PM Transcripts

Transcripts from the Prime Ministers of Australia

Howard, John

Period of Service: 11/03/1996 - 03/12/2007
Release Date:
21/11/2003
Release Type:
Interview
Transcript ID:
21014
Released by:
  • Howard, John Winston
Interview with Neil Mitchell Radio 3AW

MITCHELL:

Prime Minister, good morning.

PRIME MINISTER:

Good morning Neil.

MITCHELL:

First of all, just on a lighter note, the rugby, we're not exactly educated in this nonsense here in Melbourne, just how big is this event?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well it's huge, it's mega, it's the game they play in heaven. I like it! The good thing Neil is that its actually grippped the imagination of those parts of Australia that normally follow Australian rules. The match against New Zealand last Saturday night had a viewing audience of 3.1 million, I'm told that the audience in Melbourne watching it was larger by a fraction than the audience in Brisbane watching it, given I know there is a difference in size but Brisbane is traditionally a rugby town rather than an Australian rules town, although the Lions of course won the trophy a couple of times haven't they?

MITCHELL:

They have.

PRIME MINISTER:

But it's very interesting how it's captured the imagination of the Australian public, that wonderful match in Launceston where the Mayor said that if you were born on the odd day of the month you barracked for one team, I think it was Romania, if you were born on the even day of the month you barracked for Namibia. You had the match on the Central Coast of New South Wales between America and Japan and some cheeky Australian t-shirt manufacturers produced one saying the battle of Pearl Harbour, you'd only sort of get away with that in Australia. It really has captured the imagination of people and certainly there's a great buzz in Sydney but also a bit of a buzz around the country.

MITCHELL:

So are the English rugby team are any better than their cricket team?

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, it is, it'll be a tough match, I thought our team in the first half of the match against New Zealand last weekend played the most inspired rugby, the best I've seen of them and there were many people who were fervently hoping they beat New Zealand but never thought it was possible. I think it will be a titanic contest tomorrow night.

MITCHELL:

And we'll win?

PRIME MINISTER:

I hope we'll win but I don't think it's something you can take for granted, I really don't. Jonny Wilkinson, their five-eighth or fly-half as they call it in the Northern hemisphere, I still prefer five-eighth, he's a bloke who is a marvellous kicker with both feet but our backs overall I believe are better and if we can hold them in the forwards we'll make it.

MITCHELL:

And I assume you have or will send a message to the team?

PRIME MINISTER:

Oh yes I have and will continue to do so and I'll certainly be there tomorrow night, it'll be a great finale to what has been a superbly organised sporting tournament, it's the third largest sporting event in the world after the Olympic Games and the World Cup of Soccer and it's a great tribute to the Australian Rugby Union that we've been able to do it so well.

MITCHELL:

And the toughest question today for the Prime Minister, what is a tight end, what is a tight head?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well a tight head is, I suppose, best describes the team that doesn't put the ball in the scrum.

MITCHELL:

Prime Minister, the very serious issue of the day is obviously what's happened in Turkey, 27 people dead, 400 injured, British targets, the British Consul is dead, what was your reaction when you heard that?

PRIME MINISTER:

Horrified, I saw it on television, it's another example of the murderous, indiscriminate character of terrorism. The thought that struck me, well all live in democracies, or certainly we in Australia do and in Britain and the United States and many other countries, but I saw the footage and everything and then I watched the story unfold of how there were going to 60 or 70,000 demonstrators in the streets of London, they weren't demonstrating against the terrorist attack, they were demonstrating against President Bush and Tony Blair, it struck me as rather perverse and odd. They have a right to do so, but I have to right to question why they don't pour their bile and energy of demonstration into an attack on those people who are responsible for perpetrating these things.

