Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Conference to discuss extending counter-terro -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) coalition partners which, of course, if you go back to the prime ministership of John Gorton was a very potent issue. Now I don't very potent issue. Now I don't want to exaggerate this danger too much but it is a risk, given the debate we saw at the Liberal Party Federal council several weeks ago. Paul, thanks for your time. Thanks, council several weeks ago. Paul, thanks for your time. Thanks, On Friday, the PM announced a special premiers' conference for late next month to deal with terrorism. They will look at new laws, new capabilities, transport, security and identification security. The PM joins me now in our Sydney studios. PM, good morning. Good morning, PM, good morning. Good morning, Barrie. On Friday, you were open-minded about whether the laws in this country adequately deal in this country adequately deal with incitement to terrorism, can I incitement to terrorism, can I suggest on that score you might be way behind uncommon opinion? ╝Yellow╛No, I don't think so. It's old States' rights issue inside the does run the risk of igniting the powers versus State rights then this powers versus State rights then depicted as one of Commonwealth extent that this whole issue is depicted extent that this whole issue is the Howard Government because to the the Howard Government because to are some risks here, of course, for quite a significant decision. There a question of how far you go. I'm open-minded about further extensions to the law and the purpose of calling this meeting purpose of calling this meeting with the States, 'cause they have roles in this as well, is for the heads in this as well, is for the heads of governments in Australia to see if we governments in Australia to see if we might agree on some changes in this area. I don't think anybody finds it acceptable that anybody else can incite hatred or demonstrate the sort of bigotry or prejudice that was demonstrated in the interview on the 7:30 Report last Thursday. I think all of us find it acceptable. But it is important that somebody find it acceptable. But it is important that somebody in my position carefully and soberly position carefully and soberly works out what is the best response and I think we musn't lose sight of the fact that if there's a lesson to be learnt out of what happened in London, it is that there was an intelligence failure. There are intelligence failure. There are two aspects to othis terrorism problem, and knowing aspects to othis terrorism problem, and knowing in advance that something might happen and responding effectively when something does happen, I think it can be said that the British response has been incredibly five. Their Emergency Services worked Their Emergency Services worked very effectively. Their camera surveillance was extraordinary to the extent that in relation to the second foiled attempt they actually the extent that in relation to the second foiled attempt they actually have identified and people, so they believe, and arrested them. But nobody knew apparently in advance that this attack was coming, and that this attack was coming, and the biggest problem that our societies face is to penetrate these closed areas of our own communities and to try as far as humanly possible and know in advance and that is more than anything else, that is an intelligence community responsibility. intelligence community responsibility. So you're more concerned about that than hearing these people who in effect are inciting people to violence? Well, the two could be connected Well, the two could be connected and one of the things I'm going to do one of the things I'm going to do as well as have a meeting with the State premiers is I am going to State premiers is I am going to call a meeting of leaders of the Islamic community and I'll have that community and I'll have that meeting within the next few weeks, to do a number of things. Firstly, assure them that we're all in this together, that they shouldn't feel as though their whole community is under attack. That would be not only counterproductive, it would be quite unjust, because the overwhelming majority of them share the abhorrentness that we do about violence and terrorism. But they violence and terrorism. But they do have responsibilities violence and terrorism. But they do have responsibilities and we have have responsibilities and we have to guard against this country going down the path of other societies where you have closed cells which are really the product of people being able to operate with a degree of immunity within their own communities and that really is something that we have to bust open. This meeting with the Muslim leaders then, will that come leaders then, will that come before the premiers' conference or after it? ╝Yellow╛Yes,

