MITCHELL:
But first in the studio with me the Prime Minister Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
You know Paul Keating well. Are you surprised by this image readjustment that Annita Keating has launched today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I don';t want to talk about their marriage break up, I feel sorry for both of them. I wish them no personal ill will, it';s always sad when a marriage breaks up, it';s tough on everybody. I had my strong political differences with Mr Keating and I still do but that doesn';t mean that I want to make any comment at all about his private life, it';s their business, I';m always sorry when these things happen, they must be very traumatic for the people involved, I won';t offer a view on it, it';s not my business and I can only say I wish both of them well and good happiness for the future.
MITCHELL:
Do you think it should be a matter of public discussion?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a matter for them, it';s not really a matter for me or anybody else, I do respect people';s privacy. If people choose to talk, well that';s their decision, I don';t wish to offer a view.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept we';re into an election campaign now?
PRIME MINISTER:
In Australia when you only have three years you seem to be in perpetual election mode. We';re still governing, I still far more of my time making decisions about policy and about the future than I do about political point scoring but along the way I put my case, I visit a lot of electorates, I';m spending four days in Victoria this week and fair enough I see a lot of the country. One of the reasons I';m doing a lot of this Neil, one of them, I won';t say the only one, is that last year by force of circumstances I had to spend a lot of time overseas and this year it';s different and in a way some of the things I';m now doing are things I might have done last year but because I had to spend so much time overseas, we had Iraq, we had my duties as Commonwealth chairman in office and quite a number of other very important bilateral visits meant that more than at any other occasion since I';ve been Prime Minister I was out of the country.
MITCHELL:
Well are you giving any thought at this stage to when an election will be?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not a lot. Naturally I would be dishonest if I didn';t say it to you, naturally I think about it from time to time but beyond saying to you that it';s very, very unlikely to be before the second half of the year, in fact as each day goes by that becomes a near impossibility. We are due to have an election around about October - November that';s the three year period but I guess anytime after the middle of the year wouldn';t be regarded as an early election, it';s just a question of fixing on the time as we get closer.
MITCHELL:
Is the timing crucial to who wins?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think it';s crucial, no, I think it can have a marginal impact, it';s not crucial. If a government is really on the sids then the difference between having it say, and don';t put any significance on this, say the end of October or the middle of November, I certainly wouldn';t be having it at the end of September, that';s a pretty sacred weekend, certainly in large parts of Australia, or the first weekend in October. However beyond that there';s another two or three weeks, if you';re really on the skids another two or three weeks is not going to make much difference. On the other hand if it';s very finely balanced maybe there';s some tiny advantage and…
MITCHELL:
Well you don';t sense you';re on the skids obviously.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don';t believe the Government';s on the skids, however I do believe it';s going to be tough because we';ve been there eight years and people get a little bit itchy for change after eight years, I understand that, and it';s my job to pursuade them that it would be a change for the worse and they could put at risk the economic strength and stability they now take for granted.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe you';re behind at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are behind on a two party preferred vote in the most recent and the most authoritative of all the polls. But I ought to say that it';s better than we were three years ago, six or seven months out from the 2001 election we were in more trouble than Ned Kelly.
MITCHELL:
Are you looking for another Tampa?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not looking for another Tampa.
MITCHELL:
It did turn the last election.
PRIME MINISTER:
It had an influence but we held Aston remember, 14th of July, Labor should have won Aston if it was going to win the 2001 election and I think by the time the Aston by-election had arrived we had begun to turn things around.
MITCHELL:
Will the Budget be crucial in winning it for you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh the Budget will be important, I don';t think it will be the only event that is going to influence the outcome of the election but budgets are always important, we do have a strong financial position because we have been very prudent and careful and we';ve kept the Budget in surplus and that';s helped to build confidence in the economy.
MITCHELL:
Are you going to surprise us? Budgets tend not to surprise us anymore, will there be surprises?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I guess it';s, I';m damned if I do and I';m damned if I don';t if I answer that, if I say yes we';re going to surprise you well people will get a mindset that I can';t surprise them and I won';t, and then if I say I';m not they say well how dull and uninspiring and unexciting he really is after all.
MITCHELL:
What does that mean?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that means I';m not answering your question.
MITCHELL:
I';m used to that. A more serious matter, is it correct Australian troops have been under fire in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven';t had any briefings contrary to what';s been in the news? I haven';t had any specific briefings to that effect but it wouldn';t surprise me if from time to time that were to happen. They are in danger. Any forces in Iraq are in danger, any civilians are in danger, military operations are dangerous and people shouldn';t take for granted that just because we have had a casualty free involvement, and thank God for that, so far that that will continue indefinitely, I certainly hope it does and we';re trying very hard to see that it does but it';s dangerous.
