JONES:
PM, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Alan.
JONES:
Prime Minister, headlines today say that a chasm has emerged between your Government and the Labor Opposition over national security as a result of Mark Latham saying he would pull Australian troops out of Iraq. Is this playing into the hands of terrorists?
PRIME MINISTER:
If we keep talking, or anybody in Australia in authority keeps talking about pulling out troops before the job is finished, it';s sending the wrong signal to the terrorists in Iraq, it';s sending the wrong signal to our allies and most of all, it';s sending the wrong signal to the Iraqi people. At the moment, people should be holding firm and staying strong. We don';t know when our job will be finished in Iraq. It certainly won';t be finished, as Mr Latham falsely claims, on the 30th of June this year. I mean that is unrealistic, but that is essentially what he said. And I hope he reconsiders his position. It is not in Australia';s interests for there to be a chasm on this issue. Whatever our differences may have been about going into Iraq, surely we can agree that our people should stay the distance and finish the job. It';s not the Australian way not to stay the distance.
JONES:
So on this critical issue, should we be singing off the one sheet of music as a nation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I think it would be better. I mean, you know, we live in a democracy and an Opposition Leader is entitled to take any position he chooses. But I ask him to think again because it is sending the wrong signal. Mr Rudd, his Foreign Affairs spokesman, had a different view only four months ago. I mean he was critical of us going into Iraq – I don';t agree with him on that, but that was his position – but he said we had to finish the job. In November of last year, he was actually arguing that we should increase our presence, not hugely, but in training areas and the like he was arguing we should actually have an increased presence. And he kept saying that we, as one of the coalition of the willing, had ongoing responsibilities to the people of Iraq. Now he was right.
JONES:
I thought Mark Latham said that on Tuesday too. He said Australia had a responsibility to rebuild Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but he defines the completion and the discharge of that responsibility as the point of handover to the Iraqi people, which is projected on the 30th of June. Now that';s not right.
JONES:
The Australian Defence Association is saying that Mr Latham';s planned withdrawal could make Australian troops in Iraq a bigger target for terrorists who… as a result of someone wanting them to be pulled out.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I';ve read that. I mean that';s… I';m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that assessment. That';s an assessment made by an independent body composed, in the main, but not only of former defence personnel, and you have to listen to what they have to say. I';m not seeking to overstate any case on this. I';m asking Mr Latham to think again because it really is very foolish for him to be talking about pulling out at a time when the world requires people to hold firm. I mean it does send the wrong signal to…
JONES:
John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for the presidency in America, has rejected Spain';s decision to withdraw. It appears as though in many parts of the world where oppositions are in opposition to the war, they nonetheless are still supporting the presence of troops now in Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s true. Both Kerry, the alternative President in the United States, and Michael Howard, the alternative Prime Minister in Great Britain, both of them have rejected the line that Mark Latham is advancing. Both of them have. Now, these are matters that we decide ourselves. Of course you do. That';s not at issue. But the Government believes that to set any artificial deadline will send the wrong signal and it will certainly send the wrong signal to our allies, particularly the United States. Now, people can have debates about whether they are strongly or not so strongly in favour of the American alliance, but at this time in the world';s history, it';s very important that we all work together and show a united front in curing these problems.
JONES:
Has this become too politicised? I noticed that Michael Costello, who is the former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, that interestingly under the Labor Government was the former head of Foreign Affairs and also a former Chief of Staff to Kim Beazley, a former diplomat, and he';s worked for the Office of National Assessments, he recently wrote that if you pulled troops out of Iraq, what other demands of Osama bin Laden do you meet, and he said if we were to pull out tomorrow, that is not going to solve our problem. So Michael Costello, formerly on Kim Beazley';s staff, is virtually echoing your sentiments.
PRIME MINISTER:
No doubt on something like this, his view would be the same as mine and he does understand these things.
JONES:
He said what bin Laden has been saying since September 11th makes it clear that we were a terrorist target even before then.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, there is no doubt in the world about that, that we';ve been a terrorist target at least since the 11th of September, perhaps before. There';s no argument about that. And there are acts of terrorism being committed in Iraq and if we, who are seen as properly and unapologetically a staunch ally of the United States and others and involved in the coalition of the willing, if we are seen to be looking as though we might be cutting and running, that will send a very bad signal to all the wrong people.
JONES:
In recent days, not in recent days but in the last couple of months, we';ve learned that there is people including people like Willie Brigitte and others with unpronounceable names to most Australians, but including some clerics, have been in Australia allegedly recruiting people to the terrorist cause. The electorate would say to you I suppose as our Prime Minister – do you know where they are, do you know who they spoke to, do you know who they met, do you know what they were saying, do you know whether there are any here today? Do we believe our intelligence people are on top of this issue, and if they';re still here, shouldn';t they be interned?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan, I';d say in answer to that that we do know a good deal. Reasons that I know people will understand prevent my going into the detail of that. I am in very, very regular touch with the Director-General of ASIO to talk about these matters. The threat and the known presence of terrorist operatives in Australia is nowhere near as bad as it is in other countries, but having said all of that, we continue to warn people that there could be an attack in Australia. There are people of concern. We will deal with them in accordance with the law. People who are Australian citizens, wherever they may have been born, have rights and they cannot be automatically thrown out of the country and we';re not arguing that. However, we continue to want to strengthen the anti-terrorist laws and there will be further changes brought forward to the Parliament very soon by the Attorney General. We continue to look at ways of strengthening our surveillance of people, respecting of course that we are a democracy and we have to worry about the rights of innocent people.
