MITCHELL:
But first today in our Canberra studio is the Prime Minister. Mr Howard good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, let';s be blunt about this, has Mark Latham put Australian lives at risk by his promise to bring the troops home by Christmas?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is the view of some intelligence experts, I don';t want to make a final judgement on this because I really want to address the merits of this issue. He';s made a very serious mistake, it could have that consequence but I';m not making that claim independently, I';m simply noting that some people believe that but…
MITCHELL:
(inaudible) government intelligence.
PRIME MINISTER:
People like Alan Dupont and Ross Babbage, people who have great standing academically.
MITCHELL:
But the Government must be getting information on this. If that is possible…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can';t, on something like this it';s essentially a judgement issue unless you have some hard intelligence which points to a known response to a particular statement you can';t say you';re getting intelligence on it. But people will make their judgements. The worry I have is that any equivocation, any weakening at the present time will be seen around the world as the product of terrorist intimidation and that is the concern that';s not only been expressed and on behalf of the United States Government and also the Polish Government and I just say myself that whatever your view is that on whether or not we should have been in Iraq, whatever your view is, it is the wrong signal to be sending to the Iraqi people, to the terrorists in Iraq, and certainly the terrorists in Iraq, and there are plenty of them, and they';re linked with al-Qaeda have been frequently asserted, they will see any weakening in the coalition as a sign that they should try harder and that is a worry. And I therefore do again ask Mr Latham, he is the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, the Opposition Leader automatically is and we';re having an election some time in the next year or so, I ask him to reconsider his position because he arrived at it hastily, it';s obvious he didn';t consult anybody, he may have thought it was popular, it may be popular in the short term, I don';t know, but that';s not really the issue. This is an issue of very great substance, this is not some light transitory thing that will disappear in a day or two, this is about a judgement call as to what is the right signal to be sending to people at this very important moment in the experience of the world in fighting terrorism.
MITCHELL:
Well some of your colleagues have been saying that he';s effectively made himself an ally of al-Qaeda by doing this. Do you agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I';m not responsible for every utterance of my colleagues, I';m responsible for my remarks and the direction of the Government';s response. As far as I';m concerned this is a serious error of judgement…
MITCHELL:
Well have you told your backbench people to shut up?
PRIME MINISTER:
I talk to my backbench people a lot but I';m not going into it.
MITCHELL:
Well do you support what they';ve said or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I support what I';ve said.
MITCHELL:
Well do you support what they say?
PRIME MINISTER:
I support their concern, everybody expresses these things differently.
MITCHELL:
It';s fairly intemperate language to be accusing the Opposition leader of being an ally of al-Qaeda, I think you either support them or you don';t.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil everybody uses intemperate language, including the Opposition leader.
MITCHELL:
But these people work for you Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes but they express their own views in their own language and I';m not getting into the business of running a ruler over every single thing they say. You judge the Government';s position on what I say, what Mr Downer says and what other people say, we speak for the Government on these issues.
MITCHELL:
Okay, well it looks like a tactic, it looks like a tactic (inaudible) sit back and let backbench run…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I just…
MITCHELL:
Is it a tactic?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it';s not.
MITCHELL:
So they';re speaking entirely off their own bat?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, there was no tactic.
MITCHELL:
Okay. The comment today is words are like bullets, this is putting our troops at risk.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that came from Ross Babbage.
MITCHELL:
Yes, it did.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he';s one of the people to whom I referred. Now I hope that that';s not right and all Australians must hope that that is not right, but this is a judgement from somebody who';s been a respected commentator on these issues and is not seen as being identified with the Liberal Party. In fact over the years he';s probably taken particularly with I think Mr Beazley who was Defence Minister in the Hawke Government, he probably took positions that were seen to be close to the views of that government so therefore his words carry even more weight. I think there';s a division of opinion inside the Labor Party on this issue, I';m quite certain that Kevin Rudd has been embarrassed by what has happened because four months ago Kevin Rudd was pressing me effectively to increase our presence in Iraq.
MITCHELL:
Are you going to the United States in the near future?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look it is possible but by no means certain and I think at this stage it can be regarded as no more than that, as something that had to be speculated about but by no means certain.
MITCHELL:
Has there been any official concern expressed by the United States on the position of our troops in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well when the Ambassador of the United States speaks that';s an official expression of concern.
