JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, John, Ross.
JOURNALIST:
Good morning, Mr Howard. Mr Howard, yesterday Defence Minister, Robert Hill, said that Australia supports the missile defence shield that has been proposed for the United States, the so-called 'star wars' concept. How seriously are we looking at that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I believe we've got to discuss the issue with the United States. We're talking here about the possibility of a defensive shield against ballistic missile attack being developed. I would have thought that if we are, as we are, legitimately concerned about North Korea and if North Korea does have missiles that can reach all sorts of countries including Australia, I would have thought the Australian people would want us to look at something that might defend us against that possibility and that's what the Defence Minister was talking about. We haven't committed to it. And this missile defence system is, of course, still a long way off and it may, in fact, not be achievable. It's very complicated, it's very expensive, it's very technical but it might, if it were developed, it might provide countries with the ultimate defensive shield against a missile attack. Now, once again, wouldn't the Australian public at least want us to have a look at it and that is what the Government has said it's going to do. We haven't made any commitment, we don't know whether it's achievable but surely if we are concerned about North Korea, and we have reason to be concerned about North Korea, our first responsibility is to investigate ways of protecting Australia against dangerous behaviour by North Korea.
Now, I am amazed that the Labor Party is against us doing even that. The Labor Party has been jumping up and down and saying, do something about North Korea, North Korea is the main game and the Defence Minister says, well we are willing to talk to the United States about the possibility of this and the Labor Party says, no, don't do that. Well, I am just flabbergasted because we are dealing here with the defence of Australia. We're dealing here with giving ourselves the capacity for some kind of defensive shield. Now, let me emphasise yet again that the technology is not fully developed, it's still in a exploratory, experimental stage and what Robert Hill has said is, we're going to talk to the United States about it, we're not making any commitment at this time, we're not making any financial commitment, we understand the arguments that are advanced about if one country in our region does what we're doing, will another country retaliate by doing something else. We understand all of those arguments but can I say to the people who put those arguments that right at the moment we know that North Korea is being difficult and I would have thought the world has got to do two things about North Korea. Firstly, deal effectively with Iraq so that you demonstrate a willingness to deal with rogue states because if the world walks away from with dealing with Iraq it will not deal with North Korea, it will not discipline North Korea. North Korea will not take the world seriously if the world does not deal seriously with Iraq. And the second thing that nations ought to be entitled to do is to explore ways of protecting themselves and this missile defence system or so-called son of star wars is...it's not an offensive thing, it's a defensive shield, that's the goal.
Now, I repeat again, it may not be achievable but for heaven's sake, let us have a look at it and not just sort of say, oh no, you can't do that. I mean, the Labor Party says, do something about North Korea, do something diplomatic and they say that's not enough, we then talk about the possibilities and they say, oh no, you can't do that. Well, can I say to them, what can we do? I mean, are we seriously just going to ignore this North Korean issue and I don't think we can and we won't.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you say let's deal with Iraq first, where do we stop after that, do we then go on to North Korea and then do we go on to [inaudible] and then do we...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, the point I'm making Ross, is this, that if you fail to deal with Iraq as an international community, if the Security Council walks away from the challenge of Iraq and doesn't secure Iraq's total disarmament of chemical and biological weapons, then what I say is that it will have no hope, no hope of disciplining North Korea, because North Korea is a country with a more advanced weaponry system, certainly in the nuclear area, and it is as obvious as night following day that if you can't summon the will and the determination to deal with Iraq, you're not going to do it with North Korea. I believe that one of the reasons why North Korea has thumbed its nose at the world over the past few months is that it has looked around the world and seen irresolution and division in relation to Iraq and thought well, if they can't deal with that, they're not going to put us in our box, so we'll be able to flex our muscle. I think it's obvious, and I believe very strongly, that if we do deal firmly but properly with Iraq, that will send a message to North Korea that it does have to take notice of world opinion, and it will make a diplomatic offensive to deal with the North Korean problem that much more achievable.
JOURNALIST:
Alright. Back to Iraq, if we may, for a moment. Now Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta, Jose Ramos-Horta sorry to get the pronunciation correct, and he's also the East Timor Foreign Minister, is now in an article in the New York Times backing a war against Saddam Hussein, but there is not many in our region who are.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the reality is that nobody wants military conflict. I don't want it, you don't, none of your listeners want it. But I don't want a world in which rogue states like Iraq are allowed to have chemical and biological weapons, because not only might they use them against other countries but they might give them to terrorists, and that is the reason why I'm taking the stance I am. And in the end, you have to make a personal judgement after talking to everybody, about what you believe is the right thing, and I believe very strongly that it is in Australia's interests to join in international efforts to have Iraq effectively disarmed.
