PRESENTER:
Labor says Australia would be better off using its troops to fight the war against terrorism in its backyard, rather than sending more of them to Iraq. Labor opposes the Government's decision, announced yesterday, to almost double Australia's troop commitment in Iraq and it accuses John Howard of breaking an election promise not to substantially increase the number of soldiers serving there. We'll hear from Labor's defence spokesman shortly.
450 soldiers, mostly from the 1st Brigade in Darwin, will depart within 10 weeks for the southern province of Muthanna where they'll protect Japanese military engineers. At the moment the area is relatively peaceful, but the Shiite stronghold has been attacked before and two Dutch soldiers were killed. John Howard has defended his change of mind, saying Australia must shoulder its international responsibility. John Howard is in Perth for two days of campaigning before Saturday's state election and he spoke from there last night to our chief political correspondent, Catherine McGrath.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, why have you broken an election promise not to substantially increase Australian troop numbers to Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
The circumstances have changed quite significantly since the election and I think it's also fair to say that the level of troop commitment in Iraq, apart from Mr Latham's rather foolish commitment to bring them home by Christmas, was hardly a central issue in the campaign. But I admit quite openly that we have changed our position and we've done so for a number of reasons. The first and most important is that the elections in Iraq on the 30th of January were dramatically better supported and the outcome, as an exercise in democracy in the most appalling circumstances, was far more inspiring and impressive than I think anybody had expected. I think it's also an important consideration that Japan, a major regional partner of Australia, has asked that our forces go there to provide a secure environment for the continuation of their important humanitarian work. And overall there's been a much greater emphasis in recent weeks on the importance of training of the Iraqis so that they in time can take over the security of their own country.
People keep saying we have to work towards a situation when foreign forces are no longer in Iraq. That is right. But we cannot achieve that goal unless there is proper training of the Iraqis and the only people who can undertake that training are countries that are willing to be involved, and Australia is one of those countries. So they are the reasons why we have altered our position. I'm not running away from the fact that I had previously said I did not contemplate a major increase, and that was a fair statement of the Government's state of mind at the time I made that. But in these situations a government must have a capacity if circumstances alter and it is judged to be not only in our own interests but also in the broader interests of democracy in the Middle East that we make those changes. And I do not apologise at all for the fact that the Government has changed its position. I acknowledge that I'll be criticised for that but in the end I've got to take decisions that I believe are right in the interests of this country and broader Western interests in the Middle East.
MCGRATH:
Alright, but in Davos in late January you received a formal request for this yet you told the Bulletin magazine on the way home from that trip that you would not be significantly increasing our presence.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Catherine, I'm not denying that we have changed our position and this is a situation that has evolved over a period of weeks and governments, unless they are to be absolutely frozen and immobilised in time and not withstanding a change in circumstances never change their position, they're constantly going to have to do things of this kind. I mean this is just, if I may so say, really playing with words. We are a government that has assessed changed circumstances and decided that the right thing to do is to respond to this request. This involves a partnership with a country which is very important to us in our own region. It also involves responding to a request from one of the other coalition partners, the British. But the Japanese element of this is very important because Japan is a strong regional ally and partner of Australia and I think it is very important to the coalition effort in Iraq that Japan continues to be part of that effort, particularly as the contribution Japan is making is of a very constructive humanitarian kind.
MCGRATH:
Alright, you have outlined your reasons for this. I'm asking the question though in terms of informing the public, didn't you mislead the Bulletin then when you said...
PRIME MINISTER:
No I didn't because no decision, well I'm sorry Catherine I didn't mislead the Bulletin because no decision had been taken.
MCGRATH:
But a decision was under active consideration at that time.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I'm sorry a decision is not under active consideration. No decision had been taken at that time and quite frankly at that particular time (which was only a few weeks ago) we were a long way from the decision that we have taken in recent days.
MCGRATH:
Kim Beazley has said, I'm sure you've heard his comments, that he said, and I quote, "we shouldn't be doing this".