the premiers' conference or after it? ╝Yellow╛Yes, it will it will come before. It's the right sequencing. We have to tackle this problem on two fronts. We have to try and get inside the communities where these potentially hostile groups may be and we need the help of those communities. We really do, and we have to make sure we have effective laws and we and we have to make sure we have effective laws and we have to make sure that we have effective sure that we have effective physical responses. Now I think we can all agree on the desirability of the latter. It's a question of where you go and how far you go. The former is more challenging and more complicated because it involves enlisting complicated because it involves enlisting the cooperation of these communities, because what happened in Britain was that you had British-born people. Their communities must have known something of it. I find that hard to accept that they didn't, and the reality is that there was no human intelligence suggesting otherwise. And because they were British-born, Tony Blair - one of And because they were British-born, Tony Blair - one of his initial responses is to talk about deportation laws, but they're not much good in that case, are they? I don't think he was specifically relating that to the last group of terrorists. The next group of terrorists may not be British-born or Australian-born or American-born, they just were on that occasion. I think what Tony Blair is talking about, quite rightly, is that if somebody has come from about, quite rightly, is that if somebody has come from another country and has failed to properly embrace the values of this society, his society - and I would apply the same to Australia - then the idea same to Australia - then the idea of taking away their citizenship is taking away their citizenship is one that ought to be looked at. I mean, I think that when somebody comes to this country you enter into a this country you enter into a mutual obligation, understanding. You receive the benefit obligation, understanding. You receive the benefit of living in

Australia and in return you have an obligation to embrace and imbibe obligation to embrace and imbibe the values and attitudes values and attitudes unconditionally embrace and imbibe the attitudes of this society. I think that's a this society. I think that's a fair balance and most Australians would see it in those terms. And should see it in those terms. And should we do more about putting in a formal sense the way we embrace these core values. Peter Costello was talking during the week about perhaps looking at a pledge of allegiance. Well, the pledge of allegiance at the present time does contain a commitment to the values of Australia. I think it's an ongoing attitude of mind. Let's forget all theisms we've had in relation to this, whether it's theisms we've had in relation to this, whether it's an assimilation or multiculturalism. The problem is they mean different things to different people. My view very ╝white╛I is that you come to this country. You have the incredible privilege of living in one of the best societies in the world and best societies in the world and you have rights , but you also have the responsibility to endorse and responsibility to endorse and imbibe and embrace the values of our society. And that, of course, includes free speech, but it also includes a respect for religious includes free speech, but it also includes a respect for religious difference and it includes a total repudiation and rejection of violence or the preaching of violence or the endorsement of violence as a solution to political disputes. And again Tony Blair has been active. On Friday he outlawed the party of Islamic liberation, they still operate here, apparently recruiting young Muslims in Sydney? Well, we've sought advice on that. If we're advised to ban an organisation, we will. But we organisation, we will. But we don't automatically lift in that detail what's done in Britain and impose what's done in Britain and impose it in au.s we are two separately different countries even though we have a common cause on this issue. We'll just have to wait and see whether the Australian whether the Australian circumstances justify it or not. If seems the justify it or not. If seems the case they reject violence in Australia

but they nevertheless try to but they nevertheless try to recruit young people to support this notion of an Islamic superstate, by implication they might support violence overseas. Would that constitute -? I don't regard that constitute -? I don't regard that as acceptable, but I'm not going to make up a new criminal code on the run. It's very important with run. It's very important with these things that having laid down the marker that we'll look at what further should be done that we do take the right amount of time to carefully consider what further is done. But emphasising all the time that getting inside communities and understanding what's going on is crucially important to effectively responding to the threat of terrorism. On industrial relations PM you've managed to unite the Catholic and Anglican churches. They're archbishops are worried about the impact on family life? Well, I think that's an exaggeration. I believe that there'll be a range of views inside the ranks of practicing Catholics the ranks of practicing Catholics on this issue and Anglicans as there are on every other issue. There's no such thing as are on every other issue. There's no such thing as a Catholic or an Anglican view on anything, it depends on individuals. But let me say to everybody that the reason that we're changing the industrial relations laws is to make smur that in five, ten years time we have in five, ten years time we have even lower unemployment and better lower unemployment and better living conditions in this country. That's the purpose. This is a change the purpose. This is a change which is designed to strengthen the economy and improve living is designed to strengthen the economy and improve living economy and improve living standards and if we just complacently imagine we can stand still and continue to live off the fat of earlier live off the fat of earlier economic reforms, then we'll find in five or ten years time that our ten years time that our unemployment rate is higher and our living standards are lower and if there's one thing I can boast of is leading a government that has lifted living standard and closed the gap incidentally standard and closed the gap incidentally between the rich and the poor. There were some figures that came out on Thursday from the Bureau of Statistics which showed