JONES:
Talking about attacks, one of your critics in the media said recently – Howard is fighting for his political life against an electorate weary of a three-term Government and against an Opposition with an engaging leader and an opportunity to dominate the domestic agenda. How does the Prime Minister respond to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I';ve read that quite a bit lately. That';s how I';d respond to it. Alan, this will be resolved when the election is held. The Australian people, and with great respect to your profession, and not journalists, will decide whether they';re weary of a third-term Government. The Australian people will decide who they want to keep in charge of the national security of this country and the economy of this country, and whatever that decision is, I will accept it. But it';s the Australian people who decide those things and I';ve been in politics long enough to know that premature declarations of political death are a dime a dozen, and there have been a lot of them made in the past and there will be a lot of them made in the future. Some of them will turn out to be true and some will be false, but I can tell your listeners I';ll be setting out to prove this particular one totally false.
JONES:
There is an intergovernmental agreement, isn';t there not, from 1999, prior to the GST coming in, which is the State and Federal Governments would review stamp duty on a whole range of issues. Are you going to be putting a proposal, because there is a meeting I know of Government Finance Ministers on Friday, an annual meeting. Are you going to be asking the states to drop a whole stack of business stamp duties in the light of growing GST payments?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we continue to argue, for example, that the states should cut stamp duty. I mean we';ve said that and we';ll say that in…
JONES:
And that';s the only… is that the only power you';ve got, to argue, or can you do more?
PRIME MINISTER:
We don';t have any power to compel them to drop state taxes. The only people who can compel them to drop state taxes are their own voters. I can';t make the Government of New South Wales reduce stamp duty. They';re getting an absolute bonanza out of stamp duty in New South Wales. But I think it would be good, and we';ll continue to argue that. What Peter Costello will be demonstrating on Friday at this meeting that you referred to, is the way in which speaking collectively of the states, the degree of it varies between states, just how much they have been strengthened and enriched through the introduction of the GST that they opposed.
JONES:
Okay. The Productivity Commission are going to present their report on improved… on how to improve housing affordability later this month. Do you know much about that? Do you know what recommendations…
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know the recommendations.
JONES:
Is one of them to waive stamp duty?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that was canvassed in the draft report. I frankly do not know. I haven';t seen the final report yet. I';d be surprised if it weren';t referred to. I';d be very surprised. But I do not at this moment know exactly what is in that report.
JONES:
On competition policy, I';ve asked you this before and I';m getting a stack of letters…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I understand that.
JONES:
… genuine fear in pharmacy, dentistry, optometry and so on, that someone like a Nelson Rockefeller can come in now and own all the pharmacies, all the dentistry';s, all the optometry businesses. I mean…
PRIME MINISTER:
That sort of thing is not going to happen.
JONES:
Do we need National Competition Policy though to…
PRIME MINISTER:
I think competition policy has given a lot of benefits.
JONES:
Sure, but in relation to pharmacies.
PRIME MINISTER:
Lower interest rates, lower telecommunication…. However, you';ve got to keep a balance, and all of these things require that there be a balance and we';re… theory may seem to go beyond common sense, well you don';t allow that to occur. But each individual area has got to be looked at and tested according to that proposition.
JONES:
But legislation is already in the State Parliaments about pharmacies and optometries and…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes well that… the particular issue of pharmacies is one that we are looking at. I do understand the issues there. There was an agreement between the Pharmacy Guild and the Government a few years ago arising out of a report chaired by a man called Warwick Wilkinson. There was an agreement entered into with the Guild. Now the Federal Government hasn';t walked away from that agreement. We are listening to what the industry is saying and we are having a look at that at the present time.
JONES:
Right. But I mean there is a proposal by the National Competition Council saying New South Wales… to withhold about $51 million worth of payments to New South Wales if they don';t, I use the word loosely, deregulate optometry, pharmacy, dental, liquor outlets and so on. Is that where competition policy should be heading, so that at the end of the day you';ve got Coles at one end of town, Woolworths at the other, and in between all the small businesses will be chewed up.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s not what I want, it';s not what the public wants, and that won';t be allowed to happen. The public of course wants the cheapest possible deal, and sometimes having a cheaper deal involves changes in market shares. I mean you';ve got to balance the rights of the consumer with the legitimate interests of the small operator, and I am never going to walk away from the interests of the small operator, but you';ve got to make sure that the rules you have to protect the small operator don';t prevent the legitimate expansion of competition, including the entry into the market of new small operators.
JONES:
Absolutely, absolutely. Well see sometimes at the end of the day, we might find ourselves finishing up with greater monopolies than we had at the beginning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is argued and we don';t want that to occur, and it shouldn';t be allowed to occur. But equally fear of that should not be allowed to prevent the entry into an existing market of a new competitor who himself is a small operator.
JONES:
Right. Just a final question. Some callers have rung here this morning. These two Australian girls due in Sydney this morning after eight years in a Thai jail. They got 50 years. They boarded a Qantas flight, they bid farewell to other inmates, and under a prisoner exchange treaty they come home. Now many people are saying, well why should that be? These people, if we';ve going to send a message out about drug taking, these people enter these countries knowing what the risk is of trafficking in drugs, they';re trafficking in drugs to make money and bring the drugs home which kill our kids. What is the purpose of these exchange treaties to bring people home to a lighter sentence than the punishing country imposed upon them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I understand that and I don';t have any sympathy for people who go to other countries and knowingly break the law. I don';t. We, for a range of bilateral reasons, we have prisoner exchange agreements with different countries. These people will still be in jail in Australia. They won';t be let out, as I understand it. I don';t know all of the details, and there is a suggestion that the sentence will reflect what would have been imposed by an Australian court, and I guess if you';re going to be put in jail in Australia, that should be the situation. I understand what your callers are saying. I reckon that people who go to other countries and knowingly break the law don';t have any ground for complaint.
JONES:
Okay. Thanks for your time today. We';ll talk again soon.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thanks Alan.
[ends]