JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, certainly. And just for the record this doorstop has been called because you';ve asked for one! Okay.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you regret saying that the Australian Government knew last year that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when today you said that it was based on material [inaudible]imprecise science?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I said last year that there was imprecision. Louise, I don';t regret anything that I';ve done in relation to this matter. I stand by the Government';s decision. I don';t resile from it. The world and the Middle East in particular is a better place without Saddam Hussein. The intelligence that was available to the Government at the time fully justified the decision that was taken.
JOURNALIST:
But you didn';t know…
PRIME MINISTER:
The intelligence that was available to the Government at the time fully justified the decision. All intelligence involves judgement. There is no such thing as, and there never has been, intelligence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a criminal court jury that something that you believed to be the case is in fact the case and I can only repeat what I';ve said earlier that was the right decision. The evidence to date is that there WMD programmes. David Kay has testified to that. There is debate about the extent of aspects of it and that debate will go on. But the intelligence was there and it would have been wrong of the Government, in my view, not to have accepted that intelligence. The other point I';d make is that everybody else said there was WMD. Simon Crean said it, Kevin Rudd said it, even the Germans and the Russians said it and Jacques Chirac almost said it. So people weren';t arguing a year ago about whether or not there was WMD, they were arguing as to how you should respond to Iraq';s continued non-compliance with resolutions of the United Nations and the legal justification, as you will recall from the legal opinion we tabled in the Parliament, was very largely Iraq non-compliance with Security Council resolutions. So I am utterly firm in my view that we took the right decision and nothing frankly is going to alter that view.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, would you have gone to war if you knew about the intelligence…
PRIME MINISTER:
You act according to the information you have available to you at the time and frankly that is just an absurdly hypothetical question.
JOURNALIST:
Your Government has the power to vet the parliamentary report …
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we don';t have the power to vet it. Vetting suggests that we in some way approve or disapprove. We don';t. In now way will the Government, the political arm of Government in any way vet that report. We are required to pass it on by law to the agencies responsible to us, namely the defence intelligence organisation and the Office of National Assessments. But the political arm of Government is merely a conduit for obtaining the views of those agencies as to whether or not the material contained in the report when disclosed might in some way prejudice security interests. I want to make it perfectly clear that we will not in any way seek to interfere with what is in the report. It is a report of the committee. We don';t vet it. We act as the ministerial conduit so that if the agencies have concerns on security grounds they can pass them back.
JOURNALIST:
… argument for releasing it this morning, seeing the report you said there…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it';s not my report.
JOURNALIST:
You said this morning on radio that you';ve seen the content.
PRIME MINISTER:
No but it';s not my report to release. It belongs…
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it will be released. It will be tabled in the parliament when the committee having discharged all of its legal obligations deems it necessary to table it.
JOURNALIST:
… discussions that you';ve had, personal discussions that you';ve had.
PRIME MINISTER:
Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Can you tell us a little bit more about the personal discussions…?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I can';t and I won';t because it wouldn';t be appropriate to do so. I was merely making the point by referring to those discussions, I was merely making the point that overwhelmingly, or as it was an Australian contribution at various points, overwhelmingly the raw intelligence that was assessed by our agencies came from British and American sources – that was the point I was seeking to make.
JOURNALIST:
… your personal discussions.
PRIME MINISTER:
Louise, I don';t have anything to say about those personal discussions, full stop.
JOURNALIST:
What were you being told by Australian intelligence…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Australian agencies were providing advice on which our decision was taken.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I am, Chris has been a terrific local member, she has won that seat in very challenging circumstances politically for the Liberal Party back in 1990, I think she originally won the old seat of Hawker and then as a result of the distribution it sort of morphed into Hindmarsh and she';s held it ever since. I wish her well, although I';m sorry that she won';t be recontesting because she';s a valued colleague and a great campaigner, I understand that she has decided for a combination of personal reasons, which I fully respect, to move onto another phase of her life career and I wish her and her husband Alex and their family every happiness.
JOURNALIST:
A local question Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
There is concern within the Liberal Party here in Western Australia that you won';t contemplate sharing the revenue from the Gorgon gas deal or encouraging the developers to put that processing plant on shore which would be a boost to the state economy. Why won';t you do that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the revenue sharing arrangements at the moment are appropriate, the revenue from these resources belongs to all of the Australian people, and that was the understanding, it';s always been the understand, I';ve explained that position to the Western Australian Government and I';ve also, I mean I haven';t had frankly, I don';t recall incidentally anybody in the Liberal Party approaching me about it, I mean they may have.
JOURNALIST:
They say they did.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well all I can say is I don';t, you know it';s not strong in my mind.
JOURNALIST:
… they say that it will be a valuable infrastructure…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean in the end those sort of decisions have got to be made by the private sector people, I mean…
JOURNALIST:
… reason for its decision to leave rates unchanged?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Reserve Bank has an independent role in the setting of monetary policy and I';m not going to tell the Reserve Bank how to phrase its press releases, you either let it have its role in monetary policy or not. There';s no doubt that the bank has good reason for the decision that it has taken, I simple not the fact that the average home buyer as a result of the interest rate falls under my government is about $540 a month better off than it would have been if the high interest rates of Labor had continued.
Thank you.
[ends]