MURRAY:
Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Paul.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, should the Opposition Leader Mark Latham have been at that ceremony at the SAS yesterday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for him.
MURRAY:
The Governor General was there, you were there...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I asked that Mr Latham be invited, I gave instructions, express instructions that he be invited. The question of why he was not there is something that he should be asked, I don't know.
MURRAY:
Okay, look I'm sure you're aware of the debate going on in the United States this week about whether or not torture is an acceptable interrogation technique in the war on terror. It appears that there's been legal advice prepared for the President back in 2003, argued that physical or psychological pain might be justified in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda. Can you envisage a circumstance in which your government would condone torture to fight terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
MURRAY:
Are you aware that this is the advice given to the...
PRIME MINISTER:
I am aware from news reports that different interpretations have been given in legal assessments that have been provided but to my knowledge there has been no change in American policy and that it is not American policy to allow torture and that is why the Americans are bringing to justice people who have been responsible for abuse. Now we could spent the whole day debating when abuse ends and torture commences, we all have I guess a subjective view but the view of my Government and my own personal view is that torture is not justified and it will never be condoned or supported by the Australian Government.
MURRAY:
Even though terrorists groups don't strictly fall under the Geneva Convention?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's argument about that but after all we stand for certain things in a civilised country and one of those things we stand for is the humane treatment of people, that doesn't mean to say they shouldn't be aggressively interrogated in terms of questioning and so forth but the sort of thing that you and I would understand as torture, gouging peoples eyes out, pulling arms off, the sort of things that happened under the Saddam Hussein regime. I read a book the other day which talked about a video was taken of Saddam Hussein watching his dobermans literally eat alive a general who he thought had betrayed him, now this was in a book written by a noted British author William Shawcross, I mention it not to be over-graphic on your programme but rather to make the point that when you're talking about ill treatment of people, the fellow who was deposed in Iraq was a monster.
MURRAY:
We have of course recently seen pictures of American personnel using attack dogs...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I condemn that, the President condemns it and people involved are being brought to trial. I've just been to the United States, I've talked directly to President Bush about this issue, they are apologetic, they're ashamed that certain people in their force have behaved like this but it is not representative of all of the American forces and I know that the overwhelming majority of people in the American forces are determined that those responsible for abuse are brought to justice.
MURRAY:
There was a concerted attempt over the last two weeks to tie your government to what went on in Abu Ghraib prison, done through the Estimates Committee of the Senate. Was your Government damaged by what came out during that week and a half?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm more concerned at the reputation of the men and women in the Defence Forces because there has been an attempt made to associate them in some way with what went on. Now I want to make it clear on their behalf, they did not participate in any abuse, they did not condone the abuse, we did not have custody in the legal sense of any prisoners in Iraq and this pathetic attempt because an officer or officers may have known of some complaints which in any event according to the Red Cross earlier this year were being actively attended to and responded to by the Americans and the British, this pathetic attempt to implicate us in some way, I mean by all means have a go at me politically but leave the men and women of the Australian Defence Force out of it. The question of whether we as a government have been politically damaged, well I'll know that on election day I guess, there are a lot of things that people use to try and politically damage us but our people are doing a fantastic job in Iraq, not only the SAS but all the other men and women who are over there and I on their behalf totally reject this puerile attempt to suggest, I mean they don't directly say it but if you keep asking about certain things and knowing that these photographs will be shown on television every time there's a news report, it is designed to build an impression in the minds of the public that there is some link, now there is no link. We never had custody of people in Iraq, we had an arrangement with the Americans that if we took any physical custody of Iraqi prisoners, and we did on a few occasions, there were Americans located in our units who had the legal custody and the reason for that was very simple, we didn't have enough men there to run a prison system, you can't have prisoners of war unless you have a big enough force to run the apparatus of a prison system. The only units, countries that had a big enough capacity to do that were the Americans and the British.
MURRAY:
Was that a well worked out arrangement, it appears to go back to something that was understood in the war in Afghanistan.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's common sense, if you don't have a big enough establishment to have a prison system you ought not to have legal custody of prisoners. Now we had the physical custody on a few occasions, there were some on the Manoora, or the Kanimbla, or one of those vessels, there were some who were taken by other units, but on each occasion there were Americans there who had the legal custody for the purposes of international law and they were then quickly passed into the prison system which the Americans had established.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, have you...
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say one thing about the Americans in their defence, they're trying to do something about it. If you tortured somebody in a hideous way under Saddam Hussein you didn't get court marshalled, you got a pat on the back and you got promoted.