MITCHELL:

President Bush and Tony Blair both made the point that this is evidence that they need to push on with the war, the war against terrorism, I'd assume you'd agree with that?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I certainly do agree with this. The terrorist attacks on various targets pre-date the war in Iraq, there will be endless debate about the impact of the war in Iraq on levels of terrorism. The al-Qaeda attack on the United States occurred before the war in Iraq, the number of people of Islamic faith who have died at the hands at terrorists over the past year almost certainly exceeds the number of people of Christian or Jewish or other faiths who've died at the hands of terrorists. The idea that somehow or other if we went away and shrank ourselves into a small ball that the problem would disappear, that's crazy.

MITCHELL:

Do you believe this has the hallmarks of al-Qaeda?

PRIME MINISTER:

There are certainly strong indications, I can't say that definitely it has. There are indigenous terrorist groups in Turkey, there was that outrage at the Synagogues in Turkey only a week ago. It's possible that indigenous groups have been responsible for this, it's possible that they have combined with al-Qaeda, it's possible that al-Qaeda has been the mastermind. Certainly the manner of the execution of the attack is evidence of that.

MITCHELL:

Do you think we're into a new wave? I mean the number of them over recent weeks, you mentioned one, there's been a number, there's Riyadh, a number of them. Are we into a new offensive do you think?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well certainly there has been quite a number of them in the past few weeks, whether that represents a new wave I don't know but there have been more and they have occurred in a range of countries surrounding or part of or in (inaudible) Middle East. Turkey has a history of indigenous terrorist attacks.

MITCHELL:

Do you believe there is a need for us to review our security at Australian outposts?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well that will happen automatically, there were no Australians according to my latest information who were killed in this latest attack. I'm told that something in the order of 12 to 15 British workers at the British consulate and an unknown number of others, probably up to a total of 27 to 28 at this stage have been killed. None of those are Australian, we obviously will be reviewing our travel advisories to people travelling to Turkey. We had previously advised people to exercise extreme caution, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with these things. If you don't warn people in the maximum possible terms about danger you are criticised, if you just tell people to go nowhere at any time that is ineffective, you have to exercise some kind of balance and judgment and that is what we'll try and do.

MITCHELL:

What about our diplomatic posts?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well some of them are obviously quite vulnerable. Our diplomatic missions in places that have been the subject of bomb attacks in the past, take Jakarta and elsewhere, they are a matter of concern, there have been attacks in Indonesia, there was the Marriott hotel attack and of course the Bali tragedy. So it's a more dangerous life, there's no doubt about that and we try and provide maximum protection and I know as a result of this the Foreign Minister will automatically review this, I'm familiar with the area as it happens in Istanbul where that attack took place, I happened to be there in Easter of 2000, my party actually attended an Easter church service in the British consulate**, so it's a very narrow streeted area in Istanbul and it would therefore impose the maximum damage and devastation because so many of the buildings are closely located and also many of them are very old.

MITCHELL:

We'll take a break, it's 17 minutes to nine, we'll come back with more and calls to the Prime Minister, 9696 1278.

[commercial break]

MITCHELL:

It is 14 minutes to nine, the Prime Minister in our Sydney studio. Mr Howard the Free Trade talks, is Australia willing to trade off protection of Australian television and films, the quotas, in Free Trade talks with the United States.

PRIME MINISTER:

We're not willing to give up the existing local content rules, we think they're worth preserving. Obviously in a negotiation like this if we want something big from the Americans then they will want something from us and we are willing to look at some suggestions they might have in other areas, but the line we've taken to date is that the existing local content rules ought to be preserved in relation to existing media. As to some discussion about what might apply to future arrangements then that might be part of the negotiation.

MITCHELL:

The industry is very worried about it.

PRIME MINISTER:

I understand why the industry is worried but a lot of what I've heard is a suggestion that all the existing local content rules are going to go, well that's not our position. People must understand with these things that you can only look at it when you've got a total agreement and see what the benefits for Australia are against the possible detriments. It stands to reason if we can't get something quite big on agriculture then we won't have a Free Trade Agreement. We won't. But to get something big on agriculture, we will obviously have to agree to some things that the Americans put to us.