MITCHELL:
Well he';s made public statements, has he made statements to the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven';t personally spoken to him and he made those statements of his own volition, but clearly you can';t have a more official statement of a government';s position than a public comment from its Ambassador.
MITCHELL:
Is it his place to make such public comments on a domestic issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s not a domestic issue - the attitude of the United States Government, it';s not his place to express a preference for one side of politics in Australia over another, it';s not his place to comment or intervene in something that is totally domestic, but he is speaking on behalf of his government, the Polish Ambassador has made the same comments to a newspaper this morning, what Mr Schieffer did as I read it was to express the view of his government. It has to be understood that particularly after Madrid any appearance that the Coalition in Iraq was weakening or coming apart would be seen as an enormous encouragement to the terrorists, whatever motives may have been in their minds when they did that. And that is the concern that';s been expressed by Mr Blair and, might and I say, by Michael Howard, the leader of the conservative opposition in Britain and John Kerry who';s the Democrat candidate in the United States. Both Howard and Kerry have really taken a much more supportive line and a line that';s much closer to that of the Australian Government than has Mr Latham. Mr Latham is really further away from everybody, he';s even further out there then the Spanish Government. The Spanish Government said that it would keep its forces in Iraq if there were a new United Nations resolution. Now, no such qualification has been put on the Labor Party';s position by either Mr Rudd or Mr Latham. They';ve just baldly said if we win the election we';ll bring them home by Christmas.
MITCHELL:
Have you spoken to the US President about this?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I haven';t.
MITCHELL:
Or will you?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I wouldn';t speak to the US President in a context of something which is a domestic political debate between myself and Mr Latham. I certainly wouldn';t speak to the US President about this.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept that terrorism which was not being politicised, now is an issue being politicised?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is certainly at the centre of great political debate. There';s no doubt about that I';m afraid. I suppose, the answer to that is yes. Look, I am endeavouring to address the merits of this issue and I do believe that if Mr Latham were to change his position and say – look, if we win the election we';ll have a look at the situation. We won';t pre-commitment to a particular withdrawal date – that would be a sensible thing for him to do, it would be in Australia';s interest. It would clearly be in the interests of our troops and it would be very valuable to their morale.
MITCHELL:
The key issue being the troops – what is the earliest you see them coming back?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not going to put a date on it. I never have. At no stage can anybody find any suggestion that I';ve put a finite date on it. I said way back in May of last year that the presence of the people that were being left – which was about 1200 is now down to just under 900 - would depend very much on the circumstances on the ground. Now, that was the view, of course, that was echoed in Mr Rudd';s letter to me only four months ago he said it was a war zone - that was his view. Well, it can';t go from being a war zone to be suitable for total withdrawal a bare nine or indeed seven months later.
JOURNALIST:
Do you believe that what';s happening here will affect the morale or the confidence of our troops on the ground?
PRIME MINISTER:
They always think it';s better if people feel that there';s united opinion back home. But I have to acknowledge that the Labor Party oppose their presence in the first place. One has to be honest about that. The Labor Party did oppose them going there in the first place and they have performed magnificently. I';m concerned obviously about their morale but I don';t want anything to be said by anybody in authority that in any way gives the impression to terrorists around the world that you can influence political stances by committing acts of terrorism
JOURNALIST:
We need to take a break. We';ll take calls for the Prime Minister in a moment. Mr Howard, the United States has started sending more troops to Afghanistan.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry.
JOURNALIST:
I think the United States have said they';re planning to send more troops to Afghanistan? Will Australia commit more troops to that area?
PRIME MINISTER:
We don';t have any plans to do so. We brought them home in November 2002 because they';d finished their job. From an operational point of view there was really no more work for them to do. That was the advice we had from the military. The other point I';d make is that when they were brought home I don';t remember the Labor Party attacking that decision. They';ve been dragging Afghanistan up now in March of 2004 when they came home to my recollection without criticism from the Labor Party at the time, of course, reeks of trying to find some king of rationale of what they are irresponsibly proposing in relation to Iraq.
MITCHELL:
We';ll take a break. Come back with more, including call for the Prime Minister [break]. We';ll take quick calls for the Prime Minister. Steve, go ahead please.
