10 September 2002
E&OE...........
JONES:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Alan.
JONES:
Prime Minister, you're a real stayer, aren't you? Now, you were out till the middle of the night at the Dally M's, have you already done the walk?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have indeed. I came back to Canberra last night, done the walk. It's a beautiful day here. And now I've got to go 15 rounds with you.
JONES:
Oh well, at least you're well prepared.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's right.
JONES:
PM, in relation to Iraq, couldn't the Security Council just pass a resolution demanding that Iraq offer itself to comprehensive weapons inspection?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it could. And I don't at this stage know exactly what the American's are going to put to the Security Council. But are obviously going to put in on the Security Council, as they should, to deal with the Iraqi problem. When I spoke to the President on Saturday morning, I don't believe he'd finally made up his mind about the exact wording of what he was going to put to the Security Council, but that is one-way. I have said all along that if Iraq were to fully comply with the existing resolutions, allow the inspectors back, and do everything they were told to do, and not interfere with the inspectors so that the world could be satisfied that a completely unfettered inspection had taken place, then this whole thing would be transformed overnight. Nobody wants military conflict…
JONES:
…from your discussions with the President, were you of the view that he would be satisfied with a thorough weapons inspection because some are saying there's another agenda here,and that is to completely change the regime in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the language he used in our discussion was the language of calling on the Security Council to do its job. Now, I got the impression from that that he was after an outcome from the Security Council that left no doubt. If in fact that outcome were achieved, that outcome were heeded, now…
JONES:
So the credibility of the Security Council's on the line, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh very much so, because Iraq's failure to comply is also a failure of the UN to ensure compliance. And, obviously, one of the things the President has been doing since Saturday morning is talking to other people to, I guess, enlist their support for the further and total involvement of the United Nations.
JONES:
PM, have the goalposts, say, shifted somewhat since September 11? We're constantly told there's no evidence linking Iraq to September 11, which makes people think – well, perhaps there is another agenda.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan, the link with September 11 is, what I would call, the potential threat link. The question of whether there was any direct involvement of al-Qaeda in the September 11 attack, I can't say yes or no about that. There have been associations between Iraq and terrorist groups. And there has been an accommodation of certain terrorist groups within Iraq, but that's not really the point about September 11. What September 11 has told the world, is that something unimaginable before September 11 is now imaginable, it could happen again. And that when you have a country that is threatening and has the capacity to deliver destruction on other countries, September 11 has told us that we should not assume it won't happen to you or to somebody else and that you should be willing to do something about it. That is the September 11 link, if I can put it that way.
JONES:
So, is it valid to argue that when President Bush addresses the United Nations the day after September 11, he must provide new evidence or risk not being believed?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't agree with that. There is already a mountain of evidence in the public domain. Overnight, the respected independent Institute of Strategic Studies in London has released a report which is compiled entirely on the basis of… publicly available material and discussions with people who have worked on weapons inspection and have previously worked in Iraq. I read that report yesterday afternoon. I read it right through. It is a very restrained sober report. It's not over the top. It has a very strong view that Iraq does have the weapons. It says that if it were able to get the relevant fissile material from an overseas source, it might be able to develop a nuclear capacity within months. It does say that it doesn't have that material within it's own borders and it is not a report that overstates [inaudible]. This proposition that there's no evidence, I mean there is a mountain of evidence already in the public domain.
JONES:
Just let me ask and be devil's advocate here because I read an International Atomic Energy report, agency report, in December 1998 that said of Iraq that they had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons program efficiently and effectively. So, if in December 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency says it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons program, how has it been possible in three years with strictly enforced embargos in place, for Saddam Hussein to build up enough weapons of mass destruction to be a threat to the world's greatest super power?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the nuclear capacity is separate from the chemical and biological [inaudible] the chemical and biological they are still there. And because there haven't been any inspectors since 1998, you don't know precisely what is there. You are entitled to assume that what he had in 1998 given his track record he hasn't voluntarily got rid off and you don't of course know the extent to which he's added to it. And what the report released in London last night indicated was that if he could get the extra materials from overseas, he could develop a nuclear capacity within months. But if he doesn't get that, then he's suddenly years away from a nuclear capacity and that of course is consistent with what you've said about the International Atomic Energy Agency Report. There's no inconsistency there.
JONES:
Right. The Arab League says that a military strike on Iraq would 'open the gates of hell'. How much weight do we place on that kind of statement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, this is not an easy issue and I hope the military strike does not become necessary. Clearly, there will be hostility in the Arab world if it were to take place. Equally, I suggest if there were to be a change of regime in Iraq, if it were to happen, I don't think too many Arab leaders would mourn the departure of Saddam Hussein…
JONES:
Do you think…
PRIME MINISTER:
Bear in mind that he did invade Kuwait ten-years ago, bear in mind that he has threatened other countries, bear in mind that a million people died in the war with Iran, bear in mind that he's used poisoned gas against his own population. So, we're not dealing with somebody who's been a benign local neighbour.
