MITCHELL: Prime Minister Rudd, good morning.
PM: Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL: Another soldier dead in Afghanistan. This is two in a week. Can you explain the circumstances in this latest death?
PM: Neil, this is another sad day for the nation. We were advised last night that we have lost another soldier. He was killed by an improvised explosive device while conducting operations in southern Afghanistan. Soldiers were conducting a route clearance when the IED was detected and in the course of dealing with the device there was an explosion. And we understand that the soldier was killed instantly.
Beyond that, we do not have further details to hand.
MITCHELL: Can you just, as a layman, you'd have to say that will have to be one of the toughest jobs wouldn't it, to walk up to a bomb and try and defuse it? It requires extraordinary bravery.
PM: Well, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. If we put ourselves in the position of this very brave soldier and those like him employed throughout the Australian Defence Force who do this as their profession, each day is a day of courage, and I can only be in awe and admiration of our men and women in the field, and this group of professionals in particular who do this very dangerous work.
MITCHELL: How do you feel personally because, and I remember asking other Prime Ministers about this, effectively you're the person who is responsible for these people being there.
PM: Yes I am responsible. And it is my responsibility. And I accept it. And I shoulder it. And every time this happens and this is the 10th soldier that we have lost, since I've been Prime Minister and I'm sure Mr Howard did the same before me, you take it personally, as you should. These soldiers are in the field because of the decision by my government and the government which preceded me. Which is why I believe it is my responsibility when we lose a soldier, I speak to each family personally.
MITCHELL: Have you as yet spoken to the family of this man?
PM: No, because the confirmation of all the next of kin has not been concluded yet. But once that has occurred I will do as I've always done.
MITCHELL: Yet you have spoken to the family of the man killed earlier in the week?
PM: That's correct. Yeah. That's my normal practice and I think that's the right thing to do.
MITCHELL: What on earth do you say to them? It's so hard.
PM: These are very personal conversations, Neil, as I think all your listeners would understand.
MITCHELL: Yeah.
PM: But I think what's really important, apart from reflecting on the fact that this is a daily exercise in courage on the part of those in the field, and on the part of those who have been there already and who may yet still go. That is so important to remember. But on top of that, to remind ourselves of the purpose of this operation.
Remember what happened with the Bali bombings. We have lost something in the order of about a hundred Australians through acts of terrorist violence in the last several years. And those terrorists have primarily been trained in Afghanistan. And therefore, when you look at something like the Bali bombings where you had a number of the bombers themselves trained in Afghanistan, our strategic mission there is, in partnership with our friends and allies, to prevent Afghanistan from becoming again this sort of open field of training and operations for a global terrorist group like al-Qaeda.
MITCHELL: So you have no doubt in your mind we have to be there?
PM: I believe it's the absolutely right thing to do. Remember, remember just the horror of September 11, remember the horror of Bali, we lost Australians in both. And I am deeply concerned about how you deal with global militant terrorist organisations, and therefore it means making sure that our protections on the home front are as strong as possible. It means making sure that our actions internationally with our friends and partners are as intelligent as possible, and making sure that when we've had what was a free reining training base, a free range training base for al-Qaeda, which was what Afghanistan was under the Taliban administration, that we together with the Americans, the British and so many other countries are there, doing whatever we can militarily to deny that space to al-Qaeda as they had it as their free range of operation in the past.
MITCHELL: Do you agree with the American President we are not winning in Afghanistan?
PM: I think President Obama's summation of the war is about right, which is why his administration has called for a review of their military and political strategy in Afghanistan. My understanding is that review is coming towards its conclusion. And certainly one of the matters I'll be discussing with President Obama is how the overall strategy in Afghanistan for the future will be deployed. And I've got to say in our province, Oruzgan province, our soldiers have achieved remarkable success. Can I say across the rest of the country, it has been a much more mixed picture.
MITCHELL: There are military experts today saying we need to send more troops because we are fighting battles twice - that we fight a battle and then can't clean it up properly because haven't got the follow-up. Will you look at sending more troops?
PM: On the question of, and I've had many, many discussions with military experts with experience in the field and lots of discussions in Afghanistan itself with our field commanders. One of the core challenges is this Neil, once you've got our, you know, men and women in uniform have gone out there and obtained control over an area of ground, what you then need is back-up from the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police to ensure that we have consolidation of the ground.
That is why in recent time we've moved towards also a training role for the Afghan National Army. What's our mission statement? To deny this part of Afghanistan to al-Qaeda and terrorists organisations, and secondly to train the Afghan Army so that they can replace us over time so that our troops, our boys, our men and women in uniform can come home.
