MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
MITCHELL:
Why aren't you in Melbourne campaigning for Ted?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well state elections are normally fought on state issues. I went to the opening of his campaign and obviously there's a focus on state issues.
MITCHELL:
That's a bit unusual, you would normally see a bit of the Prime Minister during a campaign wouldn't we?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh no, not really. I only made one appearance in the Queensland state election campaign. In addition to that I have been overseas for the large part of the past week. These days federal leaders don't take part in campaigns very often. I did what I was asked to do and that is went to the opening of his campaign and wished him well and spoke strongly in favour and pointed out that the economic strength of Victoria is a reflection of national economic strength.
MITCHELL:
But you do accept that Victoria is in a strong economic position?
PRIME MINISTER:
Victoria is in a strong economic position because Australia is in a strong economic position.
MITCHELL:
It's not much of a criticism of Steve Bracks though is it? Victoria's economy is good.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's good because of the policies of the Federal Government. It could be better, you could have better industrial relations laws, it could be more attractive to invest in Victoria than it is, but the general state of the Australian economy is very good and I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say that 340 days of the year but stop saying it during the 25 days of an election campaign, that's the sort of thing that gives political participation a bad name.
MITCHELL:
Anybody in the state party here ask you for advice on this campaign?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
MITCHELL:
That's a bit strange isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not really.
MITCHELL:
Well they asked Peter Costello.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's a Victorian.
MITCHELL:
Ah yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
He lives in Victoria. You've got to make some allowances for the variations, but Peter understands Victoria well because he grew up in Victoria. I understand it pretty well but I didn't grow up there and obviously that's a perfectly natural thing to do. But I think we get a little too hung up on this business of how involved the federal leader is or not involved. It is a state campaign and it will be decided on state issues and whoever wins will be a judgement on state politics because the campaign's been overwhelmingly on state issues.
MITCHELL:
And to be frank, it doesn't really make a great difference to you as Prime Minister whether you're dealing with Steve Bracks or Ted Baillieu.
PRIME MINISTER:
I would rather be dealing with a Liberal premier.
MITCHELL:
Well that's because you're a Liberal.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes of course.
MITCHELL:
It doesn't really make any difference does it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I deal with the people who are elected by the voters in the various states. I believe in democracy and I do my best to cooperate with Labor premiers. I've had plenty of practice at it.
MITCHELL:
But you're getting on pretty well, all of you, with the Labor premiers...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, we live in a democracy and it's my job to work constructively with Labor premiers, that doesn't mean to say that I don't work very hard to bring about change and I devoutly hope that there's a change in Victoria and I'll be working hard and doing what I'm asked to do to bring about a change in New South Wales in March of next year.
MITCHELL:
You're a pretty cunning observer, how do you think it will go in Victoria?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's tough for us, but my feel is that the momentum has moved in the Liberal Party's direction over the last few days and I would expect the Liberal Party to gain seats, whether they gain enough seats to form a government is the big question.
MITCHELL:
Do you still think their best hope's a coalition?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think what I said earlier, stands.
MITCHELL:
Which is that their only hope is a coalition.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I said earlier that if you ended up with the Liberal and National parties together having a majority of the seats I think they'd talk to each other and form a coalition, that's the point I made.
MITCHELL:
You got into trouble for it didn't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think I got into trouble, I just...
MITCHELL:
Well Ted got into trouble.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Liberal Party is, they're not campaigning as a coalition, I accept that. The point I'm simply making is that if you had a situation where the Liberals and the Nationals together had a majority in the Legislative Assembly, I think they would form a coalition, that's the point I'm making.
MITCHELL:
9690 0693 if you would like to speak to the Prime Minister. Are you concerned by the possible sale of Qantas and worried it could be broken up?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't want to see it broken up.
MITCHELL:
Can you prevent it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It being broken up? Not under the present law.
MITCHELL:
Would you pass a new law?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's not a good exercise in governance to pass specific laws dealing with particular cases, what are called ad hominem laws, I don't think they're a good idea. We won't be changing the foreign investment rules, Peter Costello's made that clear, nor will we be altering the caps on individual share holdings. There is not a case for breaking up Qantas, but there's also not a case for governments over-reacting to moves in a market. We can't preach the philosophy of the free market and every time something arises which might look a bit uncomfortable dart around and say well we're going to pass a new law to stop it happening, you can't run a country like that and we don't intend to do that.