MURRAY:
Have you noted that the United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage appears to think you're going to lose the next election. Why else would he have Labor under such pressure about their policy of withdrawing the troops?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know whether he thinks we're to lose or not, we might. I've said all along that the next election is going to be very tough, but Mr Armitage has made the valid point and I'll make it too, that you've now got a United Nations resolution, Iraq is as he said at a tilting point. With the resolution passed you've got the American President and his rival, Senator Kerry, against a premature withdrawal; you've got the British Prime Minister and the British Opposition Leader against a premature withdrawal; you've got the newly nominated Iraqi interim government against a premature withdrawal; you've got a 15 - nil United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the continued stationing of international forces in Iraq subject to the continuing approval of the new Iraqi Government and authorising them to take necessary steps to maintain security, in other words authorising them to do what they will have to do to maintain security. Now all of those people are saying that and they believe the presence of those troops is necessary for Iraq becoming a democracy, but they're all wrong and I'm wrong and Mr Latham's right because what Mr Latham's policy really is that we should pull our forces out after the 30th of June. He talks of December because he knows that from the practical point of view if there were a Labor Government after the next election he wouldn't be able to bring them home until December. But his argument and that of Mr Rudd, and they don't say it much now but they've said it before, is that our responsibility ends on the 30th of June, now that's wrong, it's not the view that anybody I can find really has, even countries such as France have joined more or less, well they didn't veto the resolution, they in fact voted for it. So I can't think of a worst time for anybody to be pulling out because if Iraq is thrown to the terrorist wolves, and that would happen if the international forces pulled out, any hope of having a democratic Iraq would disappear, it would be an enormous set back to the hopes of some more democratic future in the Middle East and it would also be an enormous victory for international terrorism because whether you thought terrorists were directly linked with Saddam Hussein or not, and there was always an argument about that, particularly al-Qaeda, there's no doubt that right now the terrorists regard victory over the coalition in Iraq as a key objective and if they win, if they force the coalition out and the democratic experiment in Iraq fails then the terrorists have a got huge victory. In the face of all of that I just cannot understand how Mr Latham's attitude is remotely in Australia's national interest.
MURRAY:
Do you feel under any pressure at all to get our troops out quickly?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I feel that they should stay there and they will stay there for so long as I'm Prime Minister until their job is completed.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, all political parties are keen to attract good talent to their ranks, obviously. What do you think of the tactic of parachuting in high profile candidates over the aspirations of local party people?
PRIME MINISTER:
You're talking about Peter Garrett?
MURRAY:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
I won't comment on the Labor Party's pre-selection process, that's a matter for the Australian Labor Party. I would leave that entirely to them. The only comment I'd make is about this controversy that's arisen regarding whether or not Mr Garrett has voted.
MURRAY:
Well he clearly hasn't in the last three elections.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well all I can say is that if somebody hasn't voted on the last three occasions that had an opportunity to do so they can't very passionate about the future of this country can they?
MURRAY:
Well he's said some very disparaging things about the political process after he failed as a nuclear disarmament candidate.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well all of those things, he will have to answer, and I hope the press of Australia put him under appropriate scrutiny. I'm not going to get into the pre-selection thing, that's a matter for the Labor Party, entirely a matter. But I do think the average Australian will scratch their head and say gee, I thought this bloke was passionate, but he hasn't voted on the last three elections, that's odd, it goes to his credibility as somebody who is seriously interested in the future of this country because after all voting is an immense privilege, there aren't many countries that have been as continuously democratic as Australia, we are one of a handful of countries that have remained continuously democratic for the last 100 years, you can count them on the fingers of both hands and have a couple left over and we're one of those countries and the basic right in a democracy is to vote and you show a certain contempt for that democracy by not participating.
MURRAY:
I notice Cheryl Kernot's just sent him her best wishes, that must be quite chilling for Mr Garrett.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll say no more.
MURRAY:
9221 1233 if you want to speak to the Prime Minister today, Nathan in Beckenham is first up, g'day Nathan.
CALLER:
G'day, good morning Mr Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
You are encouraging the older people to work on past retirement, which I have done. Well last July I received a reduction in wages of nine per cent, reason being was I had reached the age of 70 and the employer by law does not have to pay superannuation. Are you aware of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I'm aware of that.
CALLER:
What is the reason please?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because when that law was introduced the view was taken that superannuation was accumulated for a retirement and that the great bulk of people would have retired by the time they reached the age of 70, that's the logic behind it. The problem, now sir you are a wonderful exception to that rule, the great problem we have is getting people to work after 55, not after 70. If we could do something about the age cohort of 55 to 64 where the number of people who are out of the workforce is higher in Australia than it is in many comparable countries we'd make a big change but the reasoning behind that rule is what I've just explained.
