MCCALLUM:
Nick McCallum filling in for Neil Mitchell and in our Canberra studio we have the Prime Minister John Howard. Good morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Nick. Nice to talk to you.
MCCALLUM:
It's terrific to talk to you and also you'll have your chance 9690 0693 to speak to the Prime Minister as well. Everyone here in Melbourne of course, Mr Howard, opens their paper this morning, The Australian and the headline 'Melbourne the Terror Target'. What's your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my reaction is to tell the people of Melbourne that the Government does not have any additional specific information suggesting that Melbourne is now at greater risk of a terrorist attack than before. We don't have anything that would support the view that suddenly and significantly Melbourne has become a greater terrorist target. It is nonetheless the case that for a number of years now the danger of a terrorist attack on Melbourne or indeed on any other major population centre in our country has been there. I can not look anybody in this country anywhere in the face and promise them that there won't be a terrorist attack in Australia because there is a real possibility of it. But there's no particular information, there's no particular event that has occurred which produces evidence that there is a heightened risk of a terrorist attack. I think the argument of the man who gave that opinion to the security agencies, the argument of the man was that because there was such a focus on Sydney due to the APEC meeting, then possibly and quixotically there might be a greater threat to Melbourne. Now that may be the case, it may not be the case but I am afraid we live with this ever-present possibility of a terrorist attack and as a nation, as a community we must do everything we can to prevent it happening. And the best response of course is that of prevention, there's no cure to a terrorist attack. Once it happens, there is devastation and potentially huge loss of life so it really is a case of prevention being infinitely better than the cure because there is no cure.
MCCALLUM:
Mr Pape also talked about the possibility of a bombing Madrid style in the lead up to the election. Will you in any way change the way you campaign this election campaign; less contact with the public?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't ever intend to reduce my contact with the Australian public. It is one of the great things about this country that the Prime Minister feels that he can mix freely and directly and openly with the Australian people and if I ever thought I had to do that then I would feel that Australia had changed forever and I don't want that to happen. People have got a right to see me in the streets or along the banks of the Yarra River where I go walking. They've got a right to come up to me and say, give you a bit of advice. Generally speaking when I am out walking they don't do that. They might call out something, mostly, but not always, friendly. Mostly friendly, they're very polite, Australians. And the Melburnians, it's great walking along the Yarra. You go past all those boat sheds and the young university students have been out rowing. I think it's fantastic.
MCCALLUM:
Who coincidentally happen to have a screwdriver in their hand.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look that was alright. My security blokes know a menace when they see one and this bloke was not menacing, it was nice to say hello to him. And I know some people got excited about that. I didn't and my security people didn't because they're very experienced and they know when there is a threat and they know when there's not a threat and they were absolutely spot on.
MCCALLUM:
Onto another issue, Dr Nelson. Angus Houston, the head of the ADF has directly contradicted what Dr Nelson said at the Kovco inquiry. Clearly now it appears that Dr Nelson made some serious mistakes in his public comments straight after the tragic death of Jake Kovco.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can't express a view on that at the moment because this inquiry is still going on. I am not going to express a conclusion and make a, give a declared opinion. What I can say is that what everybody was trying to do in the wake of this young man's death was to be helpful, to I think, say things whilst believing them to be absolutely correct, say things that were comforting to the family. Now as to who said what, well you know as well as I do Nick that two people can have a conversation and they can have a slightly different recollection.
MCCALLUM:
Well it's not slight though sir, and also, I mean it's directly opposed and the question I would then like to ask is do you think Mr Houston and Dr Nelson can continue working together?
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely. Can I say that I have total confidence in both of them. I think Angus Houston is a first class CDF. I have a lot to do with him. Naturally as Prime Minister I talk to him a lot directly. He's the head of the defence forces. Dr Nelson is doing a fantastic job as Defence Minister and it's because there's an inquiry that the differences of recollection, but I'm quite sure that in day-to-day contact between ministers and senior people from time to time, there will be different recollections of who said what to whom. The important thing is that nobody was trying to be other than helpful.
MCCALLUM:
But obviously...
PRIME MINISTER:
Nobody was trying to cover up anything and certainly Dr Nelson and Angus Houston weren't. But look, there's an inquiry going on and I don't think it's right of me to get into the weeds and start saying well this or that happened, because I think when something like this occurs you should have an inquiry and let the inquiry get all of the facts.
MCCALLUM:
But Dr Nelson clearly got it wrong and he clearly aggravated the pain of the family.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the family was suffering very understandably a great deal of pain and what Dr Nelson was trying to do, and I'm sure the CDF was trying to do, was to be comforting and helpful.
MCCALLUM:
And it backfired on them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we don't really know because we still don't know all of the facts. But just put ourselves in the position of the family, they've lost somebody, they're distraught and there are all sorts of theories flying around as to how it happened. And people are trying to be helpful, they're not trying to aggravate and nothing that Dr Nelson or Air Chief Marshal Houston said was anything other than trying to be reassuring and comforting and helpful. And I would hope that the public sees it in that light and the media also has an obligation, in my judgement, at least to try and see it in that light. They weren't trying to be tricky, they were trying to be helpful.