that between 1994 and 2003 the gap between rich people on the one hand and low and middle-income earners and low and middle-income earners on the other hand had, in fact, narrowed because the take-home pay of the latter group had risen narrowed because the take-home pay of the latter group had risen at a faster rate than the take-home pay of the rich group. Now that is a very impressive social justice improvement and one that I think is the strongest possible answer to the strongest possible answer to the Labor Party and others who say that we're trying to reduce the living standards of average Australians. We, in fact, have presided over their best improvement for years. But given that history and what But given that history and what you say the aims of these changes are, then why not guarantee - certainly tell the archbishops that the minimum wage also not be eroded? Guarantee it? Well Barrie, we are not going to erode the minimum wage. The minimum wage - and once again, I point to what has happened under us. I mean, the best guarantee is what you do, not what you say, isn't it? I mean nobody can - you can say anything and I've said in relation to this my guarantee is relation to this my guarantee is my record and my record is that I have, in fact, delivered better living standards for the workers of Australia than Paul Keating or Bob Hawke ever dreamt of doing. Now that is the greatest guarantee that I can give. On long service leave, penalty rates overtime, those sorts of things, you say they'll be OK, penalty rates overtime, those sorts of things, you say they'll be OK, but they won't be on the minimum list of conditions will they, and that's the best way to guarantee them? Well they are - they will remain part of awards and of course long service leave is guaranteed in legislation. State legislation? ╝Yellow╛Yes, well we're not going ╝Yellow╛Yes, well we're not going to change that. Nobody has suggested that we're going to use our constitutional power to outlaw - I that we're going to use our constitutional power to outlaw - I will certainly explicitly guarantee there's no way we are going to legislate to overturn State legislation which guarantees long service leave. So are you saying then that employers will not be

able, or employee also not be able to negotiate away long service to negotiate away long service leave over time, penalty rates for higher wages? Well, what I'm saying is wages? Well, what I'm saying is that if you are under an wages? Well, what I'm saying is that if you are under an award then all of the things that are in awards subject to the removal of one or subject to the removal of one or two things which are legislated will continue to be allowable matters. In relation to workplace agreements and no existing employee can be forced into a workplace agreement against his or her will, there'll against his or her will, there'll be specified minimum conditions in relation to workplace agreements. But people will have the option of staying in an award or if they go staying in an award or if they go to a new job, either going into an award or negotiating a workplace agreement. I mean, that's the agreement. I mean, that's the whole idea of providing more flexibility for the system. On uranium mining, the Northern Territory is suddenly open for business. We're told by one of your ministers, and that raises the prospect of the French mining uranium in Kakadu national park, mining uranium in Kakadu national park, now that hits a lot of buttons? Barrie, each individual project will have to be looked at project will have to be looked at on its own merits but the principle that Ian MacFarlane was enunciating was a totally logical one and that is that it makes no sense to have good uranium or bad uranium. If it's alright to have three mines which the Labor Party says is OK, then which the Labor Party says is OK, then it ought to be alright to have four or five or six and he's basically saying this is a valuable resource, it's in increasing demand and there's no reason that subject to all the safeguards that we have in place we shouldn't take in place we shouldn't take advantage of it to the benefit of our community. Just finally PM, what will you be telling the partiroom will you be telling the partiroom on Tuesday on Telstra, that they Tuesday on Telstra, that they should take a cold shower? ╝Yellow╛No, take a cold shower? ╝Yellow╛No, I'll be telling them take a cold shower? ╝Yellow╛No, I'll be telling them that it remains our objective to sell the rest of Telstra. Because it's not in this country's interest or the interest of telecommunications in Australia to have the largest company in