PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen I've just had what I'd describe as a very positive meeting with the Governor to talk about BHP Billiton's proposal to supply natural gas to California. There's a very big energy need in this state, the Governor expressed very positive things, said very positive things about the BHP Billiton proposal. There is clearly a desire to establish a linkage with an Australian supplier, if other difficulties can be dealt with, and we are confident they can, we offer to California long-term, secure, price competitive supplies of LNG. The proposal for a floating off-shore platform has the great virtue of establishing a dedicated source of supply to California, which is an advantage compared with other sources of supply of a domestic kind or from Mexico, and that's a huge advantage. We of course can boast a great record of safety and reliability, over a period of 15 years we've been supplying LNG to Japan, no accidents, always delivered on time, something in the order of 26,000 voyages that can be pointed to without any difficulties. So overall we think we have a lot to offer, we've established contact with the Governor's office and next week the Federal Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, will come to Los Angeles, he will meet the Energy Secretary in the Government of California, Mr Crispman, and Mr Crispman is coming to Australia in July along with another Minister or Secretary in the administration here and they will visit the natural gas areas of Australia and to be further informed and advised. I would describe the meeting as very positive, the Governor himself expressed a keen desire to see that our negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion, very keen desire, he expressed great interest in a partnership between Australia and California, I've invited him to visit Australia and he's expressed a keen desire to do that in the near future.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what are the hurdles that need to be overcome to take it that next step further?
PRIME MINISTER:
There are environmental issues to be dealt with but we are confident that they can be dealt with. I think those, and also the fact that LNG is a new concept to many people in this part of the United States. But we have huge supplies of LNG in Australia and we have a proven track record of safely carrying it long distances to other countries who have become very contended and very positive customers of our LNG suppliers.
JOURNALIST:
Will the partnership between California and Australia cover other things, like wine or...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well anything's possible once you establish a climate of trust. Trusting Australia is a strong currency in the United States, in the broader sense of that description. And we are seen as a stable country, a friendly supportive country, we're also seen as an able country with a very strong economy and a country with a like, well not entirely similar political system, but it's democratic, although our system and America's operate differently, but our legal system is essentially the same and companies and governments worry about continuity and stability and predictability and they are three things where Australia scores very highly.
JOURNALIST:
Did he give an idea on timing and what the alternatives that California was considering (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's really a question of our proposal, clearing all of the hurdles and I would hope that we can see some kind of final decision towards the end of this year, perhaps slipping into the early part of next year, that's the understanding and the ultimate decision will rest with him as I understand the way these things work in California. It's not so much that we are, as I understand it, competing with others who are also proposing to build off-shore platforms, it's just that we have a proposal involving the building of an off-shore platform, we're not seeking any subsidies from the government, well the company is not, I shouldn't say we, this is a private enterprise project. BHP Billiton and Don Argus, the Chairman of BHP Billiton, was there at the meeting, as was Philip Aiken, the President and CEO of Billiton Petroleum, and Tom Harley, the head of corporate affairs, and they gave the technical presentation, but I wanted to identify the Government very strongly with the proposal.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, he's dealing with massive problems here in California, do you think he'll be able to, did he explain those to you...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, yes.
JOURNALIST:
... as well as put (inaudible) in a position where he can seriously consider this? Does it come anywhere on his list of priorities at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he certainly expressed a very keen interest in it and he displayed a very good understanding of what was involved in the supply. It wasn't something that we had to brief him cold on, I can say he was very well across what was involved, he understood very fully what we were proposing. This will meet 15 per cent of the energy needs of the state.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what's your thinking about the terrorist concerns that have been raised here by some critics of this proposal?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that was not mentioned this morning.
JOURNALIST:
How would you address that (inaudible), that is something that is something that has been raised by critics of LNG is the possibility that these could be a terror targets?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's no greater threat, there's no greater potential threat to an off-shore platform than there is to a shore based installation. And terrorists are more likely in theory to attack something where there is a large population, you can argue that, I mean the purpose, terrorists always want to inflict maximum misery on people and if they can attack an installation which is close to a large centre of population that might be a more attractive target than something that's off-shore.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, did you discuss the prospects for oil prices staying high?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we didn't get into that, I intend to talk about oil prices amongst other things with Alan Greenspan and some of the other people I'll meet in Washington tomorrow, but I didn't talk to the Governor about oil prices. This was very much a working call, focused on a particular proposal, the Governor expressed very keen interest in it, he sounded supportive, he obviously must be satisfied in relation to all the things that need to be dealt with in California but he was very interested, expressed a great affection for Australia and spoke warmly of his visits there in the past and his desire to come again. But very specifically demonstrated a great deal of knowledge of what was involved.
