Subjects: Terrorist threat; troops returning from Afghanistan; Iraq; North Korea; Israel; Fred Nile
E&OE...........
LAWS:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, John.
LAWS:
What are the benefits of releasing the warning which is largely non-specific, I believe, I understand, but there are a lot of people who don't, they feel it was alarmist, I don't think it was.
PRIME MINISTER:
You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If we hadn't have released it and somehow or other it had filtered out that we'd had the warning, people would have lost confidence in us and said, look, these people can't be relied on, they sit on valuable information like that, we could have been attacked, it's a miracle we weren't and the Government's not doing the right thing. In releasing the warning, which was non-specific as to when, where and in what way, but specific to Australia, it was a generic threat about Australia but it didn't say what part of Australia, when or what form it will take. In releasing it you inevitably get some people alarmed. I say to them, don't be alarmed but understand it is a different world and I';m trying to keep that balance. I want people to be more alert to understand the world has changed but I don';t want them to stop living their normal lives. I don't intend to stop living my life normally. You won't and I';m sure millions of Australians will be the same. I will still go to the Sydney Test and spend the whole five days there as part of my holidays, I will carry on normally but parallel with that…LAWS:
Be alert.
PRIME MINISTER:
You have to be. And I';m looking at some education programme, perhaps a series of TV ads…
LAWS:
Yes, I think that would be a very good idea.
PRIME MINISTER:
.. to sort of say, look, it is different, we all have to understand that and these are some of the things you can do.
LAWS:
I don't know if you saw your Justice Minister on television floundering a little bit - he's a nice fella but he floundered…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, we're all…
LAWS:
We don't know what to do.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I mean, it's a new experience for us and it's part of the process of change. But clearly there are some things, some ready rule…those rules of the road that we can adopt in future.
LAWS:
Yeah, I wouldn't suggest it would be a good idea to walk up to a suspicious person, as he suggested, and say, what are you doing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, from now on, I mean, I'd say, particularly to young people, if you're at a bar or whatever and somebody comes in and plonks something on it, I'd do something pronto about that. I mean, they're the sorts of things…
LAWS:
Yeah, it really is a lot to do with common sense.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a lot to do with the application of common sense. We have got a lot of advantages in this country. For example, our airport security…
LAWS:
Is good.
PRIME MINISTER:
Is very good. Our airport security is better than airport security anywhere in the world. I mean, I've travelled a lot and, I mean, because we're an egalitarian country we don't make exceptions.
LAWS:
No, that's right.
PRIME MINISTER:
You see, egalitarianism becomes a great asset at a time like this because everybody accepts that, you know, you've got to through the thing and I think that is…and the other advantage we have is that we have quite a high level of cooperation between the different law enforcement agencies. I mean, there's always some turf war but generally speaking they cooperate extremely well.
LAWS:
Are you going to encourage them to cooperate even more?
PRIME MINISTER:
Even more. The other huge advantage we have is that we have excellent intelligence cooperation with the Americans and the British. There's nothing that they get in a way that we don't. They give it to us and we give what we get to them and it's a really, those three countries in particular, plus to a large extent New Zealand and Canada, we have this great relationship and that is increasingly important because you are dealing here with a global threat. You're dealing here with an organisation that does have tentacles around the world, therefore intelligence from the Middle East, intelligence from Europe, intelligence from North America is very important.
LAWS:
I see that, mentioning New Zealand, I see that New Zealand has now put Australia on a list of risky travel destinations, do you think that is over-reaction?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think their Government has sort of got the same dilemma that we have. You don't want to alarm people but you feel you have to call it as it seems to be lest you are accused of not doing your job and that's probably why they've done it. I don't think it's going to make any difference to travel between Australia and New Zealand.
LAWS:
Does that mean that you think that people largely ignore warnings by governments?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think people understand why they're given and they make judgements, I don't know that they ignore them, they just make judgements. You could argue that anybody going to live in London, given its long history of IRA bombings [inaudible]
LAWS:
Yeah, and it's been that way for years.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's been like that for years and people have just got used to it. And that doesn't stop tens of thousands of Australians visiting and going to live in London for a period of time and you could apply the same thing about the United States.
LAWS:
Do you think that we'll become more conditioned to this atmosphere in Australia? Do you think that we've just never expected this sort of thing to happen and it's hit harder and it will take a little time to get used to?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, yes, I do think that is the case. The awakening is uncomfortable and disconcerting, that's very understandable but over time people do tend to become conditioned and inured to it. This comment has been made to me by a number of Brits who lived through the IRA campaign in London. It's not as intense now but they said in the end you take precautions but you do become a bit inured to it.