MITCHELL:
So if somebody wants to break up Qantas you'd really just have to watch it happen.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well whatever is allowed under the law will, of course, be permitted.
MITCHELL:
Well they'll have to put it to national interest won't they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's the foreign investment part of it.
MITCHELL:
Not to do with the breaking up of it.
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
MITCHELL:
But what about Fosters? I mean, Fosters seems to be a target as well I think by a Belgian company. Do we have to accept that iconic Australian companies will no longer be necessarily Australian?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that has been the case for a long time, there's nothing new about this. Arnott's, Bundaberg Rum, a whole lot of things have, Bundaberg Sugar rather, have been in this category. You've got to look at it from a global point of view. I guess emotionally I don't like it any more than you or your listeners do, but if you live in a globalised economy and you accept that Australian companies can take over companies in other countries, you can have a company like Westfield being, what, the largest or second largest foreign property holder in the United States, a major power in shopping centres not only in the United States but in Great Britain. You can see Australians becoming the chief executives of international corporations. There's an ebb and flow, there's a give and take in relation to all these things and we can't have it both ways, we can't expect the world to be Australia's oyster, yet resent it when foreigners buy into Australian assets.
MITCHELL:
Well yes except we have foreign investment rules regarding things like Qantas, that don't apply to Fosters.
PRIME MINISTER:
The foreign investment rules apply to all companies.
MITCHELL:
Well that sort of accepts the point doesn't it, that we don't want to lose control...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no but the foreign investment rules don't say to foreigners you can't buy Australian assets. What they do, in essence, say that if there's a diminution in an industry of local ownership there's got to be some demonstration of national interest before the proposal is given the go-ahead.
MITCHELL:
Iraq, Prime Minister, shocking death toll in Baghdad overnight, the worst since the war started, 150 dead, 250 injured. This is just getting worse.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's certainly going through a very bad phase, I acknowledge that and nobody is other than horrified at the continued loss of life. The question arises what to do. I do think the path ahead lies in the greater assumption of responsibly by the Iraqi military forces themselves. Clearly, an internal political accommodation has to be part of the longer term solution and that lies very much in the hands of the domestically elected political figures in Iraq. The more we can do to elevate the influence and the authority of those who've been elected by the Iraqi people, the closer we will come to a longer term solution.
MITCHELL:
But do you feel we're getting closer? Time has gone on and here we have the worst event since it started. PRIME MINISTER:
Well whenever an event like this occurs, that question is naturally asked. What I can say is yes, the level of violence continues unabated. On the other hand, the Iraqi military forces are getting stronger. There's still a big problem with the police and I believe that the path ahead lies in accelerating as much as possible the training of the Iraqi military forces, letting them assume as much as possible of the day-to-day security responsibility. That is not only what has to happen for there to be a permanent solution, but it is also desirable in that in the long run, no country wants foreigners to remain on its soil indefinitely and therefore the more the Iraqi military forces can be developed, the better the prospects there are for a longer term solution.
MITCHELL:
How will the role of Australian troops change in Iraq as the British are cut back?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends what's involved in any possible British reduction. I mean we have a particular task which we have agreed to, and it's what's called an overwatch role in a particular province and it's in a sense, a back-up kind of role if the local Iraqi forces need assistance. Now we haven't agreed to anything else and if there are any proposals that we do something differently, well they will have to be assessed on their merits and according to our judgement as to whether it's appropriate. Look, we all want to see the day when it will be no longer necessary for foreign forces to be in Iraq. But after everything that has happened, for there to be a precipitate coalition withdrawal would be the worst of all worlds because nothing will have been achieved, the effort will have been in vain and the terrorists will win and that will have great and very damaging consequences for all of us.
