunderstanding what's involved in this process. We sell uranium, we don't have anything on the table at the moment that involves the processing of uranium for sale or lease as nuclear fuel.
JOURNALIST:
But sir, if we're misunderstanding it, wasn't Mr Vaile also misunderstanding it in suggesting that at some future time Australia had to keep an open mind that it might need to take back some waste. Was he misunderstanding it as well?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think Mr Vaile ever misunderstands those things.
JOURNALIST:
If India joined this US group would that then allow us...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think India is contemplated as a member of this group. India is contemplated perhaps as a lessee of processed nuclear fuel. See this is a, I mean the whole purpose of this group, well not the whole purpose, the dominant purpose of this group as I understand it, and bear in mind it's all embryonic, the dominant purpose of this is in fact to restrict the countries that process nuclear fuel. It's an anti-proliferation strategy, that's the whole purpose of it. And therefore there would be a limited number of countries that would be willing to, would be invited to join. I mean the countries that are in contemplation at the moment are I understand are the five plus Japan because Japan produces a fair amount of nuclear fuel. I don't know that the proponents of this strategy are desirous of a lot of other countries joining it.
JOURNALIST:
So I can be exactly clear. Australia will not be taking spent fuel rods from other countries?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have no proposal to do that.
JOURNALIST:
Will that restrict our sale potential....
PRIME MINISTER:
What of uranium? No, not necessarily at all.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you talked about the nuclear debate in general...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. When I'm talking about the nuclear debate in general is the use of nuclear fuel as a source of power generation. Now I mean I have a completely open mind in relation to that. I am in favour of having a debate. It may be desirable that Australia in the future builds nuclear power plants. I'm not saying it is at the moment and that's got to be governed by a number of things including the economics of it. And at the moment I don't think there is a compelling economic case. But I don't really want to see a whole debate go down in a particular direction based on a complete misunderstanding of what's occurring.
JOURNALIST:
There would be waste however if we went down that path.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if we did then we're talking there about the things we do in our own country. Whereas I was being asked questions about taking it from somewhere else and that's an entirely different thing.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean a debate in a democratic country can include anything people want to raise.
JOURNALIST:
But you're not attracted to...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm attracted to Australia selling uranium to people who want to buy it not lease it, buy it in other parts of the world subject to our obligations under the Treaty and subject to our own safeguard arrangements, I'm in favour of that. And I'm in favour at all times of examining whether it is in our national interest to progress the use of nuclear power in Australia. Now obviously that would include a consideration of whether we should process the uranium here. I suppose you could theoretically send the uranium elsewhere and have it processed and then buy it back as nuclear fuel. That might strike a lot of Australians as odd given that we have 40 percent of the world's reserves of uranium. But these are all things to be discussed.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard might this new group be the means by which Australian uranium could power nuclear power stations in India in that there would be an intermediary group dealing with the making of the nuclear fuel and India would simply be a lessee taking the product?
PRIME MINISTER:
It wouldn't if Australia, and let's bear this in mind. I mean the thing is still in its embryonic phase. I don't know how it might finally evolve, if it evolves. I mean there is no guarantee this is doing to happen. But as far as India is concerned and as far as any country is concerned our current policy is that we only sell subject to our obligations under the NPT.
JOURNALIST:
But we still could with this couldn't we?
PRIME MINISTER:
You're asking me, I mean that's almost a quite brutal hypothetical?
JOURNALIST:
But it is a reasonable one Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I'm like the Secretary. I can't even handle one.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister can you just clarify, exactly what is it that Australia is seeking from the United States and the embryonic grouping (inaudible) kept informed.
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly. That's what we're seeking. That's what I said the other day. I just think we should say whoa. This is a proposal that's been made in very general terms. It might happen, it might not happen. And because we have a lot of uranium, we want to be kept informed.
JOURNALIST:
Did Secretary Bodman suggest that he'd like Australia to have a greater involvement with this embryonic grouping? Was there an invitation issued?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. No I didn't expect one. Because the whole purpose of this is not to expand the number of countries that are involved in the processing of nuclear fuel. It's an anti-proliferation thing.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any scope for Australia to be involved in it as you see?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can't answer that question until I know precisely what's involved and whether it is going to happen and who else is involved and at this stage it is very embryonic. And what I have asked is that Australia be kept...
JOURNALIST:
Potentially?
PRIME MINISTER:
... fully informed.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I'm not going to, I mean they are super hypotheticals.
JOURNALIST:
Would the Secretary, did the secretary argue the case for nuclear leasing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh no, I don't (inaudible) felt any need to. I didn't sort of put into strict proof. It's a proposal, the major element of which is to really limit some might say even create a cartel of nuclear fuel processes. Some might well argue that and the whole idea is to restrict the number of people who process nuclear fuel. Now, we have the fuel .... we have the raw material, but I can't take it any further than that because .....