MITCHELL:

Prime Minister, I'm reluctant to do this, I don't want to seen to be ambushing you, but I haven't got an option really. Maha Habib has called in and she's been our first caller through in fact, her husband is one of the people being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba and well it's an open access thing, she's called in from Sydney and she's on the line. So by way of warning I call you that, Maha Habib, hello?

CALLER:

Yes, hello, good morning Neil, how are you?

MITCHELL:

Okay, you're speaking to the Prime Minister.

CALLER:

Yes, is he listening?

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, I'm listening.

CALLER:

I just want to ask, what are you doing, what are you doing to support my husband as an Australian citizen? Are you there?

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, I've heard. Do you have anything else you want to ask me, it's just that I wanted to give you an opportunity of putting anything to me, if you wished.

CALLER:

My main concern, I've got heaps of questions I would like to have answers for. On behalf of my husband I want to know why this is happening to us and why you're not doing anything to support my husband as an Australian citizen. Why aren't you doing, don't you feel that Bush has used you or used us for coming into our country and saying that he called you man of steel, I don't know what he said to you, but if he did respect you and said that you, your word of honour of this country as being Prime Minister, representing our country.

MITCHELL:

The point is you want to know what the Prime Minister is doing about your husband, is that correct?

CALLER:

Exactly.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I'll be very happy to answer to this. Your husband was, according to our information, picked up in what can generally be called a theatre of war and he's been taken into American custody. He is regarded by the Americans as an illegal combatant. There is no automatic right of repatriation to this country for trial in this country of an Australian citizen who is apprehended overseas. There seems to be a belief in sections of the Australian community that if an Australian is apprehended for something overseas we can automatically demand that they be bought back to be tried in Australia, that's not correct. Any more than an American citizen who is apprehended in Australia for doing something which we regard as against the law, or apprehended elsewhere which is against Australian law, that we have to automatically hand that person over to the Americans. That is not the case, it never has been and it's never likely to be in the future. What we are doing on behalf of your husband and in the name of ensuring that he receives proper treatment is negotiating with the Americans about the conditions that will attach to a military commission trial. We have made a lot of progress, a great deal of progress and quite a number of the things that we have asked the Americans to agree to they have agreed to, I know that the Attorney General has had some very recent further discussions and I hope to have a further discussion with him about this issue within the next little while. We are not indifferent, equally however the Americans because of the nature of the operation in which they were involved in Afghanistan and because of the circumstances that led to their operation in Afghanistan, they have a view on this and they are entitled to have that view. They believe that there have been breaches of American law and that there is a basis for not only your husband but other people being put on trial before a military commission, which is a procedure I understand is sanctioned by the United States constitution and has been used in the past. Now our aim is to ensure that if there is to be a trial of your husband and Mr Hicks, and they're the only two Australians so they are my concern, that those ...that trial and those proceedings are conducted in accordance with ordinary principles of justice.

CALLER:

Are you aware that my husband was picked up before the war had even started...

PRIME MINISTER:

Look, I don't think anything is going to be served by us getting into a debate on the detail...

CALLER:

No, I'm not doing no debate. I just want to ask you...

MITCHELL:

Mrs Habib...

CALLER:

[inaudible] Pakistan, and what it's got to do with America picking him up. They decided to...

MITCHELL:

Mrs Habib, I'm sorry to cut you off but you are speaking with Government officials about these issues, I assume.

CALLER:

No, I'm not.

MITCHELL:

You're not?

CALLER:

No one is giving me no answers.

MITCHELL:

Well maybe the Prime Minister can act on that. I mean there has to be some information.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I don't... let me say immediately Neil, I don't accept that Mrs Habib is not being given answers. I mean I want to put that on the record. I understand and respect the depth and strength of her feeling. Of course I understand that. I'm not disrespectful to that. But I also understand and respect the depth of feeling of the United States having been subjected to an unprovoked, unjustified and vile terrorist attack.

CALLER:

He's been kept for over three years.

PRIME MINISTER:

They took certain action and I can understand how the American people and the American Government feel. Now I've stated what we're doing and I think further discussion about the detail would best be done off air between Mrs Habib and Government officials.