MITCHELL:
Did I understand you correctly in what you said in Vietnam that even if you changed your mind on Iraq, you would never say so?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what I said there, well firstly, I was asked whether I had a different view, or what my view was about our involvement in Vietnam and I said well I'd supported it at the time and I didn't intend to recant. And I think what I was endeavouring to say, and let me put it this way to you now, what I was saying is that if you're going to sort of change your view on these things, you ought to change your view on them while you are in office and while you've got some capacity to give effect to the change. And I think recanting views years after you have left office is not something that is necessarily attractive to me. But that doesn't mean to say I don't change my view on things, I do.
MITCHELL:
Well do you look back on Iraq and say we've made some mistakes here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I look back on Iraq and I am still of the view that the decision we took three years ago, based on the evidence before us at the time, was right.
MITCHELL:
Even though the evidence has proved wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the intelligence didn't stand up, no. But Neil, when you are in a position of executive authority in a government, you have got to make a judgement on what you regard as the quality of the material before you. And everybody back in 2003, including Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd, and particularly Kevin Rudd; Kim Beazley was rather more mute, Kevin Rudd, even Jacques Chirac, they were all saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There was no argument about that. Everybody said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The debate was what did we do about it. And Mr Rudd said it was an empirical fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He said all the intelligence around the world said so. I mean he now says, oh he only said that because I told him so. There were no such qualifications three years ago. Three years ago everybody said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now the people who are now saying oh no, it was all false, it was all dodgy, it was all lies, Howard made it up, they weren't saying that three years ago, they were saying that I was wrong to commit our forces without yet another United Nations Security Council resolution. Look, we took a decision. I believed that decision to be right at the time and I don't...
MITCHELL:
Do you still, I mean, there's nothing wrong, you're in office. You said you would not change your mind if you're out of it. You're in office, look back, you got it wrong.
PRIME MINISTER:
What I am saying, in office, and still being in a position to give effect to a change of policy, is for us to precipitately withdraw from Iraq now would be a huge mistake.
MITCHELL:
Should we have gone in? In hindsight, should be have gone in?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes because the evidence available then suggested we should and also as an exercise in being a strong ally of the United States, going in was a wise thing to have done. I said at the time it was based on our assessment about the weapons of mass destruction. I also said at the time that a factor was our close alliance with the United States. Now I said both of those things at the time; I do not retreat in any way from the decision that was taken. I think for us now to leave Iraq, for us now to precipitately withdraw; and if we do it, why shouldn't the Americans and the British do it, I think that would have enormous and damaging consequences for the West in the Middle East. Think what instability would result in, further instability, in countries like Lebanon. Think how emboldened Syria and Iran would be if America withdrew from Iraq in circumstances that looked like a defeat. The impact on the stability of the Middle East would be enormous and that impact would not be confined to the Middle East. It would have ramifications for the recruiting cause of the terrorists in our part of the world.
MITCHELL:
We'll take a break. Come back with calls for the Prime Minister. 9690 0693
[commercial break]
MITCHELL:
Nine minutes to nine, coming up after nine o'clock, Dean Jones thinks the hot spot should become the third umpire, we'll be debating that. Calls for the Prime Minister, Robert, go ahead.
CALLER:
Morning Neil, morning Mr Howard. Mr Howard earlier you just said to Neil that everyone thought there was weapons of mass destruction. I'd like to ask you, what about the information you got off Andrew Wilkie and Dr John Gee, who was a chief weapons inspector, who both advised your Government there was no weapons of mass destruction. Everyone might have been saying that they thought there was weapons of mass destruction but the people you should've been taking advice off were telling you there wasn't?
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what you've said in relation to one of those gentlemen, I'm not quite sure of the other person you're referring to, isn't accurate. The advice we had from the ONA, and this has come out in the parliamentary inquiry, was that the evidence supported the existence of weapons of mass destruction and ONA was the organisation for which Mr Wilkie worked and from which he resigned.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, the Cole Report will be released today, does it clear the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't seen it.
MITCHELL:
You've seen the reports of it...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I haven't seen....
MITCHELL:
...seen the reports of it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I have read newspaper reports but I have not seen the Royal Commissioner's report. It won't be handed to the Government until 2.30pm this afternoon.
MITCHELL:
It was leaked to the newspapers?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, has it?
MITCHELL:
It seems to.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know because I haven't seen it.