LAWS:
You've got to be very careful that the conditioning doesn't cause complacency.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, of course you have and this is the balancing act.
LAWS:
It's very hard.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is, it is very hard and people say, why don't you do this, why don't you do that and in every case you can mount in isolation that argument for doing it - how long is a piece of string?
LAWS:
Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
Every single gathering of more than a certain number of people you can mount an argument for having some kind of police presence, you can't do that, we don't have enough police and you do have to allocate priorities and make judgements, you've got to apply common sense. You've also got to be reassured by the fact that we do have good airport security, we do have good cooperation, we have good intelligence.
LAWS:
We haven't got very good Opera House security from what I've heard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I heard the lady talking about that…
LAWS:
She made some very good points.
PRIME MINISTER:
…as I was coming to the programme. I mean, I literally don';t know what the security arrangements for the Opera House are. It's not something directly in my bailiwick. I';m quite sure it will be looked at now as a result of her interview with you. But, I mean, the point she was making was about x-ray screening. Point - where does that end though?
LAWS:
That's it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Do you have that at the AFL grandfinal, do you have that at the rugby league grandfinal, at the Boxing Day Test? These are judgements that are very difficult to make.
LAWS:
Who's going to make the decision? And they have it nightclubs and places like that.
PRIME MINISTER:
They do, they do because I guess there has been a greater pattern around the world of bombs being let off in clubs. I mean, it's certainly been the case, going back to London, with the IRA and other cases. It seems to be…and people are sometimes less alert at nightclubs. People, perhaps they've been drinking a bit and it's easy, I think that's perhaps one of the explanations, whereas if you come wandering into the outer at the Melbourne Cricket Ground or something and behaving more suspiciously, perhaps it's people who could be more dangerous… Now, all of these things, I mean, in a way it's unproductive to even talk about them but in another sense there's no point in ignoring and the sooner we sort of, by discussion, get an equilibrium as a community on these things and understand that the world has changed, that we do have to be more vigilant. It won';t go back to the old carefree days. But equally to realise that if we stop living and stop enjoying ourselves and stop going about our daily lives…
LAWS:
Stop being Australians.
PRIME MINISTER:
The so and so';s have won and we';ll stop being Australia. And that is what, as best I can, that is the balance that I want to strike. I don';t want to alarm people but I do want them to understand things are different.
LAWS:
I think that the point my caller made that was a good point is that the Opera House is an icon – overused word but in the case of the Opera House a correct one – which involves lots and lots of people at one time as opposed to a football match or a cricket match, or whatever it might be. So it would mean the destruction of people and one of the great landmarks of the world, which obviously would make it a prime target one would think, and I don';t want to be alarmist about it either.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I heard you say to her, and I agreed, you';d like to be able to but you couldn';t argue with the point she was making. And that sort of example will occur again and again and it';s part of this process of finding an adjustment.
LAWS:
What is the real reason for the troops coming back from Afghanistan? It';s a bit too coincidental that their tenure has expired.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s not so much their… well their rotation time is coming up. But there has been a genuinely diminished need for people of that speciality. The military advice is that the emphasis is switching more to stabilisation and institution. These are about as highly trained blokes that you can get anywhere in the world.
LAWS:
And done a terrific job.
PRIME MINISTER:
And they have done a fantastic job and they are very good. Every time I have any discussion with George Bush about cooperation he always those Special Forces of yours are fantastic and they have won the admiration of the American military. I';m not saying that there aren';t fantastic Special Forces in other countries as well – in Britain and the United States. But you know, naturally as Australian Prime Minister I';m more focussed on our own. But there is a diminished need for them and the judgment has been made that they ought to come home. There is some reporting this morning suggesting that they are being brought home to bolster the home defence against terrorist attacks. That is not the case. We have other arrangements and we have made other plans for that and there is new tactical response groups that I announced some time ago after the 11th of September. That';s not the reason. I mean obviously they will be here and if they were needed for that or for any other purpose overseas again and which the Government thought they should be deployed to, then they could be deployed. But that is not the reason they';re being brought home.
LAWS:
My feeling was that it could have been a sign that the Iraqi conflict was a bit closer.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, the Iraqi conflict is not closer. I mean I of course don';t rule out that there could be some military action against Iraq which could involve a decision by us to commit some military force. I said that last night. I hope the UN Security Council process works. The indications at the moment, as best I can judge them, is that Iraq is at least giving the appearance of complying. Whether in the end she maintains that and does comply, well I';ll have to reserve judgment about. I look at her track record and…
LAWS:
Never happened before, has it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s never happened before. I';m not encouraged. We would all like to hope, we all do hope that it doesn';t come to conflict. If it does, well that';s an issue that we will have to address and I have indicated that if we were to make a contribution there or anywhere else, it would have to be within the limit of our other demands and needs.
