PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen, I'll just say two things and then I'd be very happy to answer questions. Firstly, it is important that the Cairns Group continue to argue very strongly for trade liberalisation. Things do not look good at the moment with the WTO round, the DOHA round, but we mustn't be deterred and if we persist, I remain optimistic that we can ultimately achieve a breakthrough. This is important for Australia, we have legitimate national interests as a country that provides very little assistance indeed for her agriculture sector compared with the assistance provided by the Europeans, the Japanese and the Americans. So there's a national interest involved which I unashamedly pursue.
There's also a broader global interest involved because so many of the developing countries have little more than agricultural exports to try and improve their position from and therefore, if we are to make more progress in reducing poverty and lifting living standards, liberalisation in this area is essential. I remain very disappointed that the response of the European Union to the American offer was not more forthcoming. That's not to say that I regard the Americans as being in any way lily-white when it comes to farm subsidies.
The second point I'd like to make is a rather more domestic political point. It's in relation to Mr Beazley's alternative industrial relations policy. In his latest AAP column, he cites the Boeing dispute as an example of how WorkChoices is operating. The Boeing dispute began long before WorkChoices, it has nothing to do with WorkChoices. The capacity of employers to decide not to have a collective agreement with any part of its workforce, their workforce, is not something that was mandated by WorkChoices, it's been the law of this country for many years. And it appears that Mr Beazley has a fundamental misunderstanding of how this law operates and it just adds further to the confusion emanating from the Labor Party on this issue. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, would you comment on the Thai coup today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I am, of course, very disappointed about the coup in Thailand. I would want, and Australia would want Thailand to return to democracy. It is a country that's been free of these things now for a decade and a half. Australia has a very close relationship with Thailand. Thailand is a country that we assisted during the Asian economic crisis. We negotiated a Free Trade Agreement with Thailand, a very good one, a mutually beneficial one. I know the democratically elected Prime Minister of Thailand very well. He's visited this country and I've visited that country on several occasions.
JOURNALIST:
Do you have a personal message for Mr Thaksin?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think in these circumstances anything that I say, I say publicly. I would want democracy to be restored in Thailand. We condemn military coups. They are a throwback to a past that I had hoped Asia had emerged from, and it's a great disappointment.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the US and the EU are likely to solve the impasse and is it really down to them, the failure of the WTO talks, or is the responsibility broader than that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they are the major players and there was some hope that the DOHA round would work as a result of the initiative that President Bush launched at the UN exactly a year ago. And the offer he made to cut American farm subsidies was unexpected, it was quite significant and my assessment is that the European response to that was not adequate. Now that is not to say that the Americans shouldn't go further, and as I say, I'm not arguing for a moment that the Americans are perfect, anything but when it comes to agricultural subsidies, but if you look at the scales and I checked them again, we are right down the bottom when it comes to producer subsidies. The Americans are probably three or four times our support and the Europeans significantly higher again, and the Japanese level is significantly higher again of top of the American. So clearly, given the size of both the United States and Europe, movement by both of those is desirable but I'm not optimistic in the short term because trade negotiating authority from the American Congress will run out in the middle of 2007 and in those circumstances unless something significant happens, and I'll be meeting the Special Trade Representative and the Agricultural Secretary shortly here in this hotel so I'll have an opportunity to talk to the Americans, the Europeans are not represented at a high level at this meeting which itself is a sign of some indifference on the part of the European Union to this gathering.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Mandelson said that the Australian compromise offer is undoable and that it requires Europe to do too much of the heavy lifting, do you think Australia is asking too much of Europe?