CALLER:
Good morning, Neil, and good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I';d like to ask Mr Howard – can you please come clean and inform the Australian people whether you, your office or any of the (inaudible) pressured Mr Keelty to shift his original position on a threat to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Steve, I';ve already said that as you might expect there were discussions between my office and myself and the Secretary of my Department with Mr Keelty. That sort of discussion goes on all the time. There';s nothing improper about anything that';s passed between us, but beyond that I don';t intend to break the confidentiality of those discussions because the conduct of Government at that level becomes impossible if every single communication and every single discussion and every single conversation and whatever has to be made public and you just can';t run a Government that way. But I can assure you that there was nothing improper about the communications.
MITCHELL:
On that issue Prime Minister - your Government';s making mistakes, I mean, Robert Hill this week made some issue of mass destruction and then Alexander Downer accusing Mick Keelty of being, sort of, an al Qaeda propagandist. This looks rattled. This Government looks rattled. What do you say to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t believe that';s a fair criticism. But like all Governments we';ll cop criticism from time to time. We';re not perfect. We all make mistakes, myself included. But I don';t think the Government is rattled. I think the Government has a clear strong consistent position on important issues like national security and Iraq even though a lot of people may not agree with our position on Iraq we';ve held to it in a consistent firm fashion.
MITCHELL:
The Treasurers are meeting today, the State Treasurers meet the Federal Treasurer. Victoria is claiming it is being dudded out of $1.5 billion and there';s no chance of stamp duties being lifted. Can you accept that Victorians are paying $8.5 billion in GST and they';re only getting $7 billion back.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I can accept is this, and what is the case – the total amount going to the states is massively rising as a result of the GST and the new financial arrangements. Victoria in the coming financial year will be about $74 million better off than it would have been if the old financial arrangements that existed before the GST had still been in place, and that naturally Victoria will get an increase, a big increase of about $550 million next year over what it got last year. Now we had this system where the Grants Commission cuts up the cake. The Commonwealth provides the cake and the Grants Commission, many of whose members are nominated by the states, divide it up. And if Victoria wants a bigger slice of the cake, then Victoria has to persuade Queensland and Western Australia to yield up some of its slice.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept that figure – that Victorians are paying $8.5 billion and getting $7 billion back?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I tend to look at this thing from an Australian point of view. No, but seriously…
MITCHELL:
Well why should Victorians be subsidising Queensland?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because we are Australians first and foremost.
MITCHELL:
And when we take tolls on roads…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well hang on, hang on. I mean look Neil, you can';t have a situation that, as has plainly happened over the last few years, where when it goes your way it';s a terrific system and when you don';t think it goes your way, it';s a bad system. Now the fact is, everybody is better off. The Victorian Government is saying it would like to be even better off. Now there has been a judgement made by the independent umpire, quite separately from the Commonwealth Government, but in order to ensure that there is broadly an equal quality of service delivered all over the country, that the financial allocations between the states out of the larger cake should be of a particular order. Now four years ago, it went the other way as far as New South Wales was concerned and Bob Carr said I was the greatest statesman since sliced bread for, you know, resisting the pressure of the other states to change the outcome. And I didn';t change the outcome then.
MITCHELL:
Well stamp duty and issues like that, I mean Victorians are paying a lot in stamp duty.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they are and I mean I think all State Governments are in a position to give stamp duty relief, all of them are, and the Victorian Government included. Other Governments perhaps are in different positions, but they have to make their own judgements. But the States can';t have it both ways. They can';t assert their rights, their sovereignty, their independence, but when they don';t get what they want out of the umpire, they then turn around and say to the Commonwealth, well you';ve got to make up the difference between what we';ve been given and what we believe we';re entitled to. Now we have delivered a larger amount of money overall to the States via the GST. There';s no argument about that. And the independent umpire that has been there since 1933 has resolved upon a particular allocation of that money and if Mr Bracks and Mr Brumby think that';s wrong, they should talk to Peter Beattie and Terry Mackenroth and to Geoff Gallop and Foley from South Australia and all the other Labor State Premiers and say come on fellas, you agree to a different carve up of the cake. But it';s not reasonable to come to us and say well because we haven';t got as much as… the increase is not as big as we would like, you';ve got to make up the difference. I mean there';s a limit. I mean we have other responsibilities. We don';t expect the States to contribute to the cost of our defence forces and all the responsibilities there.
MITCHELL:
Okay, so a quick call. Another quick couple of issues to wrap up. Gary, go ahead please Gary.