MITCHELL:

Okay, Mrs Habib if you want anything, hang on and I'll make sure we've got a number for you and we can facilitate that if you do need it. Prime Minister, on to another issue. The sheep being fed pig meat. That has been described as a form of terrorism. Do you see it that way?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I'll choose my language. If it's a breach of the law, then the book should be thrown at them. I hope that the book is thrown at them if it's a breach of the law, and it seems on the face of it certainly to be a breach of the law and totally irresponsible and totally indifferent to the fact that the livelihoods of a lot of Australians depend on this trade. You cannot have people taking the law into their own hands. You cannot have people in the name of something that generally speaking is a thing we are all concerned about, and that is avoiding cruelty to animals, but nonetheless recognising that this is a legitimate trade that supports a lot of Australians, you can't have people doing that.

MITCHELL:

Is this threatening continued trade, do you think?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well there is always a danger that the word will get around that we are a potentially unreliable supplier.

MITCHELL:

Just on another thing, the economy - warnings about another rise in interest rates. Is there argument against that?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I don't want to get into an argument on each and every occasion there is a suggestion about a further adjustment. What I have said very carefully, and I ask people to listen carefully to what I say, and that is that I don't think there is a case for any significant increase in interest rates. I don't because...

MITCHELL:

What is significant?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well obviously a lot more than what has occurred to date, let me put it that way. I don't want to get pinned on a precise percentage point or decimal or whatever. But clearly you're going to have adjustments at the margin from time to time, and you can't have a national seminar and a Royal Commission every time there is some relatively minor adjustment. But the fundamentals of the Australian economy are very strong and counterintuitive to an increase in rates. You've got a very strong dollar, mainly fuelled by a weakening American dollar. You've got low inflation. You've got very moderate wages growth because we have high productivity and wages are very much in control and people are not making outrageous demands because they're better off, their wages are going up at a reasonable rate, their interest rates are down, and they've got job security. That's a pretty remarkable trifecta.

MITCHELL:

A personal issue that concerns me - how can we justify... the Australian Research Council has given $880,000 to an academic to write the cultural history of the body in modern Japan. Do you have any clues about that?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don't have a lot. On the face of it, I understand your point. Here of course is this great challenge of academic freedom and independence. Should Governments have the right at a political level to decide where each and every research dollar goes? Most people generally speaking would say no, you've got to let the experts do it. But when the experts do something that most people regard as a bit rich, they say 'what are you doing about it Howard?'. Which is fair enough.

MITCHELL:

And all that extra money for tourism which was announced yesterday, how would you sell Australia? It's a really interesting argument. How do you actually sell Australia to the rest of the world now?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think you probably, in my view, they may not end up doing this so you'll come back and remind me of what I'm about to say, but I think you have to sell Australia in a different way to different people. I think the great thing you sell about Australia is that we're open and friendly and it's a safe country and it's a clean country and it's a country that has a lot of diverse places to visit. We're not just the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge and the Twelve Apostles and the Barrier Reef and Ayers Rock. We're also a lot of other things.

MITCHELL:

What did you see first? The Eiffel Tower or Ayers Rock?

PRIME MINISTER:

I would have seen the Eiffel Tower before I saw...

MITCHELL:

Me too.

PRIME MINISTER:

Yeah. Well see, that reflects our age, although you're 12 years younger than I and I understand that your birthday is today. Happy birthday Neil.

MITCHELL:

You've got good sources.

PRIME MINISTER:

See I'm 64, and that was often the case. I think the later generations would have seen many of those things in Australia before they saw overseas things. That was just the pattern in those days.

MITCHELL:

Well I'm 52. I'll review my future at the end of the year. What about you?

PRIME MINISTER:

I thought you were going to ask me that. I am not getting into that again. My position is I'll continue in this job so long as it's in the interests of the Liberal Party and my colleagues want me to.

MITCHELL:

Thank you very much for your time.

PRIME MINISTER:

Thank you.

[ends]

** Correction : the Easter service was held in Ankara at the British embassy, not the consulate in Istanbul.

21014