PRIME MINISTER:
Very interesting. Mr Beazley has not addressed the substance of the issue. I mean I knew Mr Beazley would oppose the decision because he has no alternative. He couldn't bring his party with him if he had another view himself. But why doesn't Mr Beazley address the substance of the issue? Why doesn't Mr Beazley tell the Australian public that it's not a good thing to help a regional partner like Japan? Why doesn't Mr Beazley explain to the Australian public how the Iraqis are going to equip themselves to look after their country unless they are trained? I mean it's all very well to say we should not have gone there in the first place - I respect the fact that a lot of Australians held that view - but we are there now and we have to deal with the here and now and the here and now requires that we maintain as strong a coalition as possible and that we also train the Iraqis so that we can all leave and hand over the management of that country to the Iraqis. But they cannot do that job unless their military and their police are properly trained and we can at least play a constructive role in that process. These are the issues that Mr Beazley must address. It's not good enough for him to say we shouldn't be there; that's not an argument, that's just a mantra. I'd like to know from Mr Beazley how he deals with those issues of substance.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, there are going to be 450 Australian troops going in replacing a Dutch force of 1400. Are the Australians going to be doing the same thing - are they going to be securing this region as well as protecting the Japanese?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we won't be doing exactly the same as the Dutch. The Dutch had a broader security role for the whole region and we indicated, after talking to our military, that what we would do is provide a secure environment for the Japanese and also undertake training. There will be British forces there which will be working in partnership with ours, although we'll have a separate Australian national command, and together we'll be providing security; primarily in relation to the Japanese deployment, the British more broadly.
MCGRATH:
This area is potentially very dangerous (although it has been reasonably settled of recent times) but are you concerned that Australians are now going into their most dangerous action of the post-war Iraq period?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh certainly there is danger, and I don't run away from that, although as you note the security position here is more benign than in other parts of Iraq. I mean relatively speaking, and it is relatively speaking, this has been a peaceful area but I'm not pretending that there isn't a danger of Australian casualties. I hope they don't occur - we all hope and pray they don't occur, but I wouldn't pretend that there isn't a prospect.
MCGRATH:
Of course two Dutch lives were lost and also since the election the Japanese had three rockets into their base and at one stage the police station was taken over.
PRIME MINISTER:
Catherine, all of those things are correct. I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I am pointing out that compared with other parts of Iraq the environment here is relatively benign.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, you're in Western Australia for the last few days, two days in fact, of the last stage of the election campaign. Colin Barnett has focused on the canal project and the importance of that to West Australians, you going to back that with money while you're there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I've said in relation to that is I think it's a very exciting concept, what Colin is endeavouring to do is to address the long term water needs of this state and I've said that it's a very good thing that if he's elected he will join the national water initiative; something that Geoff Gallop's Labor Party has refused to do. And if he does that then Western Australia will become eligible for federal government money for water projects and we will have a look at this project and make an assessment according to the criteria of that national water initiative.
MCGRATH:
But you won't be backing it financially between now and polling day?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I've said is that we will examine it once Western Australia has joined the national water initiative and that can't take place until, unless and until there's a change of government because Dr Gallop has said he won't sign up to the national water initiative and in continuing to stand out from the national water initiative he's denying security of title to a lot of pastoralists in Western Australia and he has this view that in some way denying Western Australian participation in a national plan in relation to title and the distribution of water he's doing Western Australia a favour. I think he's not doing them a favour at all, he's doing them damage.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, experts in Western Australia say that election is too close to call, what do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it is very close. I think the Coalition has a very good chance of winning but I think it's very tough. I think it's an election that I believe will be determined by what happens over the next few days. I don't think anybody could say that either side is clearly going to win. I think it is a very tight contest and a very unpredictable outcome.
MCGRATH:
And yet you've left it to the dying days of the campaign to go over there, would it have been better to go earlier?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think quite the reverse. I think the last few days of this campaign are going to decide the outcome. So in that sense it's appropriate I'm here now. But in the end Catherine this will be decided by state issues. This is not a federal election - people are not going to vote according to federal issues. Australians are very astute - they vote in federal elections on federal issues and in state elections on state issues.
[ends]