TRIOLI:
Mr John Howard joins us in the studio, good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Virginia.
TRIOLI:
You're making an announcement today in town on Solar City and we'll get to that in just a moment, but on issues of sustainability, your Treasurer Peter Costello was speaking yesterday about, saying the global ground on carbon trading is changing and that Australia can't afford to be left out of an emissions trading system. Does that differ from your point on view on the issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it doesn't. We said two and half years ago in the energy white paper that we'd be willing to be part of international emissions trading scheme provided the whole world was involved and I repeated that in Parliament a few weeks ago. The climate is changing, the world is getting warmer, I think, however, we have to...
TRIOLI:
The political climate is changing too...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the political climate is always changeable, Virginia, and he who doesn't take a raincoat or an umbrella in politics is being very unwise. What is happening is that the world is looking at this issue from different perspectives and we have to understand that the whole Kyoto mindset was essentially driven by a European outlook and we have to bear in mind that our position is different to Europe because we have large fossil fuel resources and it's the source of a lot of our wealth and we have to be very careful as we talk to the rest of the world and we join the rest of the world in tackling this problem that we do it in a way that doesn't disproportionately affect Australia. We all have to make some sacrifice, we have to understand that, and I'm not saying Australia shouldn't have to make some sacrifice and we will have to pay a cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether it's in the form of a price or whatever for carbon that will inevitably occur. But we've got to make sure that others who are competitive with Australia carry the same burden otherwise our industries lose out and that means less investment and fewer jobs.
TRIOLI:
I guess the observation by Peter Costello has been seized on by some analysts as suggesting a shifting view or a divergence of views between yourself and the Treasurer is because the language has changed so much. You've been insistent on saying that carbon trading is not a silver bullet, that you won't sign up to anything if China and India aren't involved, you don't want Australia's economic interests hurt. Looking at it politically and analysing it, they are much harder, more insistent lines than someone saying gosh, the ground is changing; we've got to get involved.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but I don't think Peter is in favour of hurting our industries and I'm quite certain he shares the view and he, if you look at the totality of what he said yesterday, he made it very clear that he sees us as being part of an international agreement beyond Kyoto.
TRIOLI:
But Sir Nicholas Stern was the person who called for leadership in this. He was the one who said no one is ever going to put themselves forward when the argument that you know it's going to economically hurt me is about; someone has got to take the first step. Could that be Australia, should that be Australia is this region?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have to understand that Australia is responsible for 1.6 per cent of the world's emissions. The United States for something like 25 to 30, China 15 plus and fast rising, so we are a miniscule part. If we closed all our power stations tomorrow...
TRIOLI:
But no one's saying that...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, but I'm using it to demonstrate a point and the point is we close them tomorrow it would only take China nine months of additional emissions to wipe out the contribution we have made, by closing our power stations, to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are willing to be part, but we have to be clear and we have to be careful that in being part we don't unduly disadvantage Australia. I mean, it's alright for the Europeans who in the main don't rely on fossil fuel exports; in fact they are many of them great importers. We have to be very careful that we don't hurt our own industries and can I just say this for Australia - we were a given a greenhouse gas target by Kyoto...
TRIOLI:
A reduced one.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but we have different circumstances. I mean, the British, for example, were advantaged by 1990 being the starting point for Kyoto because that allowed for the greenhouse gas savings from the closure of all of those coal mines by the Thatcher Government, which incidentally the current British Government strongly opposed, but that's a part of history now. The point I'm simply making is that 1990 was a very convenient starting point for Europe and we have to temper our enthusiasm for an international agreement with a weather eye towards the interests of Australian industries. I mean we employ an enormous number of people in the resource sector and the only plea I make, well it's more than a plea, it's a statement of policy and that is we have to have a balanced, measured approach. We do need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Australia has to play her part as a member of the international community and we will play our part. We can contribute a lot with clean technology and I intend to discuss this with the Chinese President when I see him on Friday in Hanoi and I want to discuss it also with the Japanese Prime Minister, it will obviously come up in the working lunch I'm having with President Bush on Friday as well. So we're not a reluctant participant, but we are a participant that will look after our own national interest and that's my first job, to protect the Australian economy and Australian jobs and Australian investment.