MURRAY:
Is that now in danger of becoming redundant because you are...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it might and it's something that we should look at. I mean I take your point sir, you make an entirely valid point and the more people who remain in the workforce at and older age the more something like that becomes redundant. You made a very good point.
MURRAY:
Thanks Nathan for your call. Phil in Bicton, good morning Phil.
CALLER:
Good morning Mr Howard and Paul.
MURRAY:
Hi mate.
CALLER:
Yeah look Mr Howard, I'd like to put a question - if Mr Garrett, not that you want to dwell on it, but if Mr Garrett was so for the forests and the Greens, why didn't he join the Green Party instead of the Labor Party that's my question I'd like to put to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm the worst bloke to ask. I'm not Labor, I'm not Mr Garrett and I'm not Green. He's got to explain that. I mean, he's now accountable. He's got explain why he didn't vote - if that's the case - the last three occasions, how that squares with his passion for Australia's future, he's got to explain that.
PAUL MURRAY:
But his excuse this morning, well the one coming out of the Labor Party is that he was overseas.
PRIME MINISTER:
But hang on, hang on. In the last election, in 2001 there were 63,036 who voted overseas. You are not compelled if you are overseas to vote but you are able to and there are polling stations all over the place. I mean, one of the largest polling booths in any Australian election is, for example, Australian House in London. They are everywhere. I mean, I've voted overseas. I've been overseas, not during federal elections I might say, I haven't been overseas in any federal elections in the last ....
PAUL MURRAY:
Probably with good reason.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I was overseas in the 1964 Senate election and I voted at Australia House.
MURRAY:
9221 1233 if you want to speak to the Prime Minister today. Neville in Hilton, good morning.
CALLER:
Good morning Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello.
CALLER:
Prime Minister, I just wanted to say to you, thanks for closure of ATSIC because history will show that the (inaudible) people and your closure of ATSIC has put aboriginal people 30 years behind the time but it was ATSIC itself and that from the time that ATSIC was set up it (inaudible)segregated our community. (inaudible) aboriginal people can feel part of the Australian community and not be segregated by this act, I'd just like to listen to your comments please.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well sir, my very strong view is that the best hope for the indigenous people of this country is that they can be given every opportunity to share in the prosperity and the wealth of this country, which means that there's no getting away and encouraging them to participate in the mainstream benefits of Australia and that means more education, better health, better employment opportunities. Now ATSIC was a failure. I personally, always had reservations about it and I believe that sensible aboriginal people will support its closure. I also believe that the arrangements that will replace it will give plenty of opportunity for consultation with advice being received from aboriginal people and we have no desire to impose white solutions on aboriginal people. We have every desire, however, to treat them as Australians. Now I am a great believer that we're one nation, united nation and that everybody should be given an equal opportunity, respecting of course that aboriginal people have a distinctive history and culture which we ought to respect. Now that's my simple way of explaining how you should approach these issues. I've never believed in separately electing people according to their race. I think that is just a silly idea and I'm all in favour though of recognising that aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged as a group, we have to recognise that. We are making some progress - the infantile mortality rate amongst aboriginal people over the last 20 years has fallen sharply, it's still too high; educational participation at a tertiary level has risen a lot over the last ten years; employment opportunities have risen. But we still have a long long way to go and I want to address those issues rather than get caught up with an argument about symbolism and an argument about having a separate elected structure, which I don't think worked and most people now accept that.
MURRAY:
Thanks Neville. Sandy in Rivervale go ahead, hi.
CALLER:
Good morning, Paul. Good morning, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
CALLER:
I was made redundant at 54 and now four years down the track I have not been able to land a full time job. I've been working in temp positions all that time. If I do go for interviews it costs me because if I don't work I don't get paid, I get no benefits at all. The wages are very very low. There doesn't seem to be any incentive for employers to hire new employees over 50.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sandy, sorry, well I know it is harder to get full time work when you are older, I accept that. There are a combination of reasons for it. It's become a trend for employers to have more part time and casual people, one of the reasons for that is that regulatory cost of employing full time people is greater and sometimes when unions and governments erect protections for full time workers that involve additional cost, that actually has a perverse effect.
CALLER:
It's a disincentive.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a disincentive and I actually believe that the more flexible you make employment conditions the more likely you are to generate full time jobs and I think that a lot of the part time work we have now is a consequence of that.