MCCALLUM:
Okay. We've got a lot of topics to get through. So the Bali Nine of course, you have a very close relationship with the President of Indonesia, are you going to use that close relationship to try and get the death sentences commuted?
PRIME MINISTER:
The right time for me to approach President Yudhoyono is after all legal avenues of appeal and redress have been exhausted. It would be wrong and counterproductive and unhelpful of me to speak to President Yudhoyono now. And people who are calling for me to do that, either don't know that or alternatively are deliberately trying to be unhelpful or to foot-fault me politically. Now I'm not going to make that error. There are still avenues of appeal and redress and review that are open. Clemency is a last resort remission of a sentence as an act of mercy by either the President or in our system by the Crown. Now you only appeal for the use of clemency right at the end when there is no legal avenue left available and for me to approach President Yudhoyono now could be construed by some people in the Indonesian legal system as an acknowledgment of total guilt and total culpability, and that's one of the reasons why I don't do it. Now it is not in the interests of the Bali Nine for me to approach President Yudhoyono now, but if after all the appeals have been exhausted and after every avenue of redress has been traversed to no avail, and there is still a death sentence hanging over any of these nine people, I will speak to President Yudhoyono and argue very strongly, as I did to the Prime Minister of Singapore some months ago in relation to Van Nguyen, because we don't believe in the death penalty.
MCCALLUM:
Does it anger you that people involved in the second Bali Bombing have been sentenced to jail for 18 years in one case, and two for eight years, and yet these six Australians who were involved in drug smuggling, and yes a very serious crime, but not up to terrorism, they get the death penalty?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would like to once again see all of the avenues exhausted. And Nick, I hope you and your listeners understand that when I talk about things like this my words do tend to get reported in Indonesia and if we are interested in justice for the Bali Nine, it's very important that I don't allow myself the luxury of starting to compare sentences. Because there are still matters, potentially, to be heard before Indonesian courts and I don't want any argument being put to those courts by the authorities that in some way the Prime Minister is trying to interfere in the sentencing procedures of the courts in Indonesia. I am, like every other Australian, appalled at what happened in Bali, both in 2002 and again in 2004, but I really want to make the point in relation to drug trafficking that it is a very serious crime. And can I just again appeal to young Australians not to take the risk. If we really want to learn something from the Bali Nine, what we should learn is the folly of young Australians thinking they can beat the system. It passes belief as far as I'm concerned that any young Australian, 30 or 40 years of experience staring them in the face, that Asian countries deal very brutally with drug traffickers, they still take the risk, they still put their lives on the line. No Australian can seriously argue that he or she does not know that you risk the death penalty if you traffic in heroin in Asia. That has been staring them in the face for years and yet people still do it.
MCCALLUM:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I think they should try and learn something from the awful experience of these nine people.
MCCALLUM:
Okay Prime Minister we're going to take a break then, after the break I'm going to ask Mr Howard about strippers in Old Parliament House and the new deals for super and redundancy for federal politicians, and you get a chance to ask your questions.
[commercial break]
MCCALLUM:
It's 23 minutes past nine, dramatic changes to traffic penalty notices, we'll have details coming up shortly, but we've got the Prime Minister John Howard in our Canberra studio. And before we go to calls Mr Prime Minister, it's reported today that the Government has withdrawn funding from a climate change conference because a burlesque show was held at the conference, aren't we getting a bit precious?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's important that we don't make too much of a federal case out of this.
MCCALLUM:
Well...
PRIME MINISTER:
And if you ask me, if you ask me, I mean probably the thing was inappropriate and I guess the Minister felt he had to indicate that by what he did. But I do agree that we want to be careful, we don't over-dramatise our reaction. And this was organised by a group of people, it wasn't organised by the Government. But anyway look you asked me my view, probably inappropriate, but I am not going to make a federal case out of it.
MCCALLUM:
Well the Minister has and withdrawn the funding.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he felt that people were offended and the difficulty a minister has in a situation like this is that if he doesn't react, people say oh you know you approve of this distasteful conduct, well of course he plainly doesn't. But my reaction is well probably not appropriate, but I am not going to list it for discussion and the next meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet.
MCCALLUM:
But you complain of political correctness all time and surely this is an example of your federal minister doing it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no I think he is in a difficult position, but equally I don't want to be heard to hold a view that, I am sensitive to the view of many women in relation to this, but I do think we shouldn't overreact.
MCCALLUM:
Okay then, now to our callers, 9690 0693, Eugene is on the line.
CALLER:
G'day guys. I just find it a bit comical Prime Minister that you said before that we've got to respect that there is a family and their feelings that, you know, with Private Kovco and whatever, and yet you say that we still don't know all the facts yet. Like it's been about five months, I mean how do you explain that?
