Subjects: Free trade; Ansett; Greenhouse gas; refugees; National Missile Defence; US economy;
E&OE................................
Ladies and gentlemen, I've just completed two or three hours of very comprehensive discussions with the President, with the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser, and the Special Trade Representative both in the Oval Office and then subsequently over lunch.
We covered every gamut of the bilateral relationship which of course is in excellent shape. It couldn't be in better shape. We talked extensively about Indonesia, about the situation in the Middle East, we talked about global affairs generally, climate change issues. We swapped some experiences on domestic politics and overall it was about as comprehensive a set of discussions as one could possible have on the issue of negotiation of a possible free trade agreement as the joint statement that's been issued, or will be issued shortly, indicates. The two parties will return to that issue via discussions which will be held between Mr Vaile and Mr Zoellick before the end of the year. We understand that for domestic political reasons related to the negotiation between the Administration and the Congress in order to secure trade promotion authority it is not possible to make an in-principle commitment to the negotiation of that agreement during my visit. And I have no doubt that we will return to the issue. I'll repeat what I've said before that it's by no means certain that a negotiation would be successfully concluded but I've long believed it's something that we should give consideration to and we should fully explore a negotiation to see if there can't be an agreement reached.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister do you believe then that negotiations on a free trade agreement can begin by the end of the year? Is that what you're saying?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it would be my aim yes.
JOURNALIST:
Could I ask you for your comment on the Ansett crisis? What comments do you have on the Ansett crisis; is the Government prepared to help bail out Ansett financially; and will you guarantee that Ansett employees have their entitlements protected?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Tony I think I will be economical with my comments on the answer issued because it's one of those things that's moving a bit and it's always unwise when you're in another country and you're not aware of everything that's happening. I want to say this - that we are not interested in giving direct equity investment, putting direct equity investment into Ansett or indeed any other company. We think that's a bad principle. I have had some discussions with the Managing Director of Ansett and the Managing Director of Qantas, and I've been in regular touch with the Deputy Prime Minister and I've spoken to the Treasurer about the matter. As to the question of entitlements, the workers, well, those are matters that are premature and hypothetical to talk about at this time except to make the observation that we have a safety net scheme but beyond that I don't want to start hypothesising about what may or not happen. Beyond that I can't really say any more.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] Qantas to take over Ansett?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I'm not going to say anything other than what I've just said. It's being handled very capably by the Deputy Prime Minister and I don't want to get in his frame from over here.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, the President said this morning that he hoped there was a role for Australia in the National Missile Defence program. What sort of a role might that be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we understand and indeed we sympathise with the reasons why the Americans would seek to develop this program. And we talked about it at some length. They have, as we have wanted, engaged the Russians quite extensively on it and we expect them to do the same with the Chinese. I think that's the sort of thing he had in mind.
JOURNALIST:
Would our facilities be involved?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think facilities and facilities are there to be used.
JOURNALIST:
Did you discuss the issue of people smuggling at all or..?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. It was not discussed as an issue. I mentioned it tangentially in the context of the discussion about Indonesia. But it was not an issue as such that he raised and it's not an issue that when it was raised tangentially that provoked any further discussion beyond the tangential reference to it in the context of something else to which it was tangential.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, there's now reported another boat. What do you know about that and [inaudible] done about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'd have to get some advice on that. I mean I've been tied up for the last three hours. Your advice might be more contemporaneous than mine.
JOURNALIST:
What was the tangent to which you referred in relation...?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I said it arose tangentially...
JOURNALIST:
And what was the point?
PRIME MINISTER:
The point was simply in the context of our relations with Indonesia.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister Howard, domestic farm groups here are making a linkage between progress on Australian sanitary [inaudible] and sanitary restrictions [inaudible] start of free trade negotiations. Are those being linked as far as you can tell on the US side?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I think it's an issue that will inevitably get discussed if we get into a negotiation. But it's not being used as a, in any way, a pretext to not having the negotiations start.
JOURNALIST:
Was it your understanding from what the President said to you that he shares your views on the timeframe to start the negotiations, that is by the end of the year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you look at the agreement.
JOURNALIST:
We haven't got...
PRIME MINISTER:
No. There's a document that refers about it coming back.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what if any discussions did you have about the future of [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
The President asked me how long I thought peacekeepers would be needed and I said up to two years and I said that while Australia would be willing to shoulder a significant part of the burden as we have in the past we didn't want to be alone. And he understands that. They have some people there and I would expect that that they would continue to be there.
JOURNALIST:
On the issue of National Missile Defence are there any differences between us and the Americans on this issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the very big difference is that they're developing the system and we're not. So obviously there are big differences. But it is an important issue. We understand and we are sympathetic to and we see as you'll see in the document we believe that there are reasons for developing different options in relation to Missile Defence because of changed circumstances.
JOURNALIST:
But we don't have reservations about the [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Well what we are saying both in this document and elsewhere is that we understand and sympathise with the reasons why they would want to develop it. We are very pleased that they are engaging the Russians and also the Chinese.
JOURNALIST:
Do you see a need for an international code for dealing with the refugees and why has your Government [inaudible] refugee [inaudible]? We know President Bush was discussing the issue of refugees with Fox last week and [inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the more international cooperation on this issue there can be the better and that applies both to the action of agencies and also bilateral cooperation. And we are certainly seeking the maximum degree of bilateral cooperation between Australian and, for example, Indonesia. And we have made some progress. The visit that three senior ministers paid to Indonesia last week was highly successful and we have seen some results in that already and we want to see more in the future. It is an international problem. From our point of view it has to be dealt with in a number of ways. We have to take action in the short term to protect our border integrity but we also need to achieve medium and longer-term understandings with certain countries and particularly Indonesia and we continue to work on that. And any further action that can be taken by international agencies to encourage cooperation and I mean obviously there's a flow, as far as we are concerned, there is a flow of people from Middle Eastern countries to Malaysia and Indonesia and then without a lot of let or hindrance onto Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, did President Bush mention to you the impact, or his view of the US economy and the impact it may have on the world economy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we talked about the US economy and his assessment is not dissimilar from obviously the broad view that's emerging. I mean there are some challenges but the fundamentals of it are very strong.
JOURNALIST:
What discussions did you have on greenhouse?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh quite an extensive discussion on greenhouse. We're both of the view that Kyoto in its present form is not the solution because it doesn't include the United States and it doesn't include the developing countries. And Australia would be even more severely affected than the United States, indeed probably any other country, if we had an arrangement and we accept a discipline that didn't include the developing countries. But we both want there to be an all embracing international understanding on greenhouse gas emissions and I'm sure the Americans want to be part of that. But it won't work unless the Americans and the developing countries are part of it.
JOURNALIST:
Did you discuss how that might happen, a new project or new...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Americans themselves have indicated that they will be saying something on the issue before too long and I mean, I want to see the United States engaged in a positive way. I'd indicated to him that I had read the reports of the President by what there was ten or twelve eminent American scientists. I thought that was quite a compelling document. I think we all agree there's a problem, a big problem. It's a question of dealing with it in a comprehensive way and you can't deal with it unless you have the largest economy in the world as part of the solution and unless you have all the developing countries as part of the solution. If you try and sign off on something that doesn't have both of them involved then you don't have a solution.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister should we take your earlier comments on trade to indicate that Australia's quarantine regime is up for negotiation?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I haven't agreed that's anything's up for negotiation. I simply made the comment that when you get into a negotiation people are entitled to raise anything they want. I think our quarantine regime's very good.
[ends]