MITCHELL:
You mentioned the word intelligence a moment ago, there are so many issues, so many questions it seems and you hear the report out of the United States, or the analysis out of the United States…
PRIME MINISTER:
I am particularly critical of that report.
MITCHELL:
Can we get to that in a moment.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MITCHELL:
When you put them all together, today Major General Mike Smith, we have had Lieutenant Colonel Lance Collins. So many people saying the spy, or the intelligence system is inapt. Why should we, next time we have to go somewhere in the world on the basis of intelligence, why should we trust it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think you should. It';s not perfect and it makes mistakes and what you';re seeing is the natural playing out of strongly held different views about intelligence analysis that you inevitably get. We have four agencies, we have ASIO, we have ASIS, which is the overseas intelligence, we have DIO, which is the Defence Intelligence Organisation, and we have ONA which is the principle analyst of intelligence. Now they have all been at various stages over the years subject to inquiries, we had a parliamentary inquiry after Iraq, that was an all party inquiry, it included Mr Beazley and Senator Ray who are the two most authoritative people in the Labor Party on defence and intelligence. It recommended there be yet another investigation to be conducted by a former intelligence person, we chose somebody with impeccable credentials, Philip Flood, he used to head ONA, former High Commissioner, Ambassador to Jakarta, somebody who everybody accepts has great credentials. He';s conducted an examination at the present time. Now I think he will do a full report, let';s wait and see.
MITCHELL:
But with all this are you totally trusting of the advice you';re getting?
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe that it';s delivered in good faith.
MITCHELL:
But is it accurate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think on the scale of accuracy that any intelligence agency can have it';s an accurate as any. They can';t always be accurate.
MITCHELL:
Do you reject this analysis then about the jealousy between ASIO and…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly reject that, I think that is just a completely flawed, unsubstantiated allegation, it';s been rejected by Mick Keelty. I have had the opportunity, because of all the intelligence things we';ve had, Bali, East Timor, 11th of September, like no other Prime Minister in the last 20 years I reckon I';ve had an opportunity of working almost on a daily basis with these agencies. There are two agencies that really do work very closely together it';s ASIO and the Australian Federal Police because they are fundamentally involved with the assessment, the internal domestic security assessments for Australia and the safety of Australians and I have seen no evidence to justify this claim and it';s been repudiated by the Australian Federal Police Commissioner himself this morning so I just do reject that. I accept that in relation to these other matters there have been differences of opinion, I can believe that there would have been strong differences of opinion within organisations like DIO about certain things but what is wrong with that? We have strong differences of opinion inside Cabinet…
MITCHELL:
But we do have a number of very senior people saying we are continually getting it wrong, now that must undermines public trust.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil it shouldn';t and can I say that there are always a lot of former intelligence people, I understand that, and the nature of…
MITCHELL:
(inaudible) former.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I';m talking more about Smith, well he';s now retired. But there are always people who are going to have a different view and they are entitled to speak out and…
MITCHELL:
Was it a fact that…
PRIME MINISTER:
… I';ve got to sit, I';ve got to sit and try and make a balanced judgement on these things and can I just say again we do not politicise intelligence, we do not ask intelligence agencies to tell us what we want to hear and this suggestion that, it';s the implication really that there';s a pro-Jakarta lobby, the implication is that what the Government, my Government, encouraged a pro-Jakarta lobby? I thought most of the time I';ve been Prime Minister I';ve been attacked by my opponents for not being pro-Jakarta enough.
MITCHELL:
Well is it true that at some stages the Americans have expressed concern about there being pro-Jakarta approach from Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
They haven';t expressed it to me. I mean I';ve had people express concerns about the attitude of the Americans on certain things, I mean people are, people are, this is the natural interplay, we don';t take a uniformly uncritical view of every single thing the Americans do, we often internally say well we think the Americans should do things a little bit differently.
MITCHELL:
… Americans have been saying at level to Australia we don';t, we';re not comfortable with the way you view Indonesia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I wouldn';t…
MITCHELL:
Has that happened that you';re aware of?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not, it certainly hasn';t happened at my level.
MITCHELL:
But are you aware of it happening?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m not aware of it having happened, I';ll go away and check because it may have, I don';t want to be proved wrong, if somebody unearths a letter written you know 20 feet below sort of thing, but I';m not aware of that. But in the end we make our own judgements. Just because the Americans say something is so, we don';t automatically accept it.