TRIOLI:
So at this stage you're not yet prepared to say when we might be involved in such a scheme, when you might take a leadership role?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think anybody knows when the scheme...
TRIOLI:
Well that only starts in...
PRIME MINISTER:
There is a discussion going on in Nairobi and what we all need to do is look beyond Kyoto. I mean, whatever you say about whether we should have signed Kyoto or not and we had reasons for not doing so, it's now in a sense history, it only ever covered 50 per cent of the world's polluters and what we have to do is get an arrangement that involves everybody and when you have everybody in it means in one way or another that no country is severely disadvantaged and the arrangements to date if we had signed up to them had the potential to hurt us and that's why we didn't sign up.
TRIOLI:
You're about to announce in Blacktown energy saving initiatives for residents including subsidies for solar energy panels and solar water heaters. Are you regretful in any way that it's taken you this long in your prime ministership to get on board with initiatives that might have in the last 10 years have saved this country so much in precious resources if more of us had been encouraged to sign up. Do you look back on that now with a degree of regret?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't. We announced the Solar Cities project two and a half years ago and we called for bids and it's taken a while to get those bids in and it's taken a little time to assess them, but we'll have four or five Solar City projects around Australia. They're in a sense, they're demonstration projects and solar power can make a contribution. It can't replace power stations and solar and wind and tidal power can only be useful at the margin but it's a very useful addition and this demonstration in the west of Sydney will be a very good illustration of that and it will reduce by about 25,000 tonnes a year greenhouse gas emissions and I think it will probably save the local council about $3 million a year.
TRIOLI:
Well they'll like that. One leading scientist though John Howard has today accused you of frightening the public to undermine wind power's potential. This is Dr Mark Diesendorf from the University of New South Wales. He said you're view of having to have windmills every few hundred feet starting at South Head and heading to Malabar was wrong and he said the comments are just not true and the depiction of coast line windmills was a straw man designed to frighten people. It's the same old misleading stuff. How do you respond to his criticism of what you've said?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm told it would take a thousand wind mills to produce a megawatt of power. So I don't really, I mean, the point I was illustrating with that example, a hypothetical example, the point I was illustrating is that to generate a modest amount of power you need a lot of windmills and I am told also that for understandable weather reasons, they normally only operate 25 per cent of each day.
TRIOLI:
Well Dr Diesendorf responds by saying, the turbines and roads for a wind farm that could replace a 1000 megawatt coal fire station would occupy between five and 19 square kilometres, there are a few failing farms that could easily be turned into that situation. I guess the issue is though if we keep speaking in terms of rather alarmist examples, hypothesis as you used, we'll never move on will we?
PRIME MINISTER:
Virginia, come on, most of the alarmist talk on this issue has come from the people who condemn me.
TRIOLI:
(inaudible) being alarmist...?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I think some of the talk about climate change is alarmist. I mean I accept that the world is getting warmer, I accept the fundamental argument, I am sceptical though about many of the doomsday scenarios. Thirty-two years in politics has told me that every so often you have an issue and people basically say if you don't fix it now and perhaps we'll allow you tomorrow, the world will come to an end. Now most of the alarmist talk on this issue has come from the people who say that not enough is being done. So I think it's a bit rich for the people on the alarmist side of the argument to turn around and say when I use a colourful, hypothetical example which resonates with the people of Sydney, that is having windmills along the coastline from South Head to Malabar and that's what he was talking about, that I'm being alarmist. I mean there are parts of the world...
TRIOLI:
But Dr Diesendorf is actually the one who has been more optimistic today, he's saying it's much more possible than the Prime Minister is allowing you to believe.
PRIME MINISTER:
But all the evidence I have seen says that yes wind and solar can make a contribution. I am not saying it doesn't make a contribution, but it is just scientifically impossible to replace base load power stations with windmills and solar.