MITCHELL: But do we need to send more troops?
PM: Well, the President of the United States, I've said up until now Neil that we believe our commitment to Afghanistan is about right. What I want to do with President Obama is see what his forward thinking is. He hasn't put any particular proposals to me. But I cannot answer those sorts of general questions until such time as I know where the future of the US military strategy lies. I've got to say to you at this stage though, that broadly speaking I believe that our deployment is about right. But we'll listen carefully to what the Americans have to say to us.
MITCHELL: So if the Americans ask for more, you'll obviously have to consider it.
PM: Well, what the Foreign Minister and others have said before is that if the Americans put proposals like that, of course we consider them. Whether we accept them or not is a separate question. But I'm saying that's part of the reason for being in the United States because it's not just Australia that's there, there are literally dozens of coalition partners working with the United States.
MITCHELL: Are you concerned two deaths in a week, 10 overall, are you concerned that the public, the Australian public will lose their appetite for this war, lose their support for this war?
PM: I think the Australian public have always been concerned for the welfare of our troops abroad, be they in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think it's very important for everyone to understand in national leadership that Australians do not like their troops being sent out abroad unless there's a very good reason. And that's why it's important to remind people that this terrorism threat is still very close to home. I'd say to everybody out there, the threat of terrorism hasn't disappeared. The threat of al-Qaeda hasn't disappeared.
What we can see however since the early part of this decade when we went into Afghanistan is that the ability for al-Qaeda to operate without impediment, which is how they use to operate in Afghanistan in the past, has been reduced because we and other allies are there. And that comes back to, as I said before, we've lost a hundred of our own people, a large number in Bali, and these terrorists in large part trained in Afghanistan.
MITCHELL: The final point on this. With Spring in Afghanistan, we're now heading into the fighting season, are we not, and we've got a pretty tough time ahead?
PM: Neil, I would like to be able to say to people that I'm confident about security for our troops in the future, but I don't believe in misleading people.
This is a tough, rugged, difficult, dangerous, bloody environment. And it will be very tough in the period ahead. But I would say this about our troops in Oruzgan province. And this I base on what US and other allied field commanders have said to me, they're not only doing a first class job of which all Australians can be proud, but in Oruzgan itself we have had remarkable success in consolidating the position.
And I wish that was the case across the rest of the country, and these are the matters obviously I'll be talking to President Obama about soon.
MITCHELL: It seems somehow indecent to go on to talk about political matters after such a discussion. We'll take a break here and come back and talk about those political issues with the Prime Minister in a moment. Just before, hello Yvonne's just called in, Prime Minister. I think you might want to speak to her. Yes Yvonne?
YVONNE: Hi, good morning Neil, good morning Prime Minister.
PM: Good morning Yvonne.
YVONNE: My son's 19. He's currently over in Afghanistan. He's part of the OMLT team.
PM: Yeah.
MITCHELL: 19?
YVONNE: We're very, very, proud of him. And -
PM: So you should be Yvonne.
YVONNE: We are. And he's, it's what he always wanted to do from the age of seven. We support him wholeheartedly. My concern is that every so often he will say, I need a piece of equipment, and he will have to buy it himself. And I'm not quite sure why my son is spending $300 of his hard-earned cash -
MITCHELL: What sort of things you mean Yvonne?
YVONNE: Just stuff, you know the, I'm not really sure of this correct technical terms so please bear with me.
MITCHELL: Oh sure, sure.
YVONNE: But just recently, only in the last couple of weeks, I got a parcel sent from somewhere in Coburg that was, it's basically, I think they call it strapping or something like that, that he then attaches pockets to, that have got velcro on them, that he puts in ammunition and so on and so forth.
The camelback, you know because obviously they need to hydrate through the day. He, the one that the army suppliers only, I think it's only one litre of fluid. And obviously when it gets really warm, a litre of fluid to last them an entire day isn't enough.
MITCHELL: So what, did you bought another one of those?
YVONNE: Yeah.
MITCHELL: Which carries how much?
YVONNE: Two and a half litres.
MITCHELL: Okay. Prime Minister?
PM: Well Yvonne, what I suggest you do is, and I'll leave a number with the program, get on to my office and we'll actually track down the details of this one. Secondly, one of the things which myself and the Defence Minister are constantly asking our field commanders in Afghanistan and the Chief of the Defence Force - do our soldiers have all that they need? This a standard question that we ask, and we are very mindful of any operational need which the troops have the ground, that's why I'm particularly concerned about your question, and if through Neil's program you can get onto us, we'll get an answer back to you.