PRIME MINISTER:
The fact that we don't know all the facts? Because there is an Inquiry still going on. We plainly don't know all the facts, and that's a very good reason why I should remain silent and await the outcome of the inquiry. We have an inquiry, properly convened by the military where everybody is represented, and we still don't know because the inquiry hasn't finished, exactly what happened. Now it was a tragic event, and I continue to feel very sorry for the family, but until the facts are fully established; I wasn't there, Angus Houston wasn't there, Brendan Nelson wasn't there, General Leahy wasn't there, and the only way that we can establish the facts properly is to have a proper inquiry, otherwise people like me or anybody else are just relying on what other people have told us and they in turn have been told by other people. Until you actually go right back to the source and you talk to the people who were actually in the room and were associating with the late Private Kovco before he died, you won't get the truth.
MCCALLUM:
And doest that go back to the original point that Dr Nelson should have listened to Angus Houston and not said anything?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they have different versions of that, but my point in relation to both of them is that what they were trying to do was, in the wake of the event, they were trying to offer comfort and support to the family, they weren't trying to be insensitive in any way and I just think their motives are being unfairly impugned by some, not by you, but by others.
MCCALLUM:
Peter, good morning to you
CALLER:
Good morning, good morning Mr Prime Minister. First, I'd like to thank you for your comments about how Australians should be responding to terrorism threats; this morning's headline was Melbourne. I'd like to thank you for your general tone about how we should meet terrorism. If I could just paraphrase or sum up what I think you are saying to Australia is that we should not bow down to terrorism, and especially accede to their threat. Would that be right sir?
PRIME MINISTER:
I certainly don't think for a moment that we should change our polices because of terrorist threats. Once a country does that it's lost its self respect and it's lost the respect of other nations. And terrorists despise weakness more than anything else and the pattern of terrorists, if they see weakness they will hit the source of the weakness even harder. And this idea that you will buy yourself some kind of immunity by retreating is false and it brings to mind that wonderful phrase of Winston Churchill's about, you know, he who feeds the crocodile most can only hope the crocodile will eat him last.
MCCALLUM:
Stuart, you've joined us, and you've got an issue here that I wanted to raise with the Prime Minister, so you go.
CALLER:
Good morning gentlemen, good morning Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
Mr Howard, I just wanted to say as an average working guy with an average income with a young family, I just wanted to make mention recently in regards to politicians giving themselves a pay rise, while I feel it's deserved I just feel that it smacks of hypocrisy when we're just out there trying to earn a dollar and we just can't seem to get a break, it just seems inappropriate. Could I get your opinion on that sir?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes I can, I will give you my opinion. There is never a good time for there to be any adjustment to politicians' pay. I don't believe that when you consider their responsibilities and if you look at the salaries paid in the rest of the community for less responsibility, I don't believe that the Federal Members of Parliament are overpaid and particularly at a senior level. You take a man like the Treasurer who, whether you agree with him or disagree, or you agree with me or disagree with me, I think he carries very heavy responsibilities for the management of the economy. Well he gets paid about $230,000 a year, now that's a good salary by community standards, I acknowledge that. But the Governor of the Reserve Bank gets paid about $450,000, the Secretary of Mr Costello's department, the man who signs your banknotes, well they're really the two people who sign your banknotes, they both get paid a lot more than Mr Costello.
Now I'm not saying Mr Costello should be brought up with them, I'm not arguing that, I'm just using that as an illustration. And there are many people who criticise the salaries for Members of Parliament who, when they make those criticisms must know that they themselves are being remunerated in some cases above or certainly close to what the Members of Parliament are getting. The problem about always opposing adjustments for politicians is that we will end up having a parliament full on one side of trade union officials and on the other side of political staffers and people whose only life's experience has been working in a political atmosphere. I want a parliament comprised of the talents of the entire nation, and therefore you've got to get a cross section of men and women and you can only do that if the remuneration has some relationship to the remuneration that those people could earn if they did not enter politics.
MCCALLUM:
And final question Mr Howard because I know that you've got to go, I know you've got a, it's been called a love in, but you've got a meeting with state Liberal leaders today and tomorrow as well. What are you going to tell them, and also are you unequivocally going to back Ted Baillieu given that a lot of his social policies you don't agree with?
PRIME MINISTER:
I support the elected leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Parties in every State. I supported Robert Doyle while he was the leader and I support Ted Baillieu. My policy positions are well known, I don't alter my policy positions according to particular circumstances. People know I'm a social conservative and I'll never change. That doesn't mean that I can't give support to the parliamentary leader, be it in Victoria, New South Wales or Western Australia. I like Ted Baillieu and I'll be doing everything I can to help him bring down the Bracks' Government and that can be done without in any way compromising my position on these issues.
The meeting today is designed to share experiences, I'm not going along to lecture or hector or speak down to my state colleagues, I'm going along to share my perspectives to give them some ideas and perhaps get some ideas in return. It's a team game this and they're colleagues of mine and I'll be working closely with all of them.
MCCALLUM:
Ok Prime Minister, thanks indeed for your time, thanks for talking to me, and thanks also for talking to our callers.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]