PRIME MINSITER:
No I do not. I mean you only have to look at the figures. The level of country support, of consumer support, producer subsidy support in the European Union is probably, what, six times or more what it is in Australia and close to double what it is in the United States. It's lower than what it is in Japan, so the facts do speak for themselves. I know the Europeans do not like to be criticised and they get very sensitive when I draw attention to these things, but I have an interest as Prime Minister of Australia in sticking up for our farmers. They have enough problems with the weather without having to put up with a corrupt world trading system and they've had to put up with it for years and they are entitled to have their Prime Minister speak up on their behalf and that's what I'm doing. And I'll go on doing it and it's no good Mr Mandelson saying I'm out of touch, I'm not out of touch, I know exactly what the figures are, I've studied them very carefully and I know exactly how unwilling the political leadership in Europe is to do enough to remove the high level of subsidies so that we can actually get things moving on this front.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think Europe is unable to be moved on this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, so far Europe has not moved far enough, we will continue, however, to argue our case. As I say, they're not the only ones who are subject to criticism. The levels of assistance in Japan are even higher and America, of course, has been a significant distorter of world agriculture markets, but at least the Americans made a significant movement on this occasion.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Mr Lamy, Pascal Lamy, in his speech this morning made it clear that he is worried about the special products proposal put by developing countries and he named five countries as critical to the result, three of which are Indonesia, the Philippines and India. Do you think that Australia can play any role in using its good relations with those countries to try and get them to moderate their proposals?
PRIME MINSITER:
Well we would consider that, but I don't want that to divert attention from what the main problem is, and the main problem is what I have described.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard can you just comment on reports that Mr Vaile could soon be leaving the trade portfolio?
PRIME MINSITER:
Oh, I never speculate about those matters. Mr Vaile is an outstanding Deputy Prime Minister, a close colleague and he has done a very good job as Trade Minister, but beyond that I do not speculate.
JOURNALIST:
So who would make the call, you or him? Who would make the call if there was to be a change?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you're inviting me to speculate.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think there are advantages for Australia in someone as experienced as Mr Vaile staying as Trade Minister for the duration of the round?
PRIME MINISTER:
Tim.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what should the international community do with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions?
PRIME MINSITER:
Well the international community should continue to act in a concerted fashion through the United Nations. I make the point that the United States, in relation to Iran, has patiently pursued the course of action through the United Nations and her many critics should take note of that and let us see how it works through.
JOURNALIST:
If the United Nations doesn't make a decision or doesn't...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that will say something about the United Nations won't it? And it will also say something about the difficulty of achieving outcomes with a body that will only act effectively if there is a convergence of opinion amongst the five permanent members.
JOURNALIST:
What's your reaction to the native title claim decision in Perth?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am quite concerned about its possible implications. I want to get more advice. It does appear to be at odds with some of the principles laid down by the High Court in the Yorta Yorta case. The Western Australian Government's indicated that it could well appeal. We will consider our own position in relation to an appeal. My initial reaction is one of some considerable concern. I know the judge has said that grants of freehold and almost certainly leasehold will have extinguished native title claims, but many people will regard it as somewhat incongruous. There could still be some residual native title claim in a major, settled metropolitan area.
JOURNALIST:
Within a few hours the Japanese (inaudible) will choose Mr Abe as the next leader, do you have any comment to the coming leader, Mr Abe?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will look forward to working with Mr Koizumi's replacement. However, I regret very much that Mr Koizumi is retiring. Mr Koizumi has been a great friend of Australia's. Mr Koizumi's been a very effective, reforming Japanese Prime Minister. I wish he weren't going. Now that is no disrespect to his successor, but he's been Prime Minister for a few years, what five years, and he's been very good. A good friend, very progressive, very reformist and I'll be sorry to see him go, but I look forward to working very closely with presumably Mr Abe, but there is a process to be followed, so I naturally respect that process.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, today marks the six month anniversary of Cyclone Larry. There's still many houses without roofs, people without jobs and we're only a few weeks away from the next wet season. Has the Government forgotten these people?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think any suggestion that we've forgotten them when you bear in mind that the Federal Government has poured about $250 million into the area against an amount probably only a quarter, or a third of that from the Queensland Government; now that's not being critical of the Queensland Government, but I am not going to stand by and allow suggestions being made that we've forgotten these people. We haven't. I've visited the area twice. Many of my Ministers have been there on a number of occasions. It's very slow, the process of rebuilding, but all of the reasonable requests and more that have been made of the Federal Government have been met. And I'm sorry that not every house has been rebuilt and not every business has been fully re-established and not every crop is flourishing, but these things do take time and the reconstruction process has been interrupted very much by the continued rain. I just wish it fell elsewhere as we all do. But I can promise the people of Innisfail that we haven't forgotten it, and the amount of financial support, a quarter of a million dollars of financial support, a quarter of a billion dollars, rather, of financial support is an indication of just how committed we are to rebuilding the lives and the community of Innisfail.
[ends]