MITCHELL:
Well they've all got the same story.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't seen it Neil and I'm not going to speculate because I haven't seen it. And when I do get it, which will be this afternoon, I will be obliged not to say anything about its contents until it is tabled in parliament early next week. So I do not know what is in the Royal Commissioner's report, I have not seen it, it has not been given to the Government.
MITCHELL:
Are you concerned it's leaked, if it has?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm always concerned about leaks. But I have not had it and therefore I can't tell you and whether what's in the newspaper is accurate or not, and in any event, because I'm...even when I get it this afternoon I won't be able to say anything until it's tabled.
MITCHELL:
Scott, go ahead please Scott. Yes Scott, no, Scott has dropped out. Prime Minister can I just ask you a question about APEC Meeting, after G20 problems here, are you concerned about security at APEC? This was...G20 was seen as a trial run by some of the protestors.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm pretty confident that the APEC meeting will be okay security wise, I'm very confident. I had a bit of a talk to some of the police yesterday about it and I'm very confident and you learn from meeting to meeting, and I am very positive about the response of the Federal and New South Wales Police.
MITCHELL:
Didn't some of those protestors, they're on student allowances, should have that welfare withdrawn?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you don't do these things arbitrarily.....
MITCHELL:
Well, if they're convicted...
PRIME MINISTER:
...obviously, but I think a lot of people might feel that way but I would want to think through the ramifications of that before I say yes on the run. Look, those people weren't really demonstrating for a cause, they were just behaving like thugs and I mean I don't mind a peaceful protest, but how on earth people can justify violent behaviour of that kind is beyond me.
MITCHELL:
John, go ahead please John.
CALLER:
Good morning Mr Prime Minister, I have a query about the Elvis helicopters that have been brought in from Canada to fight the bushfires. Why couldn't Australia afford to buy at least eight or 10 of these and put a couple in each state? We're going to have a really bad season by the looks of it and these things cost a lot of money to hire. Surely we could afford to buy some....I believe they come from Canada and I know they cost quite a bit of money, $17 million, but I think we're in a fairly healthy position due to your management of the system. I think they would be something good to have a look at.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the advice that, and mind you I'm really governed a lot by the advice of state fire authorities on this because they know more about it, they've had more experience, but the advice we have is that you need them for certain periods of the year only and that economically and operationally the current arrangement where we bring them in during a bushfire season, then they go out again, release them, that that works quite well. If I were persuaded that it would be better to have some other arrangement I'd be happy to talk to the states about it. I've got an open mind. I think we should have the facilities. It was only a few years ago that the Federal Government weighed in and helped, until then the states did these things and I offered I think back in 2002 to help the states with some federal money and as it always happens, once you offer to help the states with something they, sort of, want to continue the arrangement. But I'm quite happy to help them, I mean this is a national issue, fighting bushfires, but the advice I have at present is that the current arrangement is quite effective.
MITCHELL:
Will you have a Cabinet reshuffle before the end of the year?
PRIME MINISTER:
I never speculate about reshuffles. I notice that others do, but I don't.
MITCHELL:
Would it be fair to assume that water is taking increasing importance within the ministry and could get a Cabinet position?
PRIME MINISTER:
You're tempting me to sort of say yes, no, maybe. Look Neil, my position in relation to reshuffles is that if I decide on a change I announce it. People should not assume that we're having a reshuffle, but I'm not ruling anything in or out. But I'm, you know, amused that people keep writing that you know there's going to be something. I haven't indicated that. I should say that I've got a very good Cabinet. I don't hear many people running around saying you ought to sack a, b, c and d. I read plenty of reports about how a number of high quality people deserve promotion, and I have got a lot of high quality people in the ranks of the outer ministry, parliamentary secretaries and on the backbench, but I've also got a very high quality Cabinet ministers all of whom, on my last account, are working very hard and very effectively.
MITCHELL:
Just very quickly Prime Minister, we're almost out of time, what did you think of the hot spot on the cricket?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh terrific and I think it's just an example of you know the high quality coverage.
MITCHELL:
What did you think of that first over? Well, the first two balls...
PRIME MINISTER:
...it was terrible, but I thought Ponting's innings was majestic. I think he's the best player of the hook shot I've seen just about ever, he really is a majestic hooker.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
[ends]