TRIOLI:
Seventeen minutes past nine on 702 ABC Sydney, the Prime Minister John Howard is with us this morning. Just on that before we move onto other subjects and there is much to get through this morning have you seen An Inconvenient Truth yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I have.
TRIOLI:
What did you think of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It was alright.
TRIOLI:
You didn't like it that much?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I didn't I thought he was, it was very, very, how shall I put it? Overtly, it showed a degree of the peeved politician, the constant jibes at the Bush administration.
TRIOLI:
Do you think he was missing the limelight as a politician?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think he was still sort of fighting a former political battle. He was after all the Vice President in the previous administration and whilst he talked a lot about it, look I've got nothing against Al Gore I've met him a few times and he's a perfectly nice man and he's very dedicated to this issue but I have seen it and ....
TRIOLI:
It was not persuasive to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I don't' need to be persuaded that we all have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a question balance and the right way of doing it in a fashion that doesn't hurt Australia. I don't want any of your listeners to imagine that I don't think it's a problem, it is a problem, but it's not going to overwhelm us tomorrow, we are not going to drown in the sea in a couple of weeks time. And the earth's atmosphere is not going to shrivel in the next few years and we have to be sensible and measured and calm in our responses and we have to put all the options on the table including the nuclear option.
TRIOLI:
It's one that really divides our listeners that one.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
TRIOLI:
There are those who ring and say it's sensible and those saying please let's not.
PRIME MINISTER:
But that's not a reason for ignoring it because it's the cleanest and greenest of all and the simple economics are ...
TRIOLI:
See that doesn't persuade so many people listening though, they think of all the waste and think how is that being green?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I invite them to have a look at the Switkowski report when it comes out. I mean I have been exhorted to have a look at the Stern Report which I did, I've been exhorted to see an Inconvenient Truth which I have. I invite your listeners who think nuclear power is an horrific thought, to have a look at Ziggy Switkowski, to understand that right at the moment that the cheapest source of electricity generation in this country is coal, but we all agree that in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions you've got to clean that up, as you clean it up, you make its use more expensive, and as it becomes more expensive nuclear power comes into the equation. Now that is the simple economics of it and of course on a greenhouse gas scale, nuclear power is right down the bottom.
TRIOLI:
Changing topics in the United States, the White House is now signalling it's open to a fresh approach about the very unpopular war in Iraq and Democrats in the States say they'd like American troops to start pulling out of Iraq in the next six months. That's something you'd like too, surely for us to be able to say good can we start pulling our troops out.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would like our forces out of Iraq but I would not like them out of Iraq if it was part of a strategy change by the Coalition that ended up in handing a victory to the terrorists, and doing an enormous...
TRIOLI:
How do we ....?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just finish? And do enormous damage to the prestige of the United States and the prestige of the West. I want people to understand one thing that a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq, which leaves a victory for the terrorists, will do colossal damage to the reputation and prestige and influence of the United States, and that in turn is damaging for us, particularly in our own region. We have a problem with North Korea. This is not a time to be gratuitously weakening the strategic influence of the United States in our part of the world or indeed in any part of the world.
TRIOLI:
I think there's most who would agree with you and also say...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's the fundamental of my approach.
TRIOLI:
Not wanting to get either before it's left in a state where the country or areas of the country can look after themselves. The problem though that I see with that definition you use, leaving a victory for the terrorists, is that it's so broad. I mean, how do we define that? If we pull out of Iraq and still things start to go wrong, are you then able to turn around and say "you see, that's a victory for the terrorists"? I mean we might never leave that country in an entirely peaceful state. It might be just a coalition of areas that try and manage themselves.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Virginia we can only make judgements on the circumstances of the time and the policy in Iraq is to have a situation where the Iraqis can look after themselves. And despite all of the mayhem and bloodshed, there is slow progress. It's not as fast as I would like. I think everybody would like the progress to be faster. I think everybody accepts that it's not going as well as we would like it to. But it's a question of how do you react differently. And I think President Bush should look at different tactics, different approaches. I am sure he will do that and I will talk to him about that at the APEC meeting later this week.