MITCHELL: Is that okay Yvonne. You're happy to hold -
YVONNE: Yeah. I mean I know that it's not just my son. If I thought it was just my son being, you know like being a 19 year old, got to have the latest iPod and got to have the latest, you know who-gee-ma-call-it. I wouldn't be so concerned. But I did recently read in the Army newpaper, there was actually a letter written to, into the Army newpaper saying why are we still having to do that? So it's not just my son that's you know got to have the latest whatever, it definitely seems to be an operational, things aren't meeting operational needs.
MITCHELL: Okay, well look, Yvonne if you just hold on, we'll get a number for you, and pass it on to the Prime Minister's Office. Obviously that's of concern if that's widespread Prime Minister?
PM: Of course, and that's why I'm very keen to hear what Yvonne's got to say and also the letter in Army News that she refers to as well.
MITCHELL: Can you imagine a 19 year old son over there. I've got a 21 year old son. I can't imagine it.
PM: When I was last there Neil, just talking to the troops. I asked them their ages, and this young fellow I'm sure was 18 from memory, and I looked at this young man, much taller than me I've got to say, that's probably why he's in the military, but strapping bloke, and but a bit like Yvonne's son of whom she's so proud, this is all he ever wanted to do and they want to serve Australia in the uniform of Australia, and as I've said in the Parliament just this week, there is no higher calling in this country than to wear the uniform of Australia.
MITCHELL: We'll take a break.
(Ad break)
MITCHELL: In a way it seems almost trite to go onto matters, but the reason we are in Afghanistan is exactly so we can take these other sort of matters like the alcopops tax, like the workplace laws, the Prime Minister's with us. Mr Rudd, the tax has been rejected, the alcopops tax, the workplace laws have been bounced back by the Senate earlier this morning. What are the chances of going to an early election before the end of this year?
PM: Well Neil, we believe the Senate's got its job to do today, and the Parliament's got its job today, that's why we're sitting Friday and that's why we'll be sending back to the Senate, what we have a mandate from the people to do and that is to provide proper protection from unfair dismissal.
If we were to take Mr Turnbull's amendment, which went into the Senate last night, that would leave about a half a million people out there without any protection in the workforce, and we have an absolutely clear cut mandate to do this. We were completely upfront about it before the last election.
MITCHELL: But times have changed since the election. Times have changed massively. You know that better than anybody.
PM: But I think that when you look at the impact of a global recession Neil, what workers around the country want is some protection from unfair dismissal, they also don't want, which is what WorkChoices provided, to have their redundancy payments stripped away.
Therefore we've got to get the balance right in our workplaces. The balance right between business and between employers and employees, and I've just got to say Mr Turnbull himself said in December last year, the end of last year as Leader of the Opposition, that he respected the fact that the Labor Government had a mandate for these changes on unfair dismissal. Now he has flipped flopped because he's got some brawl within the Liberal Party with Mr Costello.
MITCHELL: So are you willing to go to an early election or not?
PM: What I'm willing to do Neil is to honour my obligations to the Australian people -
MITCHELL: And if the Senate continues to frustrate you?
PM: - And to put this back to the Senate. That's, we'll take all this one step at a time.
MITCHELL: So you won't, I mean you know the speculation's around these two issues. The economy's getting worse, the best thing politically for you would be an election before the end of the year.
PM: The best thing for the nation and for the Government and for the Parliament is for what we said to the Australia people that we'd do, for the Parliament to allow us to get on and do that.
If we were just pulling this out of the air for which we have no mandate, there be some legitimacy to the debate. But when I say to Mr Turnbull in the Parliament, not only do we have a mandate, not only is it in black and white what we put to the people on this, but you yourself said only three months ago as Leader of the Opposition that you respected our mandate. Why the change? I don't understand.
MITCHELL: Can you guarantee these new laws won't cost one Australian their job?
PM: What I can guarantee Neil is that every Australian needs basic protections in the workplace. And you know as well as I do that every employer out there including all the small business people listening to your program, they're going to make decisions everyday about their firms based on a whole range of factors. And -
MITCHELL: Yes, but there's also argument being put that these new laws will cost jobs. Mining industry, retail industry, hospitality industry very much so. The new laws will be a disincentive and will cost jobs. Can you guarantee that won't happen?
PM: As I said to you before Neil, in every workplace across the country you've got stacks of small business people listening to your program this morning. They're going to make decisions based on a whole stack of factors. There's constant change in the workplace. You know that as well as I do.
MITCHELL: But some of the factors they're saying being added in are your laws which are negative factors and will cost jobs. That's what they're saying.
