MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Neil.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, I'm intrigued that you've directed government agencies and departments to dump their logos and replace them with the coat of arms, what's that going to cost?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it won't cost a great deal because they're going to be required to run down their existing stocks of stationery and signage and as they need new stocks they will replace it with a common logo.
MITCHELL:
Why, why are you doing it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because we are the one government and I think the idea that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia should have a different tag and a totally different identification - if it is the Department of the Environment as distinct from being the Department of the Treasury is silly. It's not going to affect in any way the identification of the defence forces, nothing like that is going to be altered but where you get correspondence and so forth between the department, as an ordinary department, I think it should be the same logo. I think this idea, in a sense, all having different brands when it's the one government is confusing.
MITCHELL:
And it will be the coat of arms will it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, the Australian coat of arms and just an indication that it's the Australian Government.
MITCHELL:
It's an interesting idea because I noticed the Australian Cricket Board is backing away from the coat of arms. They've already replaced it on their whites and they're going to replace it on their blazer as well. I don't think they're going to touch the baggy green but they're going to replace it…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they better not. I mean, you've got to draw the line somewhere.
MITCHELL:
And what did you think of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
What?
MITCHELL:
Of them replacing it on the blazer and on their whites with the logo of the Australian Cricket Board?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, it's a matter for them. I never like seeing the Australian coat of arms diminished.
MITCHELL:
And what do you think of America's decision to display the bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very understandable in the special circumstances. You wouldn't normally do that but very understandable.
MITCHELL:
So what do you see as those circumstances?
PRIME MINISTER:
The circumstances that a lot of Iraqi people, because of the reign of terror over several decades, are still disinclined to believe that these two characters are dead. And if it helps to stabilise the situation in Iraq, if it helps to win more hearts and minds then go to it. I think it's an entirely justified thing.
MITCHELL:
Do we have…has the Australian Government been given other evidence that these men are dead?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't have any evidence other than what you have but that evidence is pretty compelling, it includes dental records and dental records have long been an accepted means of identification for police and coronial purposes. In fact, until the DNA revolution the dental records were amongst the most commonly employed international methods of identification.
MITCHELL:
There has been argument already this could be in breach of the Geneva Convention, which we discussed a lot during the war, is that a possibility?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't had any advice on that but if it were in breach it would be, how should I put it, an excusable, understandable, permissible breach in all of the circumstances. I mean, what is more at stake here, the protection of the dignity in death of two monsters…
MITCHELL:
Well, they do deserve dignity in death, everybody does.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah I know, but of two monsters or perhaps saving more lives in Iraq. I mean, just remember, Neil, how long after World War II that many people disbelieved that Hitler had been killed and many of them thought he was in South America with other former Nazis or Nazis and it really wasn't until the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of the KGB files in the early '90s that there was final, conclusive, unarguable, indisputable proof. Now, a lot of people it didn't bother, they just accepted that his regime had gone because it was quite plain conditions of…in the circumstances of unconditional surrender. Now, that's not - it's not quite the same thing in Iraq. You still have people who are quite frightened that the regime will come back.
MITCHELL:
Do you also accept we've got a guerilla war in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we've certainly got resistance. Whether you could say it's a guerilla war, I don't know.
MITCHELL:
And do you think the death of these two men will bring it an early end?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it will help, I don't think it will end it, I think it will help.
MITCHELL:
By the way, there's another issue I asked you about a couple of weeks ago, did you ever establish when you were told that Australian authorities…agencies had doubts about the information of Iraq trying to buy uranium in Africa?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can answer that. The statement that I made about the conclusion of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, that has not been disproved, so that still stands.
MITCHELL:
No, but we know the agencies had [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the material that came to them that had that reservation from the State Department buried under a paragraph in an annex, dealing with aluminium tubes. I was informed about that probably three weeks ago when the Office of National Assessments, in the wake of that material in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald about that fellow Wilson, they got in touch with my office and said they had received this document as had the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Intelligence Organisation and for, I think, very understandable reasons did not pass it on.
MITCHELL:
The Solomons and historic pictures in newspapers and on TV of the Australian troops arriving there. What would your guess be, how long will they be there?
PRIME MINISTER:
I expect and I'm certain the police will be there a lot longer than the forces. I hope the military personnel can be brought back fairly soon. I don't want to commit myself to a time, that's dangerous because I don't know. But if the local population cooperates very readily and the police settle in after a reasonable period of time, not too long, we should be able to bring the military people back because there'll be no ongoing danger with the police. But elements of the police could be there for a year or two, perhaps even more.
MITCHELL:
Do you see this potentially as being as dangerous as Iraq for Australians?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not has dangerous as Iraq but still dangerous. You have got some hundreds of people who at best could be described as criminals and at worst something more serious.
MITCHELL:
What would be worse, terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I suppose it's a question of whether…how you define a criminal, somebody who just engages in completely random acts of violence in order to undermine general law and order in a community perhaps is meriting a description other than a criminal.
