UHLMANN:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
UHLMANN:
Are you surprised that your media laws have set off such an immediate frenzy in the marketplace?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the frenzy as you call it. These transactions, the PBL one and the Kerry Stokes one, if they have been fully executed and I think they have, have both taken place under the old law. The new law hasn't come into operation, and when it does come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, it will not have retrospective effect therefore anything that has been legally concluded to date will be governed by the old law. So whilst these moves are interesting, it's a misunderstanding of the situation to say they are a direct consequence of the current laws. They may be anticipatory moves, but I think we have to keep a sense of balance.
UHLMANN:
Surely though it defies logic to say that the passage of the bill and the movement in the market place are unrelated?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the point I'm making is that, for example, the PBL transaction itself will be governed by the old law. As I understand it, Mr Stokes' company has bought shares on the stock exchange which companies can do at any time, but I just think we have to get a sense of perspective about this.
UHLMANN:
Aren't they seeing it as a possibility of cashing up? You've protected existing free-to-air licences?
PRIME MINISTER:
That could well be the case, but once again can we have a sense of perspective? The Labor Party is railing against the cross media laws, have they forgotten that way back in the 1980s, before Mr Keating changed the law to bring in the existing prohibitions, you had in the case of the Fairfax company, a company that owned newspapers, that owned a television station and it also owned radio stations. People seem to have forgotten that the Fairfax empire in those days owned Channel Seven in a number of parts of Australia, it owned the Macquarie Network as well as owning newspapers, yet democracy didn't die in the early 1980s, or it wasn't dead in the early 1980s. I don't think you would have anybody in the Labor Party saying that democracy was dead in the early 1980s, after all they were in Government then, they would thought democracy was flowering.
UHLMANN:
It seems though that every time we change media laws, the immediate beneficiaries are media barons.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if people do transactions on the stock exchanges, they do tend to do them to make money. Now that's the operation of the capitalist system and that was the same under Labor governments as it is under this Government. There's a lot of history suggesting that media moguls, as you call, them did very well under Labor governments, not necessarily on every occasion because of the policy of that government. But there is fascination with media moguls in this country, but we run the risk of not keeping our eye on the main purpose of these changes and, as Helen Coonan has said, it's to encourage us to take advantage of the new digital opportunities. It's to recognise that we now live in an age of convergence and the idea that you can maintain an artificial prohibition on a company owning different kinds of media is outdated, and it was never a threat to democracy as I illustrated with my reference to the Fairfax company way back in the early 1980s.
UHLMANN:
Yes Prime Minister, but the things that you do, do have an effect on the market, you've made these television licences very valuable, you've protected them from having the sports siphoned off which means they've got an audience there which is valuable to people and now foreign equity players are allowed into the market. So what you've done is allowed these players to cash up.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but if you own a valuable asset...
UHLMANN:
You've made it more valuable.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me put it this way. If the PBL transaction has taken place under the old law, which it must have, if it's been signed up, then the cashing up has been permitted by the old law, not by the new law.
UHLMANN:
In anticipation of the value which you've now placed on it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but what you are criticising by implication was the cashing up. Now I don't know what Mr Packer is going to do with his additional cash, there are stories suggesting he might go international. Some people suggest he might try and bid for other media assets in Australia. I don't know. What I do know is that this transaction has taken place under the old law and the cashing up has occurred courtesy of the old law. So whilst I agree there may be an anticipatory element, you can't say that the change in the law has sanctioned a cashing up that could not have occurred under the old law.
UHLMANN:
Prime Minister though, one last question on media laws, looking ahead, don't you think now that they are cashed up, what will happen once the new laws come into effect is that we'll see a concentration of media ownership?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that remains to be seen. I'm not sure that that will be the case. I mean, there is, a certain concentration is needed in a nation of 20 million people because we can't sustain an unlimited number of players for economic reasons, but we do have a lot more voices in the media now than we used to have. The rise of the Internet has given people access to media, the, I think, significant rise in the influence of radio as a medium of current affairs has led to greater diversity and bear in mind we have a rule that says you can only own two out of three. You can't have radio, print and television in a major centre and I think that's a good move and that's not just regional areas, that's capital city areas as well. So I think we should all be a little calmer and understand that democracy is not going to come to an end as a result of this, and then of course we have strongly independent voice of the ABC.