LAWS:
I talked to the listeners earlier and said if they had any particular questions that they would like me to ask, to send them. One that seems to be a popular question is this one. This one happens to come from Dennis Taylor in Newcastle. John Howard supports a war on Iraq. Why is he allowed to do this and disobey the majority, underlined, of Australians who disagree with a war in Iraq especially when he is our servant and a war will happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t support a war on Iraq.
LAWS:
I don';t think anybody supports…
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean I hate war. I don';t want a war on Iraq and a war on Iraq can be avoided by Iraq complying in full and giving up any weapons of mass destruction she has. That';s my view. The worry I have really, when it';s all boiled down, the real worry I have about Iraq more than anything else is that she';s got these weapons of mass destruction, she has in the past had a record of supporting terrorist groups and the ultimate nightmare is that some of these weapons would get into the hands of terrorist groups. Now that is, I think, the ultimate terrorist nightmare. Now I';m not saying that it';s definitely going to happen. I can';t… nobody can assert that. But you';ve got a situation where Iraq has these weapons of mass destruction, she has form, she has invaded other countries, she has fired missiles at the Saudis, the Israelis and against Bahrain. She did use gas against a section of her own population, did use it in the Iraq-Iran war, has been in breach of the United Nations resolution for more than a decade. When you add all of those things together, it does put Iraq in a qualitatively different position from a country say such as North Korea.
LAWS:
North Korea has weapons of mass destruction.
PRIME MINISTER:
North Korea does, yes. It';s acknowledged it. But the predisposition to use them has not been evident in relation to North Korea.
LAWS:
What about Israel? They have weapons of mass destruction and they use them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there';s an enormous amount of - there is debate about Israel';s possession of weapons of mass destruction. I think it';s hard to argue that Israel has capriciously used any weapons she has. I mean she';s been in a state of almost total siege Israel ever since the country was created. Having said that, I do think that we have to try even harder to get a fair settlement in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But I mean Saddam Hussein supports the suicide bombers.
LAWS:
Oh there';s nothing good about Saddam Hussein.
PRIME MINISTER:
Now look can I just say again – I don';t want war against Iraq. I don';t want a war against anybody. I hate it. And I do hope that the UN process works, I really do. And I think George Bush deserves a lot of credit for going back to the UN. I mean the UN would not be re-engaged if he hadn';t of put the heat on, let';s face it. I mean the UN had ignored it and he went back there on the 12th of September and he said the UN, if it is to preserve its reputation, has got to do something about this problem. And then two months later we eventually get a very tough resolution. He';s copped a lot of criticism but people ought to remember that it was his efforts that got the UN reengaged.
LAWS:
Oh it';s done him more good than harm. But just back to this question from this man – do you believe that the majority of Australians disagree with a war on Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think everybody disagrees with a war. We all do. I put my hand up against war but I also put my hand up in favour of ensuring that Iraq gets rid of those weapons of mass destruction. And as to the judgment of the views of the majority of the Australian people, I don';t think people';s views on things like that finally crystallise until they know all of the facts and all of the circumstances and they';re asked to make a judgment. And political leadership is a combination of listening and leading. It';s a combination of occasionally saying to people, well look this is a very complex issue, it';s a 50-50 one, I';m just going to go around the community and listen and then try and determine what the majority view is and do that because the merits are pretty evenly balanced. On other occasions what you have to do is if you really believe that a path of action is the right one, you have to go out there and argue it and persuade the country of the need to do it. Now no issue is without complexity and this is a very complex issue, and I understand people';s sensitivities about it. I';m sensitive about it. I understand that people want it resolved peacefully and I do, and I hope it is.
LAWS:
Should the United States rid itself of its weapons of mass destruction?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don';t think so because I don';t believe the United States is… the only circumstance in which the United States should rid itself of its weapons of mass destruction – she shouldn';t do it unilaterally, that would be very foolhardy. I certainly wouldn';t if I were the President of the United States. I mean if you reached a nirvana of some kind of world accommodation where people could turn their [inaudible] and etcetera and bury all the weapons and join hands in peace and harmony, I';d love it. I mean we';d all love it. I think we';re a distance from that but the Americans have made steps towards reducing stockpiles in agreements they';ve made with the Russians. But I mean just remember that the Americans have been… the atomic bomb was developed in World War II and it was used against the Japanese. Japan of course had been an aggressor and a judgment was made that it would shorten war.