JONES:
Right. Do you think,do you worry, I'm sure you do as the Prime Minister of Australia, that you could move to a position of too high a profile on all this given the position of the rest of the world. I see that four permanent members for example of the UN Security Council – China, Russia and France – three of the four permanent members – China, Russia and France have said they oppose military action. And Chancellor Schroeder, with an election in Germany on Saturday week, is basically pitching his election campaign on the fact that he won't take any part in any intervention against Iraq. So, how do you build and international coalition in that political environment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is true that Schroeder has taken, and he's got an election coming up, he's taken a particularly hostile position. The others have, particularly the French have spoken about the involvement of the United Nations. I don't think I've heard President Chirac say that under no circumstances would he support military action, even if United Nations action failed or wasn't forthcoming. Dealing with China and Russia, well I can say this that the Americans have built a good relationship with the Russians since September 11, indeed since President Bush has came to office. I think one of his real foreign policy successes has been the trust that has been built up between Moscow and Washington. Look, we take decisions based on our assessment of the merits. We're not sort of in some kind of contest to see who can be the strongest either way, it's a question of what is in Australia's national interest. Now, right at the moment, our national interest, the world's interest is served by getting the United Nations to face up to its responsibility.
JONES:
Yeah, just on that. We all fund the United Nations very extensively…
PRIME MINISTER:
We have been a loyal, fee paying, always on time, member of the United Nations since it was formed. I mean for all the criticism that is sometimes made of pro-United Nations people in Australia of this Government, we remain a loyal, strong member of the UN. And this is an occasion where the UN has got to deliver on the responsibilities it has under its charter.
JONES:
Well, people say they can't deliver on Zimbabwe, how the hell are they going to deliver on the Middle East?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they haven't got us involved in that. I mean that is a Commonwealth problem, well it's partly a Commonwealth problem, it's essentially an African problem. And until countries like South Africa [inaudible] Zimbabwe take a firmer line, it's going to be difficult to get a change.
JONES:
So, we may be with this in the end of the United Nations and the Security Council as viable instruments if they can't come up with a satisfactory resolution of this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I wouldn't use words like the end, but I would say that if the United Nations Security Council doesn't rise to its responsibilities on this occasion, it will badly weaken its credibility.
JONES:
Prime Minister, just on another issue altogether and you know that I have written to you and the Health Minister about this awful problem of chronic Myeloid Leukemia, and there are over 1,500 people in Australia suffering from that at any one time. And there has been a strong case put forward to approve on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme the drug Glivec, which until now has only been approved for the accelerated or blast phase when people basically are going to die from the disease anyway. I believe you have some information…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well I'm…Alan, I am aware of the very strong campaign you've run on that. I'm very pleased to tell you that later this morning Kay Patterson, the Health Minister, will be putting out a statement indicating that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council has recommended the listing of Glivec for the earlier stage of treatment and that recommendation has been accepted by the Government.
JONES:
So, given that it is very expensive, does that add to the total bill for the PBS?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, the estimate is that it will add something like $10 million, could add $10 million a year to the PBS.
JONES:
But you are aware that in almost all cases where patients have taken it, their blood counts have returned to normal. So, it's a very very powerful thing.
PRIME MINISTER
It is a very powerful drug. There was a lot of… the experts were [inaudible] over it all and we are a bit in the hands of the experts on this, but the experts have said list it and we will list it. And Kay will be saying something about it later this morning.
JONES:
That's just fantastic news for so many people here. As I said to you, I think there are 1,526 people who were relying on that as a matter of life and death.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's just another reminder that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a wonderful lifesaver, but it is also very expensive. And what our responsibility is, is to curb the expense that can be curbed without threat to life, so that when these wonder drugs come on we can always afford to list them.
JONES:
Yes and you think that will be effective from October something, will it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I'm not quite sure…Kay will make all the…
JONES:
I think it's about October 26th. Just finally PM, the last time we spoke, which was about a week ago, I reminded you of Senator Vanstone's comment last July when she said quote – "the Government has decided that it would be easier for any family who still had a excess payment, to have it recovered by adjusting their payments rather than taking it from their tax refund, this is because people have earmarked their refund for specific things". I mentioned to you that that view has been changed. Did you check that statement…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it is true that that statement was made. But it is also true that the tax pack and other indications have been given that the use of the tax refund device would be employed in the future. I could also say in relation to that, that since we spoke, we have had a number of discussions about this issue and we'll be having a further discussion at Cabinet today about ways in which the repayments…where there are overpayments, I mean bear in mind that in ten cases – in six there are overpayments and in four there are under payments. So, it's just not a one-way traffic with money being repaid to the Government at the end of the year. Four out of Ten people are getting an additional top-up payment from the Government. We are looking at different ways of making it more flexible.
JONES:
Good on you. Thank you for your time, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]