JOURNALIST:
Wouldn't it be effective though to go for a policy of containment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Containment hasn't worked, because we've been trying that for 12 years and Iraq still has the weapons. I mean containment is fine if it works, and you have the reality now of a greater threat from international terrorists, and containment might have worked way back in the 1950s and 60s in relation to the Soviet Union, because each side then possessed nuclear weapons and you didn't do anything against each other because you were frightened of the consequences. It's the reverse now. If we allow these weapons to remain in Iraq's hands, if other countries take the cue and develop theirs and they hand them to international terrorists, the consequences of that will be infinitely greater than the consequences of taking action now to disarm Iraq. I mean if we do nothing now, we will pay more dearly later on.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, I'm with you on that. I want a better world for my children. But what worries me is that we are at the start of a road here we have no absolutely no idea where we're going after war happens in Iraq, and it is inevitable, I mean there's no other thing about it, it's going to happen. My major concern is that with a world divided, so divided on what should be happening at the moment, we have absolutely no idea where this will head after Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Ross, I understand all of those concerns and I share them, and most people do. You put your finger right on it when you effectively said we're now living in a different world. We are. The old idea of warfare and defence and attack was armies rolling across border. We're now living in a world where the real enemy is international terrorism, which operates in a borderless way and can attack nations and cities from within. Now, you have to adopt different methods and different responses to deal with that challenge, but let's just hypothesise for a moment - let's assume we don't take action to enforce disarmament on Iraq and America withdraws her forces and Australia and the United Kingdom, and the United Nations sort of goes on debating it but really doesn't bring the thing to a head - do you think for a moment that Iraq is going to disarm?
JOURNALIST:
No.
PRIME MINISTER:
Do you think Iraq is going to stop torturing people and murdering people? Do you think Iraq is going to pass up the opportunity of, if it thinks it can further its influence attacking a neighbouring state? Do you think it will stop subsidising the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who strap bombs around themselves and go onto buses in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and kill people? Do you think that's going to stop if the world pulls back from doing something about Iraq? It is an awful dilemma and I don't like it one bit. I wish I were talking to you about other issues, but I have a responsibility to deal with this issue. I have a responsibility to reach a decision and to explain that decision, as I'm doing now, to the Australian people.
JOURNALIST:
What of the argument though, that stamping on the regime of Saddam Hussein will only steel resolve amongst the radical elements in the Muslim and Arab world and make the situation potentially even more volatile in terms of international terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hear that argument and it's fairly raised. My reply to that is to look at the last 12 years. The last 12 years has been a period in which we haven't, to use your expression, stamped on Saddam Hussein. We've endeavoured to contain him. And yet over that 12 year period, we've seen the steady rise of international terrorism and all of the incidents have culminated in the terrible attack on the World Trade Centre in September 2001, the incidents that led up to that - the bombings in East Africa and so forth, the attacks on the American Embassies and so on - all of those things occurred during the period in which we were endeavouring to contain Iraq and not stamp on Saddam Hussein, to use your expression. The causes of terrorism are complicated. They in part are based upon a fanatical hatred of western society. Osama bin Laden's one specific reference to Australian policy was our liberation of East Timor, something that had the support I guess of 85 - 90 per cent of the Australian public. And he singled that out as an evil deed by Australia. Now, you've got a group of fanatics who have a visceral hatred of what the west stands for, and that's not to say that we shouldn't try very hard against all odds to get a fair settlement between the Palestinians and Israel, and I support that, I'm a strong and staunch friend and ally of Israel and I admire the country's stoic persistence very much, but I also respect the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland, and I want both sides of that conflict to be more accommodating. I want the suicide bombing to stop as a prerequisite, but I also want the Israeli leadership to take advantage of any international initiative that brings that parties together.
JOURNALIST:
Now, Saddam Hussein has said no to going into exile. He says he'll die in Iraq. He has also said no now to the destruction of some of the missiles that he has. How long is it before we will have a decision on Australia's involvement, and when do you expect that we'll be going to war, because as I said before, I think it's inevitable.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the focus at the moment is the second resolution in the Security Council. I should say the 18th resolution, but it's the second one of the current phase. And I would imagine that that would be debated over the next couple of weeks. What the outcome will be is hard to predict at the moment. I find it difficult to believe that the British and the Americans would have put that resolution down, had they not believed there was a reasonable chance of getting it through. We don't need another resolution legally to apply force. We don't. There is enough legal authority in the existing Security Council resolutions to do that. I think the advantage of another resolution is that it would bring more countries into the activity. I find it hard to believe that any country that voted for the last resolution, that's the one that led to the weapons inspectors going back in - although it's really American military pressure that put the inspectors back in - I find it hard to believe that anybody who voted for that would vote against the latest resolution from the British and the Americans, because the latest resolution reinforces the expectations of the earlier resolution and really concludes that Iraq has not complied with the terms of the earlier resolution, and clearly she hasn't, and I find it hard to believe. I think you're looking at a debate over the next couple of weeks and we'll then see what emerges from that. As far as Australia's involvement is concerned, we have clearly put ourselves in a position by deploying troops there to participate. I don't run away from that, I did that, and the government has done that quite deliberately because we thought it was the correct thing to do. And obviously, we've been more committed than most other countries, except of course the UK and the Americans. And I don't shy away, I don't walk away from that, but we haven't taken a final last decision to commit to conflict because it's not required and no such request has been received and no such final decision has been made elsewhere.
JOURNALIST:
Well as yet, I guess, Prime Minister. But look, as Ross said. Armed conflict does seem to be inevitable now...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the one thing that would stop it... there is one thing that would might stop it, might...