MITCHELL:
Is it true that we knew Indonesian military were supporting the militia in Timor in the massacres, we knew that was going to happen and we just ignored it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t accept that we ignored it. In fact, I went see President Habibie at my request in Bali in April, I think it was, of 1999 after one of the massacres occurred and I, in fact, raised with him at that meeting having peacekeepers in East Timor before the ballot took place and he rejected that as an invasion of Indonesian sovereignty and people who now turn around and say, we should have done something before the ballot were really arguing that we should illegally invade Indonesia. They should understand that. I mean, it';s very easy to turn around and say - well, you should have sent peacekeepers in beforehand. If we had tried to send peacekeepers in beforehand without Indonesia';s permission, we';d have had no authority from the United Nations. No international assistance and Australia would have been illegally invading our nearest neighbour, a nation of 220 million people without the sanction of anybody else … (inaudible)… know how ridiculous it is.
MITCHELL:
So, you';re not aware of any tensions with the United States about Indonesia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, there may be at an agency level, they may from time to time mutter - damn the CIA or damn ASIO. I mean, I';m sure at various stages there have been some differences and that is to be expected, that is normal. That is like people inside a Government from time to time thinking that one of their colleagues has made a mistake or done something wrong. I mean we do not live in a perfectly well mannered ordered society. But generally speaking our agencies work together. There';s enormous professional respect enjoyed by the Australian agencies. Are they perfect? No. Have there been personality rivalries? Certainly, there have been over the years. Will there be in the future? Yes. Has the Defence Department always treated its personnel correctly and 100% courteously and immaculately? No. Not anymore than anybody else in a large organisation. But…
MITCHELL:
We don';t really need an inquiry after that, do we?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there you are. I mean, I';m just trying to put the thing into perspective Neil.
MITCHELL:
Can I ask about something else - the Watergate reporter, Bob Woodward, the US reporter has reported in his latest book, Australian troops went into Iraq before the deadline expired. Right or wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Senator Hill has indicated that that did happen.
MITCHELL:
But it was denied at the time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think what was said at the time was that we did the right, that we went in …
MITCHELL:
(inaudible)…he';s told they were and you said no.
PRIME MINISTER:
Did I say that?
MITCHELL:
Not to your knowledge, yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not to my knowledge. Well, that could well have been the case at the time.
MITCHELL:
How early did they go in?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, certainly after the ultimatum was rejected.
MITCHELL:
No. But did they not go in before the deadline expired?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but once an ultimatum is rejected the deadline is irrelevant.
MITCHELL:
How early did they go in? How long before the deadline expired?
PRIME MINISTER:
I, honestly Neil, have to go back and check that.
MITCHELL:
Was that the right thing to do? We';ve got a deadline set …
PRIME MINISTER:
No but something is.. but a deadline is rejected. I mean, if you say you';ve got to leave within 48 hours and 24 hours later you come back to me and say, get lost. I';m entitled then to do something, aren';t I?
MITCHELL:
Were they involved in action at that time?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I';ll have to go back and check the record. But I simply say to you my very firm recollection is that they did not go in before the rejection of the deadline. But once the deadline is rejected, well, people are free in my view to act. I think most people would agree with that. I mean, I repeat - If I say to you, ‘you';ve got 48 hours to get out of this studio'; and you say, ‘I';m in under no circumstances going in 48 hours or in 48 days'; - I am then entitled if I want to take, providing I';m acting legally, I';m entitled to take action to remove you.
MITCHELL:
So it was legal for our troops to go in?
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely.
MITCHELL:
When did you first agree with George Bush that we would be involved in Iraq...?
PRIME MINISTER:
I made it very plain to him that although we were supportive of what he was trying to do and we would pre-deploy, we would not make a final decision on the matter until all avenues of getting an exit resolution from the United Nations have been exhausted.
MITCHELL:
So when was that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, don';t tie me to a day, it was in March. I remember the events and they were broadly described in the Woodward book. I mean, not every detail is accurate. I mean, I wasn';t there at the conversations. But I certainly made it very plain to Bush that we needed to have a Cabinet meeting for a final authorisation and I could not commit my forces, the Australian military forces to action in Iraq until such a time as that Cabinet meeting has taken place and it did take place. He did ring me two or three times that week to inform me of what had happened and that';s what transpired. But I was certainly diplomatically very supportive. We did pre-deploy and we made it very clear that we were putting ourselves in a position to be involved but the final decision to be involved was not taken until after those conversations.
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister is in our Melbourne studio. We';ll take a break and come back with more for him in a moment.
[break]
MITCHELL:
The Prime Minister is with us. We';re nearly out of time. Mr Howard, just finally on Iraq, some indication that the coalition is unravelling - Thailand, Spain, Honduras. Do you feel it';s unravelling? Do you think there is a chance it';s unravelling?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think it';s unravelling. I think those… well there is a clear departure by Spain, it seems likely Honduras, Thailand don';t know. That';s regrettable. That will encourage the terrorists. It will make it harder for those who are left, no doubt about that. But we';re not going to cut and run.
