JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you've set out energy and water as two great visions. Will you be pursuing those to the next election and will you consider appointing dedicated Ministers to each portfolio?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that the current administrative arrangements are okay but I keep them under constant review. They are issues that I am sure will be pursued with great vigour by all members of the Government from now, to and beyond the next election if the Australian people are kind enough to re-elect the Coalition.
JOURNALIST:
Would you be encouraging the States to look at recycling as the main option, rather than...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I have a very strong view that capturing storm water and recycling are the ways to tackle the urban water problem in this country. I think they're infinitely preferable to desalination.
What I said at the COAG meeting was that we needed out of the National Water Fund, which of course is Commonwealth money, we needed a greater emphasis on a smaller number of bigger projects. And they agreed with me and they are going to get together and put forward some ideas. And I'll be waiting to hear from them. I'm going to write to the Premiers and Chief Ministers in the next few weeks, setting out some criteria. I want to get a greater focus.
The smaller projects that have been funded are all very good, but I intuitively feel that we need one or two really big ones that tackle the urban water problems, and I don't think desalination is the way to go. I'm of course reacting to the evidence and information and advice that is currently available. The science in these things is always contested, but it seems commonsense to me that capturing storm water and recycling are really the two big challenges in relation to urban water.
JOURNALIST:
A kind of Snowy Mountains authority for cities if you like? Something like...
PRIME MINISTER:
Matt, that's your phrase. Look I think, once again, we've got to think pragmatically and I'm interested in projects which will tackle the urban water problems. Look, you asked me if it's alright to have water trading, why isn't it alright to have carbon trading. In answer to one of the questions I made my point that you can't have a proper carbon trading system unless you have the same set of rules applying to everybody.
JOURNALIST:
What about if the states were to introduce a national trading system?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that would be unworkable and in any event, it's my understanding that Queensland does not support that, for the most obvious of reasons, because such a system would do great damage to the Queensland economy.
JOURNALIST:
Is Kyoto now a dead duck? Would they be better to rip it up and then start again?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I'm not saying that. What I did today was to point out how it had fallen well short of the descriptors that have been given to it; why Australia did not join Kyoto, why it would have hurt Australia if we had, and why the world has moved on from it. But I don't want to engage in destructive language, such as ripping things up.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister is it realistic to get rid of water restrictions? You had some strong statements...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I didn't say that. What I said was that it is absurd that we had to be burdened with them, and we should as a community, find a way of avoiding them. I'm not saying as of now we should get rid of them because self-evidently, because of a whole lot of poor decisions over recent years we've got ourselves into the dilemma we are. But the goal should be to have a situation where we are as free of them as we are of electricity restrictions?
JOURNALIST:
Can you see that day coming anytime soon?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, you heard what I had to say and don't push it beyond what I actually said.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, in the past you've said that the Australian people are the great lie detector in Australian politics.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
You've seen that with the publication of the Nielsen poll this morning, the Australian people find the Treasurer's version of events...
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought it was a very interesting poll, but my long standing practice is not to give running commentaries on them.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the Middle East.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Your response to the Australians in Lebanon. Have you done anything more to actually get them out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I spoke to the Foreign Minister earlier today and I can assure you, and I hope for reasons you will understand, I don't want to go into all the detail of it, but the Government is working overtime to help get people out. But it's difficult, it's very dangerous. Some may well feel it is safer to stay where they are, particularly if they are in a part of Lebanon which is not being subjected to the violence and destruction which is inevitable as a result of this conflict. We are working very, very hard. Our Embassy has done all it has been able to do in the circumstances. As we're able to say more to the general public we will, but I hope you will understand that it probably doesn't help for us to be spelling out all of the details of what we're endeavouring to do because it's a very fraught and difficult situation.
JOURNALIST:
But a number of European countries have actually got their citizens out. Is there any reason why Australia's slower than the other countries?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well one reason of course is that we're a lot further from the area of conflict. That's a very obvious and compelling reason. Australia is a long way from the Middle East.
JOURNALIST:
But just getting them out of Lebanon though.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think you should be a little patient and understand that efforts are being made and it's important that we, in each situation, balance the risk versus the opportunity.
[ends]