THOMPSON:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Peter.
THOMPSON:
The fight against terrorism is an important feature of the budget and we';ll come to that in just a moment if we can. But the work and family package will be the budget centrepiece obviously - can you confirm there will be tax cuts for all of us?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not going to confirm anything. I read the newspaper reports, some with amusement, others with interest. But there';s always a lot of speculation and as always some of it turns out to be roughly right; quite a lot of it turns out to be wrong, and this year is no exception.
THOMPSON:
I see there';s obviously a large budget surplus to deal with this year.
PRIME MINISTER:
The economy is strong, but some of the estimates that have been flung around are over the top.
THOMPSON:
What, by way of the size of the#8230;?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am simply saying some of the estimates that have been thrown around are over the top. Don';t believe every single thing you see in the papers or indeed hear on the radio or see on television. I don't want to sound prejudicial towards radio. As you know I like radio.
THOMPSON:
Yeah, I know you';re a radio listener. Now polling and academic research suggests that voters would prefer spending on services like education and health rather than tax breaks - what do you make of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think people like both and we have had a lot of spending on social provision. We';ve not long had a $2.9 billion Medicare update. We';ve spent a lot of extra money on universities, we';ve spent a lot of extra money on schools, both government and private. Although we, in the main, government schools are funded by State Governments which in turn get about 44% of their funds to spend on schools from the GST in Commonwealth payments. So we indirectly fund government schools almost to the tune of half the money they get. But we have already increased our spending in these areas. I think the community believes that a nation that';s doing well economically should have good social spending and we have certainly increased our social spending and I';m not suggesting that you';ve seen the last of that either.
THOMPSON:
Just one more point on the budget then - it was not all that long ago that the budget never leaked, these days it';s all pre-leaked?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I remember a whole budget leaking.
THOMPSON:
In Laurie Oakes'; letter box?
PRIME MINISTER:
23-4 years ago, so I treat that#8230; was it 20 years, yes.
THOMPSON:
Was that your budget?
PRIME MINISTER:
I seem to remember yes. The whole speech mate. So you know, we';ll go on to the next question.
THOMPSON:
How did it get into Oakes'; letterbox?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have no idea. You just better ask him.
THOMPSON:
The world changes and things these days are introduced slowly - does that, if you';re running a Government, clearly you want to keep a surprise up your sleeve I suppose?
PRIME MINISTER:
You always like to that. I mean, there one of those questions where I simply say that not everything you see in the papers should not be believed.
THOMPSON:
Let';s go on to the issue of today';s announcement, about $600 million of spending on the fight against terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven';t said what is. What I am announcing today is some intelligence spending. I';m opening this new centre, threat alert centre and I';ll take the opportunity of announcing some additional funding for ASIO and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. There will be further announcements in this whole are in the budget and you';ll see from the combination of the two just how much additional money this Government has put into the intelligence agencies. ASIO';s funding after today';s announcement will have at least doubled - at least doubled -since September 2001 and this is very important because in the fight against terrorism nothing is more critical then timely intelligence. Intelligence gathering is the frontline of the fight against terrorism. I have no doubt about that. That is the single most important thing we can do. To protect ourselves to have effective intelligence agencies and I have made it plain to ASIO and to all the other organisations that if more resources are needed they will be provided and today';s announcement is the latest instalment of that response.
THOMPSON:
What do we now spend on security?
PRIME MINISTER:
The precise figure I don';t have with me, but it runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, it depends on where you start and finish. If you';re just talking about the intelligence agencies as such, hundreds of millions. If you';re including the Federal Police and all sorts of other things you';re looking at billions.
THOMPSON:
Where does this national threat assessment centre fit in?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it just brings together on a 24 hour basis all of the relevant agencies. There has been a 24 hour capacity in the past, but it brings all of them together in a sense under the one roof.
THOMPSON:
I see the questions are being asked about whether Qantas sought to influence travel warnings for Indonesia before the Bali bombings with the Government. Did it lobby the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they didn';t lobby me. I';ve checked with my department, they didn';t lobby my department. The Foreign Minister says they didn';t lobby him and didn';t lobby his department. I am told that when the Senate inquiry sat last year the Director General of ASIO indicated that Qantas had approached him about having a separate advisory for Bali and ASIO said no. But he also went on to tell the Senate Committee, so I';m told, that he didn';t see the approach as being in anyway the exserting of pressure. But Qantas is appearing before the Senate inquiry. I just want to make it clear on behalf of the Government, we don';t alter travel advisories in response to pressure from anybody, they';re designed to protect and help Australians and nothing takes priority over that.
THOMPSON:
You';re travelling overseas again next month to the US, Britain and Europe as part of the Normandy commemorations - do worry about your own personal safety?
PRIME MINISTER:
No not really. No. It just goes with the territory. You shouldn';t.
THOMPSON:
What about that flight from Baghdad - what happened there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they took the normal precautions in the take off and that is you fly very low. The theory is, I suppose it';s right in practice, if you are hugging the ground it';s harder for missiles and things to hit you.