MITCHELL:
Does it make harder, sufficiently difficult for us to send more troops?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we haven';t been asked to and we';re not planning to.
MITCHELL:
Some other issues - health. New South Wales in trouble in the hospitals, Victoria has got nursing industrial action here. Isn';t it just time for somebody to take over all responsibility for this, for the Federal Government to step in and take it over?
PRIME MINISTER:
What, the hospitals?
MITCHELL:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that would be a very big thing for the Federal Government to do.
MITCHELL:
But it';s not working…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, but you know, States own the hospitals and they have run them for years and I';m not saying… that would be a very, very big change. I mean we have clearly defined responsibilities. We look after Medicare and…
MITCHELL:
Tony Abbott has floated it, but it hasn';t…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well it was… we had a discussion about it in the party room. Some people supported it and some people opposed it. But I think that it would be a very big change from past practice.
MITCHELL:
Victoria';s economic package was released yesterday. Have you looked at that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. There are some good things in it. I welcome the relief that has been given to business. It';s not a particularly welcoming climate in some ways for business in Victoria. I mean I don';t play favourites between the States. As long as the investment takes place in Australia, I';m happy.
MITCHELL:
What';s wrong with Victoria';s economic (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Industrial relations. People repeatedly tell me that the industrial relations climate in this country… in this state is less beckoning than it is in New South Wales or Queensland. The two bad states for industrial relations are Victoria and Western Australia.
MITCHELL:
University protests are going on around the country.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I think…totally unjustified. Can I just give people a simple statistic. When all of the reforms that we have implemented have worked their way through the system, the student on average will still be bearing only 28 per cent of the cost of their degree.
MITCHELL:
But the University of Melbourne has announced a $64 million surplus. How can they justify putting up fees?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you might have a surplus in one year, but that doesn';t mean to stay it';s going to stay forever. I mean there is nothing wrong with universities having a surplus from time to time. I mean you can';t microanalyse each individual year of each university. That becomes impossible. I don';t think people would argue that generally speaking, the university sector is overendowed. It needs more money, and our package has got more money into it both from the Government, from the taxpayer, and also from the students, who in the end will benefit enormously in their future lives from their university education.
MITCHELL:
I think you';re announcing a disability (inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I am, yes.
MITCHELL:
What';s that?
PRIME MINISTER:
This is designed to stop some of the sheltered workshops laying off people because they can';t afford to pay them pro-rata award rates. Now it';s a $100 million package and it will guarantee that no person in a business service, as we now sometimes call them, or sheltered workshop as people understand them to be called, will lose their position. Some years ago a decision was taken to phase in the pro-rata award system in the belief that maybe some of these people were being exploited. That has placed a strain on some of these workshops, and as a result the employment of disabled people is at risk, and we';re not prepared to allow that to happen. And we';re going to make a $100 million additional amount available over the next four years in a variety of ways to stop that occurring.
MITCHELL:
Something else. Will the Government ever again deal with Geoff Clark?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in any capacity to which he is elected or chosen. But as to his current position, well he';s… there';s a legal process going on there and I';m always reluctant to say anything.
MITCHELL:
Do you think he has anything to offer?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t think he gave great leadership to ATSIC, but I can';t really go beyond that because of the other issues that could be involved. But ATSIC is going and I don';t believe it should be replaced by another elected body. But we will be replacing it at a local level with a consultative mechanism with Aboriginal people, but not through an elected structure supported, funded by and promoted by the Government. I mean I am very happy to see a future where we would deal on a regular basis and a very close basis with organisations like the Cape York Land Council and bodies like that around the country that I think are really the model of the future.
MITCHELL:
And just finally, I know you';re a very solid supporter of ANZAC Day and the tradition. This Sunday of course, ANZAC Day, and traditionally junior sport is played on the morning of a Sunday. On ANZAC Day the tradition being not to play any sport on the morning. Do you think they should abandon junior sport on ANZAC morning?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would prefer so, but I';m not going to sort of yell at people and tell them… you know, it';s a free country. I just think it';s one of those days where the observance should be kept as rock solid as possible. But that is, I mean it';s not a prime ministerial pronouncement, it';s just a personal view.
MITCHELL:
You feeling okay?
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m feeling great.
MITCHELL:
You had the bone pointed at you yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, no disrespect to the Aboriginal community, but I don';t think Geoff Clark represents them or speaks for them, and I';ll do my best to ignore that.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]