LAWS:
It finished it.PRIME MINISTER:
And it was a choice between what that meant and perhaps the lives of 100,000 or 200,000 Americans perhaps in subjugation of Japan. Now these are difficult judgments that when you';re in a war situation you';ve got to make. I mean God forbid that we ever get to that again.
LAWS:
If we did get to it, what would our involvement in Iraq be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I';ve said is that if we were to make a decision, then it would not be such as would prejudice immediate defence and national security value. And I';ve said that the sort of contribution we made in and around Afghanistan is seen to me to meet that test. Now I can';t be any more specific than that because we haven';t reached a stage of taking a decision. If we were taking a decision it would only be one that would be subject to a parliamentary debate, although the Government itself takes those decisions, but I';ve said that we would have a full debate. But I hope it doesn';t happen.
LAWS:
Could you answer this question. I don';t if you';ve heard me talk to Fred Nile earlier, did you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I didn';t hear you talk to him. I heard of the issue.
LAWS:
How do you feel about that? I mean it';s a very unfortunate thing for the wider Muslim community who I';m sure are very fine and decent people. There are extremists but there are extremists everywhere. His concern is that the women wear total covering, or can by choice. Apparently it';s not mandatory in the Qur';an for them to do that but they do it. Fred Nile';s concern is that if somebody walks into a bank wearing a full face helmet, he';s not allowed to go into the bank because he';s considered to be a sinister person. Why is it then that people, because we don';t even know if they';re women because they';re that covered, are allowed to enter these areas while wearing that garb?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';m not precisely sure of what the rules of the Muslim religion are on this question. I mean I';ve had some… I heard a lady interviewed by you, a Muslim lady, who said that the wearing of the full cover was not part of the religion. Generally speaking I';m in favour of respecting people';s religious beliefs.
LAWS:
So am I.
PRIME MINISTER:
Or indeed people';s lack of religious beliefs. We have to respect each other in these things. It';s just a question of civilised living. If you';ve got a religious faith and providing you';re not flinging it in somebody else';s face, then you should be allowed to practise it. We do take the view that sometimes the public interest can override a particular practice. I mean I think the law in this country in most States is that, for example if Jehovah';s Witness parents refuse blood transfusions, I think in certain circumstances…
LAWS:
They can be overruled.
PRIME MINISTER:
They can be overruled by the Courts, the view being taken that it';s not in the public interest. Now I';m not saying that that is through suggestion on all fores with this. I mean I don';t have a clear response to what Fred has put. I mean I like Fred and I don';t always agree with him, but you know Fred speaks for the views of a lot of people. On the other hand I feel it';s very important at the moment that Islamic people don';t feel they';re being singled out. I feel for them.
LAWS:
But wouldn';t it be better if they were less conspicuous at this time?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well obviously, consistent with their religious beliefs. But it';s not only… I mean you sometimes see, not so much in Australia but in the United States, you will see Jewish people wearing the long hair and the hats. Now that';s conspicuous but it';s something that, you know, I fully respect.
LAWS:
But their face isn';t covered.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, look I understand what he';s getting at but I also stop short of agreeing with him because I have got to frankly myself have a better understanding of just how fundamental that is. Now the general rule in this country, as I illustrated with my Jehovah';s Witness example, is that there is sometimes a public interest overriding any religious practice and this doesn';t apply in relation to any particular religion. It just applies generally. I mean we are a secular country. I mean we have a long Judeo-Christian tradition and ethic but there is no established religion in Australia and therefore in the end, whatever people';s religious beliefs are, the rule is that there are public interest tests that override anything. Now I can';t make at this stage a judgment. I';ve just had this flung at me. I';m not sufficiently apprised of the tenets of Islam to fully understand that.
LAWS:
Well I think dear Fred is, in as much as he is obviously looked at the Qur';an, and the Qur';an doesn';t state that it is necessary to have the full covering. Now if that were the case…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this is a very sensitive issue John and…
LAWS:
You don';t want to talk about it.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I';m happy to talk about it but I';m not going to hypothesise. I';m not going to start…
LAWS:
But it is a very sensitive issue but it';s a sensitive issue from both sides.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is and I';m always happy to talk about sensitive issues, and sometimes you don';t have a flat yes or no on something like this. Different people of goodwill will have a different view. I mean I don';t want Muslim women in this country to feel that they';re being prevented from practising their religion. I want everybody in this country to live according to the modalities of Australia and that is that we respect religious belief, we respect and tolerate a range of religions, and we also accept that people have no religion and they';ve got just as much right as anybody else to live in this country. We do respect very strongly equality of men and women. I think that';s very, very important. And I think practices of any religion that don';t meet that expectation will inevitably draw some disapproval and some criticism.