UHLMANN:
Of course, Prime Minister. When will we know it's time to leave Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
When we are satisfied that what we leave behind will be relatively stable and democracy has a reasonable chance, if that is the wish of the Iraqi people, of surviving and developing. That has not arrived yet, I hope it arrives soon. None of us want to stay in Iraq any longer than necessary, but if the coalition were to pull out of Iraq now it would be an unqualified victory for the terrorists and that unqualified victory would be used as a recruiting argument by the terrorist throughout the world and not least by Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia which is right on our doorstep.
UHLMANN:
Prime Minister could I just back up for a moment. Is it absolutely necessary that we leave democracy behind? You seemed to leave open just then that that may not be a prerequisite.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think really what I'm saying is it's the form that the democracy takes. I mean, I want to see a democratic Iraq, but maybe the method, the model of democracy in Iraq is a matter for the Iraqi people.
UHLMANN:
Is it necessary that it be a single state?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that's desirable, but once again that's a degree of micro-management by another country and another leader that is not necessarily justified. It is a matter for the Iraqis to work out, I think there are great advantages in having a single state. The degree of central control is a matter for the Iraqis to work out.
UHLMANN:
I thought at the outset of this war one of the things that was being aimed for was a democratic Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it is, and that remains the objective. But the form...
UHLMANN:
But it's no longer necessary for us to withdraw, for that to be in place?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry, would you say that again? I misunderstood your question.
UHLMANN:
Sorry Prime Minister, but it's no longer necessary that Iraq be democratic before we withdraw?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's necessary that the Iraqis are able to maintain the security of the country and we're satisfied that the conditions are as predictable and as stable as possible for the maintenance of democracy in that country. I don't think we should be in a situation where we're saying well we want every last detail in particular of this particular constitution in place. I think what we need is a situation where the Iraqis can provide security and that the democratic future of that country is reasonably secure.
UHLMANN:
Yes but have your expectations lowered since the outset of this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I think that it's been difficult, but the longer it has gone on the more strongly have I been of the belief that for us to leave in a situation where the terrorists win and democracy has no hope, would be a disaster. And I can't think of anything that would give the terrorists a greater opportunity of trumpeting success against the West than for us to prematurely withdraw from Iraq and if it's good enough for Australia to go, it must, by any test of fairness and logic, be good enough for the Americans and the British to go. You cannot have a situation where we say look, we'll go and it's alright for us to go because the Americans and the British will stay behind and do the job. I mean that is not fair, it's not logical and if all of us go now, which is really what the Labor Party is advocating, I mean, they're advocating the policy now, they're not saying it should happen in two years time, if they fell into government tomorrow by any circumstance, I know that's unlikely, and they implemented that policy the Americans and the British would be entitled to say well we're going to go as well. Now if that happens the terrorists win, they use that victory as a recruiting weapon not only in the Middle East, and it has enormous ramifications for countries like Saudi Arabia, but they also use it throughout our own region, and most particularly Indonesia. Now that is a reason why Labor's policy is wrong. We can debate the argument, have the argument about what happened three years ago, I stand by everything we did and said then, but what we are charged with now is telling the Australian people the consequences of our current policy and our current policy is that we must stay and finish the job.
UHLMANN:
Yes Prime Minister, I'm not talking about the past, I am actually talking about the future and I think that Australian people would like to know what are the signposts of success? Not a timetable, but what you would see as being a success and when we can make an end?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think we've made, despite the attacks that still go on a regular basis in Iraq, we have made progress with democracy. The Iraqi people have bravely voted on many occasions, we are slowly making progress in handing security responsibility to the Iraqis. The two provinces have been handed over to the Iraqis including one of those in which Australian troops have operated, and if we can continue to make further progress on that front that is one of the signposts. I can't put a month on it, I'm not going to try to, but that is one of the signposts.
UHLMANN:
Prime Minister, thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Ends]