JOURNALIST:
Do you have an open mind on the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look Michael, I don't think, I mean the trouble with these sort of questions and answers is that having stated a position clearly, and that is that we want to be kept informed. We're not committing to anything. We're not accepting or acknowledging anything, we want to be kept informed, there is really no point in just going through endless hypothetical questions. I mean that does just produce further misunderstanding.
JOURNALIST:
On Iraq, is it any clearer what our troops may be doing next once their assignment with the Japanese engineers is complete?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the government is looking very carefully at that right at the present time and when I am in a position to say more than what I've already said I will. What I have already said is that after the Japanese go we will be retaining a force in southern Iraq, substantially of the same size as is there now and it will be generally involved in training and security responsibilities. I can't at this stage because the matter is still being considered by the government say anymore. But when I can say more I will.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister have you been asked for an increased contribution?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Prime Minister is it the Australian position that we will be in Iraq as long as the Americans will be?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it's our position that Australia will remain in Iraq until the Australian government believes that the task has been completed.
JOURNALIST:
And the guide for that would be what the US is doing wouldn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it would be our assessment of those things.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you say that there was no request for more troops. Did the Defence Secretary seek any guidance from you on Australian troop numbers in Iraq in the longer term?
PRIME MINISTER:
I told him what Australia's position was and what I told him was very similar to the answer I just gave to Craig McMurtrie.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on the...
PRIME MINISTER:
That's what I told him and I initiated that discussion. It wasn't in response to a request.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister regarding Iraq, we have diplomatic relations with Iran, we are active trading partner with Iran. We talk to Iran. Your adviser is a former Ambassador to Iran.
PRIME MINISTER:
Which adviser, I have many advisers.
JOURNALIST:
Your foreign policy Adviser. Therefore do you think that the international community should be talking to Iran and do you think the Americans particularly should be talking to Iran and is that a position that you will put to the Americans and the, and the ancillary question is, is this a point of difference between you and the Americans and one of those differences you alluded to in the press conference on your arrival?
PRIME MINISTER:
The international community is talking to Iran. It's talking to Iran through the IEAE. It's talking to Iran through the United Nations. This is an opportunity for the United Nations particularly the Security Council, to prove its mettle. Australia and the United States and Great Britain were attacked very strongly diplomatically that is, politically for not persevering even further with the United Nations over Iraq. I continue to reject that criticism. But here is an opportunity for the United Nations to work. This is a test of the United Nations. It's a test of the Security Council. It will be interesting to see whether the United Nations and particularly the Security Council can rise to the occasion.
And I think we should pursue the diplomatic option. I think we should continue to do that. That's a view that I put to the Secretary of State. It's a view the Americans hold and I think the way in which Iran is being spoken to by the international community at the present time is correct. And there is in that sense, there is no difference in the approach of this from Australia and the United States.
JOURNALIST:
Was there any discussion today about where to from here, if a diplomatic solution is not found?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look what you do in these things Alison is you work at getting an outcome going down the diplomatic path and we intend to be very patient and we intend to try very hard to achieve an appropriate outcome using the processes of the United Nations. And this is a test for the United Nations.
JOURNALIST:
Did you discuss President Yudhoyono's suggestion that Indonesia take a mediation role, being a large Muslim nation, in this issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
It was alluded to in the discussion, that's the best way I can explain it.
JOURNALIST:
Did you endorse it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I didn't endorse it. Nor did I condemn it. I said that I thought that President Yudhoyono was quite properly as the Leader of the largest Muslim country in the word expressing a view. And I alluded to that in the context of a broader discussion about Indonesia.
JOURNALIST:
On Indonesia Prime Minister, the Indonesian Government is suggesting now that the problem with the Australia over the Papuans has been fixed, what's your response to that and do you anticipate a meeting with President Yudhoyono sometime soon as a result?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't seen exactly what the Indonesian government says. I know that Mr Downer and Dr Wirajuda had a very successful meeting in Singapore and I would hope as I've said previously, I would hope in the not too distant future to see President Yudhoyono. We remain very good friends. I respect him and I trust him and I look forward to seeing him in the not too distant future.
JOURNALIST:
You might be dropping in on him will you on the way home?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Not on this visit, no.
JOURNALIST:
Would you say Prime Minister though, with that reported development, that the relationship between Australian and Indonesia will improve, and that will auger a bit better for what may lay ahead with East Timor?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think the relationship between Australia and Indonesia is a factor in the current situation in East Timor. As I am advised it's really got nothing to do with it. It's purely an internal issue and it involves a political interaction inside East Timor, not directly influenced as I understand it by Indonesia.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard can I ask your view on the possibility that President Yudhoyono would play a mediation role, do you think it would be a positive step forward?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to add to what I said earlier on that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on the leadership, what's your view...