But the fundamental question is that those who are so critical of me and of him are really saying you should get up and go now, or alternatively they're having two bob each way and saying well we don't want you to get up and go now, but we want you to change direction. But they never say what the changed direction should be. I listened to people on the radio this morning. I didn't hear them saying 'well this is the direction that you should take.' They are feeding off the fact that it is not going as well as everybody would like.
It's very difficult and the great responsibility the Americans in particular have, because they have 140,000 troops there, is to be handle it in a way that doesn't deliver a victory to the terrorists, but also keeps moving towards our objective. We don't want to stay any longer than in necessary. For heavens sake, nobody likes having the troops of one's country overseas and exposed to danger. I certainly don't. I think about it every day. So don't anybody imagine that I sort of enjoy this. But I am simply not going to accept a situation where you have a timetable for withdrawal which is unrelated to the democratic stability and survivability, if I can put it that way, of a country.
TRIOLI:
Then Prime Minister, tell us about what you think those changed directions should be. Can you talk to us about what new strategies or what new approaches should be applied in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the only new strategies, or approaches, I think we have to be careful about the language. I mean clearly it's always a good idea for the military commanders on the ground to look at different ways of carrying out the military operations. I am in favour of talking to countries like Syria and Iran. I've said that before and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Baker Commission comes up with that suggestion, but I am very sceptical as to whether you will have a fair dinkum response from either of those countries. But by all means, let us talk to Syria and Iran, because they are part of the equation. Many people believe they are directly responsible for a lot of the violence, for the improvised explosive devices that are used in many parts of the country. The Syrian's border has been very porous to say the least. So I am in favour of trying that, but I don't think anybody should imagine for a moment that that is going to deliver a quick outcome.
TRIOLI:
More troops on the ground for a short period of time as the Generals originally wanted when they went into Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well some of them advocate that. I will be interested to see whether that is supported by the Commanders on the ground.
TRIOLI:
Do you like the idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that is really a judgement that has got to be made by the operational people. I mean I am not a soldier. It's for the Generals to say whether they think that is desirable. We are certainly not being advised that there should be more Australian forces.
TRIOLI:
Tomorrow the High Court hands down its decision on the States' challenge to your IR laws. Are you confident that they will uphold the legitimacy of what you have done?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will just wait and see. We were told by our own lawyers that the laws were constitutional, but I have no idea what the court is going to decide and isn't the rule of law wonderful? We're all subject to it and I, like every other citizen in Australia will just wait and see what the High Court decides and we'll it accept what the Court decides obviously.
TRIOLI:
Its interesting, just in advance of that today, an interesting list of amendments to the relatively recent workplace relation laws are being announced today. They, according to the ACTU seem to largely run one way, which is in favour of the employers allowing them more flexibility, while workers will lose out by no longer being able to accrue more leave by working overtime, employers being able to stand down employees when there is no work available due to a natural disaster. How do you respond to that criticism that you're looking largely after one group rather than the worker?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's wrong. It's not fair. For example, you didn't mention or Mr Combet didn't mention the fact that we're closing a loophole that might have resulted in some people losing accrued redundancy. So that is something very much on the side of the employee. The provision in relation to people being able to cash out carers and sick leave is beneficial, although they have to stop at cashing it out, so there's about 15 days a year left. So there's a bit on both sides. The provision in relation to accrual is commonsense because you should accrue leave at a basic rate rather than a rate that includes the overtime. I don't think that was ever intended. So there's a bit on both sides of this, and its fine tuning. We are going to relieve the record keeping burden for employers, but there's no bad thing about that because we think the record keeping requirements may have been a bit burdensome for small employers in particular. So if you look at the fine print, you'll find that it's a bit for both sides, and we'll continue to fine tune the legislation. There could be more changes because...
TRIOLI:
Before the next election there might be some more changes?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well none of the changes will be major, but with something as important and all embracing as this, you do need to have a constant willingness to fine tune.