JOURNALIST:
Very keen to hear this.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, the one thing that might stop it, Ross, is that if all the members of the Security Council got behind this resolution, Iraq would then know that there is no shade of opinion in the rest of the world that doesn't demand of him total disarmament. Right at the moment he thinks that the world is divided on this issue.
JOURNALIST:
The world is divided on this issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, exactly. Now, I mean, people are entitled to have their views and I respect the fact that lots of different leaders and different people have different views. I mean, you're asking me what is likely to achieve a peaceful outcome. Well, that would and he might just, might, just take notice of that. I'm not saying he would and his track record to date indicates that he probably wouldn't, but if there is a faint hope it's that one.
JOURNALIST:
Faint hope is probably the correct expression.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is the best... I have been saying that and using that expression now for some time.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, we've had quite a number of calls about this in the fairly spirited at times debate over our involvement, and that is concern from some of our listeners that any of our military personnel who serve and - heaven forbid, I know that we've got to except the fact that if it comes to conflict there may be casualties or there will be casualties, I guess - can we be assured that our military service personnel who serve in this action will be looked after in terms of compensation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course.
JOURNALIST:
And that their families will be looked after because there have been cases put to us in the past where the bureaucrats have made it pretty hard for some people?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'd be interested to hear the details of where it's claimed that it's been made hard, I'd like to investigate that and I'd invite people who have those concerns to get in touch with me. But I do want to give an assurance that they will be very very fully cared for. There will always be debate, I suppose, about what is the right level of compensation and what is the right level of support. And I think when you're looking at these compensation arrangements you've got to, you don't necessarily compare lump sums because a lot of assistance and compensation which is given to the relatives of servicemen who many lose their lives is in the form of an annual income stream and you've got to calculate the value of that over a long period of time and in many cases it's over quite a long period of life because tragically, the soldiers who may lose their lives are young people, relatively young, so you have to look at it in that light. But speaking very generally, I want to make it very clear that we will be very caring and very supportive if the worst happens.
JOURNALIST:
All right, Mr Howard. Can we change direction here a little, we've got limited time, but I think we need to ask you this question. In view of what's been happening with shareholders - money invested in AMP and other companies - do you ever see a situation where the Government might step in to halt this situation of golden hellos and golden handshakes and actually give the shareholders a bit more of a chance of keeping an eye on things? In other words, CEO's leaving with huge amounts of money in their pockets while companies that they are presiding over flounder, surely needs to be stopped somehow. Is there any...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think...
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] thing that you are able to do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Most people feel that very strongly and I have criticised this in the past and so has the Treasurer. What really angers people is that you have examples of companies doing badly and former CEO's and the like walking away with large payments - that is really what angers people. The remuneration that top executives receive if their company is doing well is probably necessary by world standards, otherwise you won't get the good people and of course it's not only in business that highly performing people get paid huge amounts - they do in the entertainment industry and so forth and that normally passes without any critical comment which, you know, I understand that. But look, I think people have got a right to be angry. It's a big step for the Government to intervene because once the Government intervenes and says - well, you can't pay this man or woman a certain amount of money because the company didn't do well enough, you're effectively saying that you can determine who gets paid what by a private company, that's a very big step that. But what I do think should happen is that the companies themselves, company boards, annual meetings, should take action to curve practices and many companies have in response to the public concern and there are ways in which we could look at whether the, you know, the existing regulations couldn't be altered to discourage the practice. But I really don't want a situation to arise where the Government is effectively running individual companies. I don't believe in that kind of society, I don't think that's very .... but can I say to my fellow believers in private enterprise in the corporate community, the public will lose faith in the system if they think it is unfair. And you can't ask that wage and salary earners on modest incomes to exercise restraint in the national interest if they keep reading of these excesses. You can't blame the ordinary bloke for feeling it's a bit unfair if his fairly modest wage claim is said to be a little excessive and beyond the capacity of the company to afford, then the company's former boss who didn't perform very well, is not only paid a high salary but walks away with a huge amount of money in his pocket. It's the additional amounts rather than the salaries, it's the retirement or separation of severance benefits that many people get very cranky about, not so much a normal retirement benefit of superannuation or a big income, it's these large additional amounts that people cannot understand, applying ordinary principles of Australian justice, they can't quite understand why if you run a company badly you should be rewarded.
JOURNALIST:
So, the long and short of this is that the Government's saying that it's a step, a track that we don't want to go down in terms of...?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm saying to the corporate sector heal yourself on this, please, in your own interests and in the interests of the system that we all believe in. I mean, I believe in a system where companies are allowed to run their affairs without Government intervention, but if they don't run them in a way that meets community standards and community expectations there'll be growing pressure for Governments to intervene, and once Governments intervene you get terrible outcomes, as they don't know how to run companies, they always make bad commercial decisions because it's not their job.
JOURNALIST:
All right, Prime Minister, we're going to have to leave it there. Unfortunately, time has got away on us, but thank you very much for your time this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
JOURNALIST:
Thank you very much. Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard.
[ends]