PRIME MINISTER:
What leadership of whom?
JOURNALIST:
What's your view...
PRIME MINISTER:
Of what?
JOURNALIST:
What's your view...
PRIME MINISTER:
Of what part of the world?
JOURNALIST:
What's your view of a column this weekend, speculating that you might be thinking of an elegant departure?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've read the column and what I would say is that he is a fine journalist Piers Akerman. I read his columns regularly but as far as the leadership is concerned I'll remain the leader of the Liberal Party as long as my Party wants me to and it's in the Party's best interests that I do so.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister when you next visit Washington, do you expect to return to Washington as Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
We're not going to play those games.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, don't you owe it to the public given that there is another bout of speculation about the leadership, don't you owe it to the public to actually express or declare your position?
PRIME MINISTER:
I owe it to the public to be totally honest and forthright about this. And let me say against that background that I will remain the Leader of the Liberal Party for so long as my Party wants me to and it is in the Party's best interests that I do so. Now that is being honest and forthright with the Australian public. And can I also remind you Mr Lewis that the Australian public re-elected me as Prime Minister eighteen months ago on the basis of that self same response to that question.
So, I mean my communication with the Australian people is a direct communication. It is not through other people. And the direct communication I had with the Australian people before the last election was that I would remain the Leader of the Liberal Party for so long as my Party wanted me to and it was in the Party's best interests. Now I was re-elected with an increased majority which indicates that the Australian people are happy with that response and that's the position.
JOURNALIST:
Isn't there another way to look at that though Prime Minister, that you will remain the leader as long as you want to?
PRIME MINISTER:
Geoff, I've given a response.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you say as long as the Liberal Party would want you to, have you an inclination, any sign, any readings that the Liberal Party might actually want to change by about December?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tim, Tim forget it mate, forget it. What's the next question?
JOURNALIST:
How was dinner?
PRIME MINISTER:
The dinner with the President was very nice.
JOURNALIST:
What did you talk about?
PRIME MINISTER:
A whole lot of things. We talked about a lot of world events, American events, Australian events, social attitudes. It was a gathering that involved he and his wife and his daughter and her boyfriend and my son and the Ambassador and his wife. And we celebrated the Ambassador's birthday. And it was a very pleasant occasion. Very pleasant indeed.
JOURNALIST:
Did he seek your counsel on how he might revive his popularity?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look come on Steve. Come on Steve, let's not lapse into the trivial, please.
JOURNALIST:
What about border protection?
PRIME MINISTER:
We had a bit of a discussion about that, about the immigration issue in the United States. Yes, sure. I talked a bit about the situation in Australia but he is making a speech tonight so I think you will then get a good idea of what his position is.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, regarding your discussions with Mr Bernanke this morning, did you relay Australia's concerns regarding the American (inaudible) Budget deficits?
PRIME MINISTER:
I asked him about that. I did ask him about that. Well it's not for me to sort of give public lectures to the Federal Reserve Chairman, anymore than it is for him to give lectures to me which he certainly didn't about conduct of our economic policy. But I asked him about the apparently relaxed attitude, if not comfortable attitude of American businesses towards the budget deficit. But he said that historically the American budget deficit had been two to two and a half percent of GDP and that had been the situation for a very long period of time. We both noted the fact that Australia had a more stringent fiscal policy, but I was interested in his views.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard did the issue of AWB come up in any of the discussion?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Would you expect it to tomorrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know, I'm prepared for anything. But it has not come up Karen, not, not a skerrick.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard do you believe Bill Shorten has a contribution to make to national life as a Member of Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Australian Labor Party clearly thinks so and that's a rather more relevant, and for him compelling observation that what I might think. He's been endorsed hasn't he as the Labor candidate for Maribyrnong? And he'll be there for, presumably elected at the next election.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, on border protection, is it conceivable that the United States could be asked to be one of the third countries who would take an asylum seekers found to be refugees on Nauru?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know, I can't rule anything in or out on that subject.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, just with Secretary Rumsfeld and Hicks, did the British citizenship business come up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh in the discussion we talked about Lord Goldsmith's comments and I reiterated our view which I've stated publicly, and I made the observation that Mr Hicks's interest in the British had risen quite recently and that he had always sought consular assistance from Australia rather than from Great Britain. He obviously wants British citizenship and we'll just see how that all works out. It was in that context that it came up.
But our position regarding Mr Hicks is that we would like him brought trial as soon as possible-but that can't happen because of the court proceedings in the United States. That's not the fault of the Secretary Defense and it's not my fault. And as soon as those court proceedings have been resolved, assuming they are resolved in favour of the Secretary of Defense, then the military commission can go ahead. And that's what he told me, he confirmed that, they're ready to go, we are certainly keen to see that happen, but it can't happen while it's before the American courts-and the action before the American courts is launched in part by Mr Hicks. Now that's his entitlement but for a long time the complaint was that we weren't ready, the Americans weren't ready, we were holding it up, he was being held and being incarcerated indefinitely, and it was all our fault. The current delay is no fault of the American administration. It's no fault of the Australian Government.