CALLER:
Yeah Mr Prime Minister, heaven forbid that I should be defending Steve Bracks in any circumstance, but why is it that Queensland… Victoria and New South Wales has been subsidising Queensland in particular since Henry Bolte was Premier and he was bleating about it, and yet they still get petrol that';s roughly 8 to 10 cents a litre cheaper, cigarettes are cheaper in Queensland. I don';t know what else is cheaper.
PRIME MINISTER:
That';s something that, you know, Queenslanders have to…
MITCHELL:
But we';re subsidising them.
PRIME MINISTER:
But also it is the case that successive Queensland Governments have made different judgements about priority. I mean if you believe in a federal system, if you think you should have states, then they';ve got to be accountable for the decisions they make. You can';t… I mean we can';t be expected to let them make their own decisions uninfluenced by us, but when anybody is unhappy with a decision a State Government has taken, they turn around and….
MITCHELL:
How is Gary';s point wrong? (inaudible) subsidising cheaper petrol (inaudible) taxes in Queensland.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Queensland Government has made a different judgement about what its priorities are, and delivering certain services in Queensland are more expensive than they are in Victoria because the geographic area of Queensland is much greater. It may be, I mean has Gary thought of this, it may be that certain aspects of the Queensland Government are delivered and operated more efficiently than in Victoria. I';m not sure about that. That is a judgement…
MITCHELL:
That';s been happening for a hell of a long time, if that';s…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it may well be… I mean Queensland';s financial position for many years, many years, largely as a result of the National Party Government, was in fact stronger because of different management. Now I';m not particularly going into bat. I mean this is an argument between Labor State Premiers. It';s not an argument between the Commonwealth and the States. But we do have a principle in this country that the equality of services for all Australians is an important national goal, and to me that transcends other considerations.
MITCHELL:
Another issue, the Monash University students protesting over HECS fees, which is a federal issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m very happy to talk about that. I thought that was outrageous. And bearing in mind that even if all of the increases that are allowed under the new system take place, the average contribution of a student to a university course will be about 28 per cent of the total cost of that course. The other 72 per cent will be borne by the taxpayer and other private sources – 28 per cent, and you don';t have to start paying that back until you get to a salary, after you';ve graduated, of about $35,000 a year. And when you bear in mind that governments, State Labor Governments around this country, particularly New South Wales, have massively increased TAFE fees, that is for apprentices, many of whom go into occupations where they don';t earn as much money as people who graduate from university, they have been increased in some cases by two or three hundred per cent. They don';t get any HECS, they don';t get any help. I mean I think the behaviour of those students is selfish and outrageous, and the idea that people can walk away from that kind of conduct without any semblance of responsibility and pretend that in some way they';re downtrodden and hard pressed is ridiculous.
MITCHELL:
You think they should be prosecuted?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think anybody who breaks the law should be prosecuted, full stop, whether you';re a university student, a footballer or whatever. Anybody who breaks the law should be treated according to what the law says.
MITCHELL:
It';s interesting you raised the football issue.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it just happened to be in…
MITCHELL:
Well it';s in the mind of course.
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s in the news, yes.
MITCHELL:
AFL and Rugby. Do you think this is sort of… the way it';s going, is this undermining the credibility of football, do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly hope not. I think though that… the idea that these things can be taken over and managed by a club or a football code is in my view ridiculous. What should happen is that the ordinary processes of the law should apply and no matter who is involved, then they should be dealt with in accordance with the law. I mean if they';re guilty, they should be charged and if they';re… well if they';re substantial allegations, they should be charged and prosecuted and tried, the same way as anybody else would be. I mean, violence against women of any kind is just absolutely unacceptable and should be punished very severely, violence against anybody, not just women, but these largely involve allegations of violence against women. I feel for the decent people who are running the games. I feel for all of them. But perhaps the better way of handling these things is for total cooperation with the police. But they can';t be managed by a code or a club independently of the behaviour of individuals, and let';s face it, just because two or three people may have, and I repeat may have, behaved improperly, it shouldn';t blacken the reputation of all the others and indeed all the hundreds of thousands of people who follow these games.
MITCHELL:
Just very quickly Prime Minister, you may not be aware of this. There';s a report that a Federal policeman and a Victorian policeman have been suspended over corruption allegations in the investigation into the gangland killings in Victoria. Are you aware of that regarding the federal policeman?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I';ve only heard the reports. I don';t know any of the background.
MITCHELL:
I understand. Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thanks Neil.
[ends]