MITCHELL:
But what's that description, a terrorist?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you could call somebody…or an urban guerilla.
MITCHELL:
Are you putting them into that category?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well some of them might be, I haven';t used the words terrorists and I don';t want to because in the current debate it has a special connotation and I don';t want to be accused of hyping up a difficult situation, but nonetheless a situation which is essentially a law and order challenge and nothing else at the moment.
MITCHELL:
We';ll take a quick call for the Prime Minister, Richard go ahead please.
CALLER:
G';day Mr Howard, how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Good thanks.
CALLER:
That';s good. I think you';ve done a pretty good job under the circumstances of this national security but I just wonder why you don';t revisit the Australia card national identification card so we';ve all got an identification card and, you know the one I';m talking about.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I do. We opposed it back in the 1980';s.
MITCHELL:
Have you changed your mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven';t changed my mind, it';s the sort of thing that I understand why people like Richard raise it, and there';s a healthy debate to be had on it. But as I currently feel I haven';t changed my mind, but I';m always ready to hear people';s views on it.
MITCHELL:
Thank you Richard. It';s reported today Prime Minister that you want to set up a panel to assess balance within the ABC. What if the ABC resists that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven';t made any decision on that, I have expressed a view before, publicly, that the best way for the ABC to be seen to be dealing with complaints about bias would be to have a completely independent review process. But I haven';t got to a stage of having any discussions of substance with Richard Alston or the ABC or anybody else.
MITCHELL:
So these reports are misguided are they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven';t actually seen them, I understand it';s in one of the Melbourne papers, I';ve been told about it, I haven';t actually read the report. I would have talked about the issue with a number of my colleagues, certainly, but not in the sense of saying well look we should do this rather, consistent with what I said at the press conference in Canberra earlier this week, I was asked about the reply and I gave the response that it would be better if there were an arms length independent assessment process.
MITCHELL:
Is, well I mean there';s a basic point to it, is there is a culture of bias within the ABC?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s, depends a bit on what the programmes are, I mean there is no doubt, I thought the coverage of the Iraq war by the AM programme was broadly as Senator Alston argued, I did and I listen to AM carefully, I listen to all these programmes carefully, I should - must. Things vary, and those complaints were rather specific.
MITCHELL:
We';ll take a break, come back with more for the Prime Minister, if you';d like to speak to him 9696 1278.
[commercial break]
MITCHELL:
Fourteen to nine, you can speak to the Prime Minister and you can speak to Rex Hunt later, goodness me what a double. Dino, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister, thank you very much for being patron of our Weary Dunlop appeal, I was saddened to hear that we have to display the bodies of those criminals and I was reminded of Weary Dunlop saying that we';re all equal in suffering and death. But what I wanted to remind the listeners too was that today we have a number of volunteers in the city that will be selling images, lapel pins of Weary Dunlop.
MITCHELL:
Yeah, we';ll talk about that a little bit later Deano. Just hang on. But that';s an interesting point, we';re all equal in death.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I don';t contest that for a moment. But what you';ve got here is a balance of evils if you like. It';s undesirable that somebody';s body should be displayed, not being displayed incidentally in any kind of exploitive fashion.
MITCHELL:
That';s an interesting point. You said it';s to convince obviously the people of Iraq. Should the bodies be shown in the Australian media?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for individual media outlets. I turned on the Channel Nine news at six o';clock this morning and I notice that Channel Nine had taken a decision not to display the bodies.
MITCHELL:
Is it necessary in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
I picked up the Australian newspaper and they had taken a different view. Now look, I don';t really think that on something like this I feel that strongly that I';m going to start saying to the Australian media you should or shouldn';t be doing it. I do respect their right to exercise independent editorial judgements and I think it';s interesting that on something like this two very reputable news organisations, the Nine Network and News Limited, have taken different views and I';m not taking sides on that. I mean they';ve got to take a decision and I think either view is perfectly respectable.
MITCHELL:
What';s the ABC done do you know?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know. But whichever they view I will respect that decision. I don';t think I should become a commentator on the editorial policies.
MITCHELL:
I thought every politician wanted to be an editor.
PRIME MINISTER:
Perhaps sometimes we should exercise self restraint and not do it. But on the core issue I think the Defence Department in America, the Pentagon, is right because because the greater public good is done by persuading more Iraqis that these two monsters are dead than preserving the principle of which that gentleman properly spoke. Now, you know, people will disagree with me on that but that won';t be the first time.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, just back to the issue of the Solomons, I assume this is an indication by what you';ve said through this week that Australia is going to play a more active role in the region, if we go the Solomons, if other countries get into trouble or have similar problems we will be there.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we';re not just saying in advance that we';re going to intervene whenever we';re asked. Obviously you';ve got to look at the circumstances of each case. But what I was signalling was that Australia has changed its policy. It';s no longer good enough to say well if a state fails that';s too bad because if it fails that failure can bite us at some time in the future through greater regional instability, criminal behaviour, drug running, possibly terrorism. And also we are neighbours and friends of these countries. We are much stronger and more prosperous and more powerful, bigger, and we have some moral obligations to help.