PM: Well some of the factors being added in Neil are also the massive investment we're putting into the biggest school modernisation program in the country's history to create jobs for tradies, for sparkies, and for all those other categories of work in the construction industry right across the country. We're putting out a $30 billion stimulus package into construction to provide job opportunities for people.
Therefore it's getting the balance right. We're out there in the one hand investing a lot of money in the economy, to boost employment in the retail sector through the payments we made to pensioners, to boost job opportunities for the construction industry by this big building program, and at the same time we still believe it's right to have balanced laws for the workplace.
MITCHELL: Alcopops. Now you've got $300 million that you're giving back to the industry. The industry says unequivocally they don't want it. Why not, what's wrong with the idea of taking that money and using at least some of it to campaign on alcohol and binge drinking. Why not use it now you've got it?
PM: Well I understand Neil that the industry's now having a debate among itself about how much, once it's returned to them under law, how much they themselves voluntarily give back. But let's just -
MITCHELL: Yeah but you can change the law. I mean the Opposition's offered to support you to keep it and use it in the way it should be used.
PM: Let's go back to the very basic principle here Neil. They are seeking to, in this measure on the $300 million, to use that as a bandaid to cover up the fact that they are providing a $1.6 billion tax bonus to the alcohol companies. It's all about -
MITCHELL: But you don't have to give it to them.
PM: - Make it look better than it is. If the individual alcohol companies, having got their money, want to then hand it over to charities, well that's a matter for them.
MITCHELL: Oh, but that's like putting the poacher in charge of the game reserve. What is wrong with the Government holding onto that $300 million and using it over a period of years with a lot of consideration on tackling binge drinking?
PM: This is an absolute attempt by the Liberal Party and the alcohol industry together, to have a bucket of hush money to make it look more moral than it is. And you know as well as I do, this is a $1.6 billion gift to the alcohol industry -
MITCHELL: But you'd be spending it. But you'd be deciding how it was spent. That's our money. You've got it. You could decide how it was spent so it's got nothing to do with the industry or the Opposition.
PM: - A $1.6 billion gift to the alcohol industry when we know, the jury's already come in on the effectiveness of our measure Neil, we know from the data which has been produced that from the Australian Taxation Office, that up until January 2009, alcopop sales have slumped 35 per cent. We know it works -
MITCHELL: Yeah but the sale of hard alcohol, of hard liquor went up. And the sale of beer went up. They just went to different things.
PM: Well, what I've got here is a figure in terms of the overall increase in general spirits consumption which is something like about 17 or 18 per cent on one set of figures, and there are other figures as well which point in different directions. But the point is this. 35 per cent slump, according to the Tax Office in alcopops sales and we know for a fact, that this form of drink is overwhelmingly preferred by young female drinkers. When this was brought in, this big tax loophole by the Liberals in 2000, the increase in drinking on the part of young females was huge. That's why I say massive public health -
MITCHELL: But Prime Minister, you've got a $300 million opportunity here to do something and it strikes me that for political reasons you won't do it.
PM: No, it strikes me that there's an overwhelming political deal between the Liberal Party and the alcohol industry to use this hush money to make them appear to be more moral than they are. If the alcohol industry Neil, who are working in absolute cahoots with the Liberal Party, are now being struck by conscience, then let their conscience be individually resolved in terms of what they do with the money.
MITCHELL: But why won't you, I mean I repeat it's the poacher in charge of the game reserve. Why don't you use the money to do it?
PM: Well the poachers seem to be in cahoots with the Liberal and National Parties because they were the ones who actually rejected this tax increase in the first place. It's the right thing to do for public health reasons. You know all the groups out there in Australia are in support of it. And we're not about to allow the Liberal Party to claim some sort of hush money, some sort of bandaid, as some sort of excuse for them doing the wrong thing.
I said to them in the Parliament yesterday Neil this. I said each and everyone of you know that what you've done with this measure is the wrong thing. Not a single person raised a voice of objection. It's a triumph of ideology over common sense and the people who will pay for this are emergency workers, our police, those who have to deal with the challenge of binge drinking in the emergency departments of our hospitals.
MITCHELL: Can I ask one very quick question, we've only got a few seconds left. The IMF forecasts are much worse than expected. It will obviously affect your Budget. Are the pension rises locked into the Budget?
PM: We've said and I've said I think repeatedly on your program Neil, that we will honour our commitments on pension reform. And you're right, global economy's getting worse, our job is to deal with what the global recession serves up to us. These recent reports make it worse, it will obviously have an effect on our Budget bottom line. But we intend to get on with the business of delivering pension reform.
MITCHELL: Thank you very much. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
[ends]