JOURNALIST:
After meeting one of the world's most famous actors do you think acting and politics is a good combination?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think you could say that just as there's a lot of politics in acting, there's often a bit of acting in politics.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, will we see the Terminator "Down Under" before the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know, my invitation to him was totally unrelated to any kind of partisan political motive.
JOURNALIST:
How did he respond to your gift?
PRIME MINISTER:
Loved them. He said that he had been wanting a pair like that and he gave me a very, very heavy bear. I don't know whether it had been made heavier since he's become Governor or not.
JOURNALIST:
Did he raise any reservations at all with the BHP proposal?
PRIME MINISTER:
Did he express any?
JOURNALIST:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, he did not, but that doesn't mean to say that it will ultimately be approved. But I came away from the meeting with the very clear impression that he was positive about the proposal, subject of course to the law here being complied with and policy considerations being met. But he was both positive about it, he didn't just show a professional interest, he seemed very positive, he obviously understands that California has a very big energy problem, very big.
JOURNALIST:
Was there discussion about where the LNG will be sourced from, in terms of whether BHP will source it from the North West Shelf?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we touched on that, but not in any detail.
JOURNALIST:
Was the meeting specifically limited to BHP, did he raise any issues (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
In the private meeting we had at the beginning we talked the little bit about the experiences of government, he spoke warmly about Australia's contribution to the coalition of the willing and the fact that Australia was a very strong ally of the United States, we talked a little bit about how challenging it is in your early period and I said that from my experience for a new government the first budget is always the most important budget because that's the one that lays the foundation of the governments future success. I have said before in Australia that the best budget we've ever brought down was the budget of 1996 because that was the one that laid the foundation for the eight years of economic growth and stability that's followed. Two more and then we must go.
JOURNALIST:
You referred to Iraq last night, to look forward what are your expectations of (inaudible) colaition as it takes on a more international stance with UN involvement? Are troop commitments along with coalition numbers going to change, do you see the Australian commitment growing - shrinking as we move forward?
PRIME MINISTER:
Too early to start talking about that. The next and most important thing ahead of us is to batten down the transition to the provisional Iraqi Government and last night's announcement and the images of a group of Iraqi politicians coming forward and accepting leadership roles, that's very important, it sends a very strong message. The relationship between them and the coalition will obviously alter after the 30th of June. Over time it'll be possible to look at those sorts of issues, there's not going to be any change in our own force composition, the Australian one that is, as a result of the transfer, we have particular jobs to do and we'll continue to do them. It's obviously the case that if the security situation improves then the day when there can be some wind down in the level of international forces, and I'm sure this is of concern to the United States Government, that they will get closer.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard what is your response to the signs that there's now an exit date for troops, 2006, possibly 2006, coming out of a new UN Security Council resolution?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm a little cautious in relation to particular dates, it's far better to set yourself goals which will make it possible to leave rather than set yourself an exit date subject to achieving those goals. It's putting the thing the wrong way around, you have to have conditions of stability and security and a real as well as legal assumption of authority before you can start talking about leaving.
JOURNALIST:
How strongly do you intend to push President Bush tomorrow on the question of the two Australians in Guantanamo Bay?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will repeat what I've said before and that is that we would like them dealt with according to the processes of law as soon as possible and that's been my position for some time, we're making progress on that front. The only observation I'd make is, and particularly for an Australian audience, is that there seems to be this strange notion that persists in comments people make and in some reporting that if an Australian is charged with a crime overseas that Australian has some kind of automatic right of repatriation to be tried in Australia. That is ridiculous. If an American commits a crime in Australia that person is tried in Australia, and this idea that because Hicks and Habib are Australians they have to be brought back to Australia to be tried defies all legal practice, that is not the case at all, and on top of that of course is the reality that if they were brought back to Australia there is no law as I understand it, current operating law, that would enable them to be tried in Australia and they would then literally go free. Now I think those two considerations, particularly the former just seem to be missed, we have this sort of mantra from their lawyers, we have this mantra from some opposition politicians and from some commentators oh, they should be brought back to Australia. Why? They didn't commit the crimes in Australia. I think there'd be an outcry in Australia if an American or a Vietnamese or an Englishman committed a crime in our country and their government said well you've got to send them back, we'll deal with them.
JOURNALIST:
Would they serve time in Australia if convicted though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we, one of the issues that has been discussed is that if they are convicted then there could be a possibility they might serve some of their conviction in Australia, that's a different thing. That is happening already. But there's just this simple notion, no Australian has a right of automatic repatriation to Australia if that Australian is charged with a crime overseas, it is not how international law operates. Yet so much of the discussion on this issue seems to proceed on that completely uninformed basis.
Thank you. See you in Washington.
[ends]