THOMPSON:
Then they bank very fast?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, that';s right. To sort of avoid them. I mean, I';m not trying to make light of it. It was an interesting moment#8230;
THOMPSON:
Interesting, hair raising wouldn';t..?
PRIME MINISTER:
I was on the communications'; network. I was up in the front cabin with the crew. But I didn';t say anything, I didn';t want to disturb their concentration.
THOMPSON:
They';d be butterflies in my stomach if I was in that situation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it was tense, it was interesting of course. As I say, I';m not making light of it. But given the sort of risks that our men and women over there take, it';s the least that one can do. If that';s involved in visiting them and thanking them and they certainly are in good spirits and they appreciated the fact that they';ve been personally thanked.
THOMPSON:
A short prayer, time for that as the aircraft started to climb at 60 degrees?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';m always ready to except help from higher sources Peter. Always ready.
THOMPSON:
Next month';s tour starts in Washington with talks with President Bush - what will be on your agenda?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the main focus of this visit is to lobby, persuade, advocate to Congress the desirability of passing the Free Trade Agreement and I';ll certainly be going on to Capital Hill. The agreement itself is going to be signed on the 18th of May by Mark Vaile and Robert Zoellick on behalf of the Americans. The really important task is to make sure that it goes through Congress and I';ll go on to Capital Hill and talk to leaders on both sides, both Republican and Democrat to lobby our cause and I';ll also naturally have discussions with President Bush and other people in the administration about Iraq, about the bilateral relationship, although that is in excellent shape. The Free Trade Agreement attests to that. But getting this Free Trade Agreement through will be an enormous boom to the Australian economy and the recent independent report that came out indicated that very strongly.
THOMPSON:
The US Congress is a hard beast to read and there';s some suggestions there';s resistance there to the Free Trade Agreement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is resistance from the rural lobby. They resent very much the fact that there';s additional access for our dairy and beef industries.
THOMPSON:
So how confident are you it';ll get through?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am quite hopeful, I don';t want to put it more strongly than that. It can';t be taken for granted but it does have the support of the administration and there is an element of bipartisan support. There are Democrats who are against it and there are Republicans who are against it and there are Republicans and Democrats both in favour. But it is important that I go there and talk to them directly and that I hope will make a difference. The I will go to, I';ll see Mr Blair very briefly in London.
THOMPSON:
Over lunch?
PRIME MINISTER:
Over lunch and then we will then go to Normandy for the commemoration and then I';ll come home. And I';ll be away for just on a week.
THOMPSON:
Now, the situation in Iraq will obviously be foremost in the minds of all three players, you being one of them. Are you comfortable with the way events are unfolding there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, obviously the last couple of months have been very difficult and the next two months will be quite crucial. If the coalition can, and those in Iraq who want a democratic future for that country, if they together can win, if I put it that way, the next two or three months, then Iraq will have a bright democratic future. If we don';t, then it won';t. What is happening now is a determined attempt by a combination of terrorists and Saddam recidivists and others to prevent the emergence of a democratic Iraq. And that is what is at stake. And whatever people thought about going there in the first place, nobody can seriously contest#8230; it will be a massive defeat for the anti-terrorist cause, it will be a massive defeat for the prestige of the west, of American leadership, of the interests of the coalition countries and many others, if those who are resisting the transition to democracy are successful. I mean you have to ask yourself, put everything else aside, you have to ask yourself - is it in the interests of Australia, the United States, the cause we have in common, the future of a more stable democratic Middle East#8230; is it in the interests of those objectives that America is unsuccessful in Iraq? I mean that';s the question people have got to ask themselves. They can';t play around at the periphery. They have to face that central question, irrespective of what view they had about our original involvement. I think, despite all the difficulties, you have seen benefits from that involvement. I think the Libyan decision was of enormous significance. Now I';m not suggesting that that was entirely due to what the coalition did in Iraq, but I believe it mightily influenced it.
THOMPSON:
Just talking of involvement for a moment. The poll results seem to be suggesting that fewer people believe that the idea of going to war was a good thing.
PRIME MINISTER:
And that';s understandable, given when that poll was taken. It has been, both in reality and also the media coverage - and I';m not being critical, I';m just making the observation - there has been a very difficult month or six weeks. And an assessment of that type could not have been taken at a worse time.
THOMPSON:
Do you think there has been too much investment in this timetable, that things be transferred on July 1st?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, unless you give yourself a timetable, you never get there. I mean if the process of forming a democracy in Iraq means anything, you';ve got to not only identify a date, but you';ve also got to encourage Iraqis to come up the plate and to accept leadership, and there needs to be built around Iraqi figures a following in that country, and the people of Iraq need to see that progress is being made and that indigenous political leaders of a democratic kind are emerging in that country. And beneath all of the reporting of the violence and the attacks and so forth, steady progress is being made. I saw a figure the other day that suggested that the expenditure on public health in Iraq is something like 60 times what it was under Saddam. Now admittedly, virtually nothing was spent on public health under Saddam. The electricity generation and water quality levels are back to at least equal to or better than the pre-invasion ones. The universities are open, the schools are open, many have been refurbished. Local councils have been re-formed and elected. So there is quite a strong story of progress to be told alongside, admittedly, some difficulties, and I';m not denying that.