JOURNALIST:
Did he have a contingency in case the Supreme Court action comes against the Government, the US Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
We didn't canvass that, I mean we react to court decisions when they come down.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you are guest of honour tomorrow night at a State Banquet, can you think of any honour that an Australian Prime Minister realistically to be bestowed by a US President that would be greater than the honour that Mr Bush...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't spend my life comparing honours.
JOURNALIST:
It is a big honour though isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well look Tim the greatest honour I have in political life is to serve the Australian people. What the Australian people think of me, how the Australian people react to me is the thing that matters most. Now having said that, of course it's important that the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States work together closely. I like George Bush. I don't deny ... I don't walk away from that association. I have a lot of respect for him. I believe that he's on many occasions an unfairly criticised person. But that's the nature of public life and I'll continue to be a strong friend of his...
JOURNALIST:
A great privilege?
PRIME MINISTER:
... no matter what the circumstances are. That's the nature of the person you're asking the question of.
JOURNALIST:
Your personal relationship with the President, it is more an more obvious, the intimacy of it, does that make it harder for you to make decisions on matters, I am not saying that your loyalty towards Australians...
PRIME MINISTER:
No. No. No. I know what... and the answer is no. I mean the relationship that is most valuable to me in public life is the relationship I have with the Australian people. That is far more important to me than any other relationship in public life, I stress in public life. Obviously private relationships are more important than relationships in public life. But the ones I have with the Australian people, the one I have with the Australian people is clearly the most important and will always take pride of place in decisions that I make.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on the Budget and the reaction to the Budget, it's been suggested that you haven't got the electoral bounce...
PRIME MINISTER:
You want me to be a fortnightly commentator on newspoll do you?
JOURNALIST:
No, do you think the Australian public is ungrateful?
PRIME MINISTER:
I never think back. I think the Australian public is discerning, wise and always correct in the judgements they make at election time. I think the Australian people get it right.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the nuclear issue Mr Howard you said it's a debate we need to have, will you be doing anything or the Government doing anything to give a structure to that debate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look I don't rule that out. I'm not going to sort of say we're going to have a White Paper. But I don't rule any of that out. I do think we have re-entered this debate as a community for a number of reasons. The high price of oil is a big issue now. People are worried about greenhouse gas emissions. You are getting some strange bed fellows in the debate between even radical greenies and others and I think that is an interesting development. And it is on the face of it understandable.
Nuclear power is certainly much cleaner although many argue it still continues to be much more dangerous than other energy sources. It is an interesting debate for Australia because not only do we have huge reserves of uranium but we also have huge reserves of fossil fuel. So I think we have to debate all of these issues and I am not going to in advance limit or restrict the nature of that debate.
JOURNALIST:
Speaking of fossil fuel, did you advance the Coalition's position with Secretary Bodman?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I raised how things were going, yes.
JOURNALIST:
Is there anything more that the Australian Government can do to enhance this process?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's nothing more the Australian Government can do. I think we've given a lot of support to the Australian company. There are processes to be gone through, there's decisions to be taken by the Californian Government and I think the Governor of California has a role in this and the environmental agencies over there and it's a very heavy regulated thing in the United States-particularly in California.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, your son Richard has been with you this week, he's had unprecedented access to politics at the top level here...
PRIME MINISTER:
He's had that for a long time in Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Is he a potential future Member for Bennelong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look one of the things that I have observed all of my public life, and particularly since my children have become adults, is that if people want to ask what my children think or what they intend to do with their lives, they should ask my children. They are young adults and our very close relationship is aided by the fact that I treat them as young adults.
JOURNALIST:
Would you like to a succession beyond that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, look, I have nothing further to add. Richard Howard's future is in the hands of Richard Howard and he'll always have the affectionate interest and support of his parents in whatever he decides to do. But what he decides to do with his life is a matter for him.
JOURNALIST:
Did the Fed Chairman confirm the Budget projections that our mineral exports will plateau and then go into a decline?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no.
JOURNALIST:
Kind of general...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, we didn't, we didn't get into that. I didn't ask him to...
JOURNALIST:
Did he confirm that he'd be playing a significant role in the slowing of the US economy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh he didn't put it that way, I mean he predicted that the American economy would continue to grow strongly and the way things were trending that strong growth would be sustainable and wouldn't get out of hand.
JOURNALIST:
And he will see to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, he didn't put it that way. I mean there's a menace in that rider which he did not invoke. You're right now, you're finished, you're happy, good.
[ends]