MITCHELL:
Does this mean greater spending on defence? I notice here you said this could cost up to $300 million a year. Are you going to have to spend more money?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I';ve been saying for some time that I only see an upward slope in the amount of money this country spends on defence for some years into the future.
MITCHELL:
Now your friend, Pru Goward, has had a bit of a hit, well not a hit but she';s reacted to some of the things you';ve been saying about men and shared responsibility to parenting if a marriage breaks up. She says that men are more concerned by their rights than their responsibilities. Now from what I read I didn';t think she was quite in the real world but what was your reaction to it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it depends. Some men are entirely responsible and some are irresponsible, and so are some women.
MITCHELL:
But she';s suggesting that men should be working part time and more flexible hours.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that is a matter for husbands and wives to work out between themselves. See the question of whether a mother stays at home full time when kids are young or a father stays at home full time or it';s a mixture of the two is entirely a matter of individual choice. It';s not for me to say every man should have a certain number of hours doing certain things or every woman should do that. It';s a matter for couples to work out.
MITCHELL:
[inaudible] pressures of the real world aren';t there [inaudible] a lot of men will have to work….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well of course, and I mean the reality is that forever and a day you';re going to have situations where men have certain roles as parents and women have certain roles. It';s a question over the long term for those roles to be shared in an equal and reasonable fashion and it';s up to the individuals involved to work out what that may be. It';s not up for people like me or you or Pru Goward or anybody else to tell people what their roles in marriage should be.
MITCHELL:
Did you ever pick the kids up from school?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course. And I used to bath them, I used to do a lot of those things. But I don';t, you know, I';ve never sort of talked a great deal about it because I wanted to do it and I regarded it as a perfectly normal thing to do.
MITCHELL:
Yeah I think a lot of dads feel guilt though that they can';t do it often enough.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I think that is right and I think they';d like to do it more and I strongly encourage employers to have more flexible hours for both men and women. I';m all in favour of that. But what I';m really even more in favour of is respecting the right of individual husbands and wives, of couples to work these things out between themselves and basically if you allow people to work it out themselves they';ll do it properly. But there';ll always be some things that men overwhelmingly do and things that women overwhelmingly do and I don';t think we should get too hung up about that. It';s just a question that over the long haul, if I can put it that way, there';s a fair sharing of burdens and an acceptance by men that having a male role model for kids when they';re young is so critical and one of the things that';s motivated me to have this committee look at this issue is my worry that in separated situations too many boys are growing up without male role models and that';s a very bad thing.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, Bali, I read that the government will pay for 1500 family members to go back to the anniversary. Is that accurate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. I';ve approved arrangements that will provide financial help to close family members to go to Bali for the observance of the anniversary of the tragedy.
MITCHELL:
Do you intend to go yourself?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do. I certainly do intend to go and as I say I';ve approved these arrangements and we';ll be communicating with the families. And some families will not want to take up the offer of assistance. Obviously it';s a matter for them. But I';ve approved arrangements which will make it possible in the case of a family that would have lost a son or a daughter, mother and father and siblings to go if they wish.
MITCHELL:
We';ll be broadcasting [inaudible]. It';s going to be a very important….
PRIME MINISTER:
It will be. I would expect there to be a very significant outpouring of public emotion on the occasion and a proper dignified observance is entirely appropriate and I think the Australian people will want it. It would also be the government';s intention as well as organising the observance in Bali to have separately in Canberra later that same week a memorial service in the Great Hall because there will be some people who will not be able to go to Bali or may not want to go to Bali because they may find it too harrowing to actually go to where their loved ones were killed.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, thanks you for your time. 64th birthday tomorrow, happy birthday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you very much.
MITCHELL:
What are you planning?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will just spend a very quiet day with my family and then in the evening once again with my family I';ll be going to see Australia and New Zealand play in the rugby union Bledisloe Cup match in Sydney.
MITCHELL:
Hoping for a new train set, or what are you hoping?
PRIME MINISTER:
Gone past of all that, it';s good to be alive and healthy and you feel that more strongly as each year goes by don';t you?
MITCHELL:
Not yet at my age. Would you, when you were 20, would you have expected to be here at age 64 as Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh no, certainly not as Prime Minister. I guess I would have hoped that I';d be alive when I was 64. If I'd thought about, although my father sadly he didn';t make that age, he died in his late 50';s, but my mother made older bones, she went well into her 80';s. But I guess I would have thought if I was asked, that I';d make the age of 64 but I would certainly not of dreamt I was Prime Minister.
MITCHELL:
Proud of yourself?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean look I just hope I';ve done some good things for the country and I';ve got the opportunity of doing them for a while into the future.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]