THOMPSON:
If#8230; let';s just spend a moment on history. If you knew then what you know now, particularly about Iraq';s weapons of mass destruction or their apparent lack of them, would you have still made that decision to send troops, without#8230;
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t have that luxury in my position, Peter. I';m not into hypothesising. I took a decision and the Government took a decision based on the assessments available to us at that time. It was, and I acknowledge it was, principally but not exclusively based on a concern about Iraq';s weapons capacity. It also was based in part on the American alliance. And if you go back to the major speeches I made, that was certainly a factor. I think at one stage I said that the American alliance should always be a major consideration in any significant decision that Australia takes in relation to an international involvement of this kind. Now I';m not saying that was the only one or the dominant one, but it was certainly a very important one. But that has happened. We now have a situation where the cause of transferring to a free and democratic Iraq is the goal that we have, and if we can achieve that, that will constitute progress in the Middle East. At the moment, the only true democracy in the Middle East is Israel, the only true democracy. And if we can see the emergence of a close to democratic Iraq, that will be huge step forward for the whole region.
THOMPSON:
Can I just deal with these Iraqi prisoners for a moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
THOMPSON:
These horrifying pictures and these allegations in fact already researched by the Army, they';re more than allegations obviously. What assurances, if any, would you seek that this#8230;
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would expect that not only it wouldn';t continue, that those who are responsible are brought to full military justice. I condemn that behaviour absolutely and unconditionally. It appals me. It is not the normative behaviour of proper military units, and if it has happened, and obviously there is some strong evidence, particularly in the United States#8230;
THOMPSON:
Had the word systemic been used?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes, I know it';s being used, but I';m not willing at this stage to express a view on that. I don';t know enough. But Peter, I';m not temporising about this. I condemn it unreservedly. If it';s happened, then the people responsible should be punished and it should be made very plain by the American authorities, and if it has occurred in relation to British units, British authorities, that it is not the behaviour of the great bulk of American and British forces. I mean, interestingly the difference should be made. It';s been exposed, condemned, rooted out and dealt with in the United States. Far worse atrocities, far far worse atrocities were routinely and systematically committed by the Saddam Hussein regime and people certainly weren';t punished. In many cases they were promoted. You know, let';s remember that we have discovered mass graves for two to three hundred thousand people who died at the hands of Saddam Hussein, so let us keep a sense of perspective about this. But I do condemn it and if it has occurred, and there seems to be evidence of it, then those responsible should be fully and without reservation properly punished for what they have done.
THOMPSON:
Can I just take a moment to talk about just one or two other things before you go.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
THOMPSON:
I don';t know whether you';ve seen the headlines this morning. The CWA historically has decided not to sing God Save the Queen. Now that mind chuckle Republicans. What do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s their decision. I don';t know that it, it';s a decision that they';ve taken#8230;.
THOMPSON:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
THOMPSON:
This could be the beginning of the end of something.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh well, they';re a great organisation and I';ll always support the contributions they make to rural life and to Australian society, and they';ve been a terrific mainstay for country Australia for many years and they will be for many years into the future.
THOMPSON:
There you are. You';ve just landed the CWA vote. There are continuing calls for David Flint to stand down as chair of the Broadcasting Authority, and he has stood down now from a second major inquiry.
PRIME MINISTER:
That';s the one into the ABC.
THOMPSON:
Yes, indeed. Does that raise questions about whether he can effectively do the job? I mean if he doesn';t do these inquiries, what does he do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look I don';t pretend to be an expert on the operations of the ABA, but I understand there is a lot of other things for him to do, and of course his term is running out in October. The ABA has had a look at things and expressed views about those letters, and I think the conclusion they reached in relation to those views is right. But we';ve got to remember that although there are some quasi-judicial aspects of the chairmanship of the ABC, the ABA rather, there can be no doubt it';s equally true though that it';s not like a judge. I mean there are discussions and exchanges that apparently take place between the ABA and those who are the subject of inquiries, and that of course wouldn';t happen, except in a very formal sense, in open court between judges and people who are appearing as litigants before court. So we have to be careful about pushing the analogy too far. But obviously the ABA had views and obviously he regrets very much, and he should regret, not having disclosed that correspondence.
THOMPSON:
I see your point.
PRIME MINISTER:
Although it is very clear from what the ABA said, that his involvement would not have had any impact either way on the outcome of the two major inquiries. And of course in relation to the original cash for comment inquiry, didn';t he stand aside very shortly after it started because of an interview he gave on the Laws programme after he had been called a liar, which is a fairly straightforward derogatory remark by one of my predecessors. So bear in mind that when you';re called#8230; when you';re in the public eye, when you regularly do interviews, when it';s accepted that your position is not quite the same as that as of a judge, when a former Prime Minister in a heated debate calls you a liar, your normal instinct is, if it';s untrue, and of course it plainly was, to go on and defend yourself.
THOMPSON:
Thanks for taking so much time to talk to us this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
A great pleasure.
[ends]