LAWS:
What can we do to make life more comfortable for the decent Muslim people who are in the vast majority?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the sort of exchange you had with that lady who talked… I mean the more and more we can engage people in the Muslim community in open discussion about these things… I mean I had a great example of this last week. I had the Head of the Islamic Council of Australia or the Secretary rather came and he came and they had raised some money for the Bali appeal and they wanted to give it to the Red Cross. And they wanted to give it to the Red Cross in my presence and have a photograph taken and everything was fine. And a chap who has been… his family has been living in Queensland since 1880, who's of Pakistani origin, Muslim. I mean his accent is as broad as mine, as yours, as any Australian and he';s been living for yonks, and he was part of it. He runs a very successful business in Brisbane and we sat down and we sort of talked about the reaction of Islamic people to what had happened. And we need a lot of that. We need them to feel that we understand that as Australians they are as upset by what happened.
LAWS:
Yesterday I talked to the head of the Muslim society of western Sydney, who have made a huge contribution to an organisation that's doing things to help the farmers in drought-stricken Australia and he was just a delight to talk to…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, of course.
LAWS:
As most Muslims are.
PRIME MINISTER:
And that is the case. Overwhelmingly…
LAWS:
What we…
PRIME MINISTER:
But there is a, you know, there is a small group that is endeavouring to hijack the whole religion - there's no doubt about that. And there is a quite a struggle going on, a hearts and minds struggle, not only in Australia - I mean, our Islamic population is about 240,000 - but countries like Indonesia, the biggest Muslim country in the world, it is a very big struggle. That's why we are arguing very strongly that the Indonesian Government has to get on top of terrorism and understand the threat being posed by Muslim extremists.
LAWS:
Tolerance is.. or should be, it has to be a two way street, doesn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. Yes, it does.
LAWS:
So, we must be tolerant towards Muslims.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, and people coming to this country whether they're Islamics must be… must understand that when they come to Australia they make a decision to accept, they can't cherry pick the Australian way of life. I mean, people have to sort of, they have to take the good with the bad and things they don't like, well they've got to live with them because that's the nature of our society. I mean, I've always seen the modern tolerance and diversity of Australia as being a situation where you take people from everywhere irrespective of race or ethnic background and you, one person's faith and ethnicity is as good as another. But you have certain common understandings as part of the Australian community. And everybody accepts that if you were born in Hungry, or you were born in Saudi Arabia, or Israel, or America, or Scotland, you're going to have a place in your heart for that country no matter how long you live in Australia.
LAWS:
Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I understand that. Everybody should understand that. Quite consistent with that for people to be fully part of the Australian community and most are. I mean, we have been very fortunate in this country of how well we've been able to absorb people from different parts of the world.
LAWS:
Just finally, are we equipped from a medical point of view, god forbid it should happen, but if a terrorist attack occurred, are we equipped from that point of view?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we are getting better. I mean we have, we obviously have very good medical services which do respond very well in an emergency. The Bali attack is not on the scale that we're talking about, terrible though it was, but our medical services responded absolutely magnificently to that. We are doing a lot of things now in relation to biological and chemical warfare and so forth.
LAWS:
I talked to a trauma expert earlier in the week, who believes that we're not sufficiently equipped at least at this time. Would you agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'd like to know what he said. Look, by definition if you've never had a mass terrorist attack on the Australian homeland, therefore by definition you can't be totally equipped because we've never experienced it before. But we are as best we can anticipating what things you might need in relation to a biological attack. If you had a mass attack explosion and hundreds of people injured in a big city like Sydney, it would certainly strain the hospital system, but we do have a very good hospital system for all it's criticised, and our public hospital system is very good. And this great capacity to come together - I mean, that Royal Darwin Hospital, it's only a small place though and it did a fantastic job the way it…
LAWS:
And it coped.
PRIME MINISTER:
It coped. I mean, we got… there were 67 badly injured people lifted in 36 hours and most of them went through Darwin and they coped extremely well.
LAWS:
You said a moment ago in relation to Bali, you said Bali was bad but it wasn't on as large a scale as it might have been. Are you expecting something on a larger scale?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm comparing it with, you know, a hypothetical. I mean, we're talking a hypothetical… I'm not... if you start talking about a big attack that might claim hundreds that's the sort of thing, but I'm not expecting it. I still don't believe it will happen, but it could and the likelihood of it is much greater now than it was. And that is the best assessment both as Prime Minister and as an individual that I can give. Now, that means that we shouldn't overreact, we shouldn't panic, but we should be more alert, we should be more careful. I mean, Bali was a terrible shock to all. I mean, I will never forget the experience of the mass sort of grief of so many of my fellow countrymen and wome