MURRAY:
Thanks, Sandy. Good morning, Barry.
CALLER:
Good morning, John. I'd like to pose a hypothetical question for you regarding interrogation techniques etcetara in a situation. Let's assume you know that Saddam Hussein and his number two man are sharing a cave or a house together, you capture the number two man, you then say to him where's Saddam hiding? He says I'm not going to tell you, do you then give him a Shish Kebab with the lot and send him back to his cell?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's a hypothetical question and we got Saddam.
CALLER:
... else in that situation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, I don't know. But I'm really, Sir, I know what you're coming to, but I'm not going to get involved in answering hypothetical questions on a serious issue like that.
MURRAY:
Rosco, good morning Rosco.
CALLER:
How you going guys? Prime Minister, I would like to ask you, you just made a statement regarding the aboriginals that you did not wish to impose the white Australian on the aboriginal. Can you tell me, what gives you and George Bush the right to impose the will of the white Australian / white American on the Iraqi people who don't necessarily want you there anymore?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I dispute your proposition that they don't want us there anymore. The nominated interim government, and it will be replaced by a few months time, by an elected government who have said it does want us there. And what the original justification? The serial non-compliance by Iraq by about 18 Security Council resolutions and most recently resolution 1441. The legal justification for Australia's involvement was Iraq's non-compliance with resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations - that was the strict legal justification. Quite apart from that, there were the humanitarian considerations, I have no doubt that the people of Iraq are much better off now that Saddam has gone and the discovery of mass graves with bodies of 200,000-300,000 people since he's been deposed is evidence of that.
MURRAY:
Well they'll get their first fair and free election in 30 years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that's right yeah.
MURRAY:
Shaun in Kenwick. Good morning, Shaun.
CALLER:
Good morning, Paul. Good morning, Mr Prime Minister. My question is Mr Latham's stance on plastic bags which you may know about...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I do.
CALLER:
... quite heavily on that stance and also the fact that he's putting Peter Garrett into his party. He's obviously heavily involved in environmental side. What's your stance on plastic bags?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have some policies which are designed to provide incentives for them to be used less. It's one aspect of the environment I would have thought that one of the biggest environmental challenges that this country has is salinity. There are a lot of environmental challenges that the country has. I don't think the test of your environmental credentials should be whether you're going to fade out plastic bags by a particular time. I think reducing greenhouse gases in a way that doesn't damage Australian industry, particularly the resource industry here in Western Australia and I'll be having something to say about that whole issue in much detail next week.
MURRAY:
Could I just ask you about the gas talks that you had in America, which are a great interest to people in this state. It basically revolved around BHP's...
PRIME MINISTER:
But I'm not batting for BHP.
MURRAY:
You did take them along.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they asked me because they have put a particular proposal to the Government in California.
MURRAY:
There are two other gas deals Morgan and Sunrise which have aspirations there...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they wouldn't be shut out. The proposal, I mean, the question of where the gas comes from is a matter for commercial negotiation. But the BHP Billiton proposal is to build a floating platform in about 14 miles of the coast of California and the LNG would be taken from Western Australia over to California and it would be processed on the floating platform and then piped onshore and sold to the people of California which if it were an independent country would be the fifth largest economy in the world.
MURRAY:
But Morgan and Sunrise want to go to a Mexican terminal just south of the Californian border and also obviously get up to that market. There's a perception here that by taking BHP and arguing the case there that you've actually discriminated against Morgan and Sunrise... very big WA proposition.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Paul, if another company wants me to make representations on their behalf, I'm happy to do so. BHP approached me and I know from my experience with the natural gas contract with China that you've got to get involved at a government level. Now if another company wanted me in circumstances that were possible, I mean I happen to be going to the United States and the company asked me to make representations and I'll do that for any... I mean, I am in the business of promoting the Australian national interest and one of the appeals of the offshore platform is that it will in effect (inaudible) be California's own because it would be 14 miles offshore, it wouldn't have to go through other states, it wouldn't have to come from another country.
MURRAY:
Prime Minister, we're out of time. It always goes far too quickly. I think you're going out to have a look at some AusLink road spending.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I'm going out to have a look at the Mandurah Bypass which is called, some people call it the Peel Deviation, and I'm just going to have a look at the site of it and this will bring enormous benefits to people living in both a Liberal electorate and a Labor electorate. There'll be a lot of people in Mr Beazley's electorate will benefit and also a lot of people in Don Randall's electorate of Canning.
MURRAY:
Very good to have you here again. Thanks for your time this morning.
[ends]