TRIOLI:
John Howard, is your Government really saying that teen mothers can't be trusted with the baby bonus and insisting that they be discriminated against and be given the bonus in tranches, rather than one lump sum. Its slightly offensive isn't it that if you're under a certain age, you simply can't be trusted with a whack of money?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't think its offensive. I think its reality and commonsense. And most of Australia would understand exactly why we're doing it.
TRIOLI:
There are those who have spent their baby bonus on plasma TVs and they're aged 35 and over. I could even name you a couple of them, but they'll get their baby bonus in one lump.
PRIME MINISTER:
But Virginia, that is always the case. If you judge the quality of public policy by the standards of those who don't use the benefits of public policy wisely, you'd never have any public policy. And the great bulk of people use the baby bonus to buy bassinettes, to buy prams, to buy clothes, to help with all sorts of things relating to the birth of a child, and it's been a huge success. It's made some contribution, I say some...
TRIOLI:
To the birth ...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it's made some. I think the concern about people leaving it too late to have their first child has played a role as well. I think that's part of it. I think there has been much more focus in the public debate on that issue over the past couple of years and it has focussed the minds of a lot of people. So I think there are a number of reasons for the pleasing increase in the fertility rate. I think the change we've brought in for under 18s is just plain commonsense and most of your listeners know exactly what I mean.
TRIOLI:
You've been called today in The Australian not the Placido Domingo of Australian politics like your predecessor, but instead the Kylie Minogue of politics John Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yeah.
TRIOLI:
Here's the quote. "Her music is safe and predictable which is exactly what John Howard tries to be." Now how do you feel about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if the Australian people believe that the Government I lead has given them a sense of safety and predictability, well I am not ashamed of that. I try to do that. It is part of my job to make the country safe and to give people's lives a sense of predictability. And the low unemployment, the still very low interest rates, the strong economic growth, the greater support for families, particularly middle Australian families has made Australians lives safer and more predictable and I am proud of that.
TRIOLI:
The Kylie Minogue comparison though would never have occurred to you though in a million years would it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but I'm not, I mean I am certainly not offended. I am flattered. She's a far more, she's a very popular talent and entertainer. I am a, I hope, a safe, predictable, serious, committed Prime Minister.
TRIOLI:
I am resisting the urge here to make some gag about gold hotpants. I just wont go there Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think that's wise.
TRIOLI:
England was humbled by your selected XI a few days ago. Alright, so does that mean The Ashes are ours?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think England could be a combination of a bit of foxing and a bit of jetlag merging into practice games.
TRIOLI:
Keeping their powder dry, you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you never know. I have seen many touring sides, that famous West Indian side all those years ago under Frank Worrell, perform very badly before the first test and it was an absolute corker and ended up being a tie. So, and other English sides have performed very badly. I think we have to wait. We don't have to wait very long, but it's wonderful for the game. And I hope it's a cracker, evenly contested series. The ideal finish being two all for the last test at Sydney. That would be a great outcome wouldn't it?
TRIOLI:
Now I want to ask you, and this is genuinely not a clever and cunning way to try and get to the succession and when will you leave politics question, because I am sort of sick of it in the same way that you probably are and we won't know until you decide and then you will tell us. But can you ever see a time; I've often wondered this, where as a second stage in your career you'd like to spend some time cricket writing or commentating or analysing? Is that something you'd actually like to turn your attention to properly one day?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've never really looked at the detail, thought about the detail of that. I will obviously, you know, when I do retire; everybody retires at some point, I'll obviously have more time to indulge my interest in watching and following sport, cricket in particular. But not only cricket, I have a great passion for following rugby as well.
TRIOLI:
But would you take it that step further and actually...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't, I've never...
TRIOLI:
Pen a column or join The Grandstand team?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't really thought about the detail of that Virginia.
TRIOLI:
Let me know if you ever reach a decision.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I will.
TRIOLI:
Thanks for your time today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
TRIOLI:
John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.
[ends]