











PRIME MINISTER



10 July 2003

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER  THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP  PRESS CONFERENCE, SYDNEY

Subjects: Iraq intelligence; North Korea; Solomon Islands; unemployment rate; David Hicks.

E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….

PRIME MINISTER:

Ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the statement that was  released by ONA earlier today.  The first comment is that uranium out of Africa, yes or no,  was not a key element either in the security assessments made by our agencies or in any way  the Government’s decision to make a military commitment to Iraq.  Secondly, and very  importantly, the United Kingdom intelligence agencies still stand by the judgement they  made, which was published in the British dossier last September and which was referred to in  the statement I made to Parliament on the 4th of February.  The crucial point to make is that  the document judged by the International Atomic Energy Agency to have been a forgery is  not the only evidence on which the British intelligence agencies have relied to form their  judgement.  And you’ll see in the ONA statement that those agencies still stand by that  judgement.

The other information I’d supply to you is that I’ve been told by ONA that the reference to  the State Department doubts is about one sentence in an annex to an 86 page document. It  didn’t in any way affect the overall assessment made by ONA, it certainly would not have  affected the overall assessment that the Government would have made in relation to our  commitment to Iraq. It’s important to remember that an agency like ONA gets literally acres  of raw intelligence virtually every day and it’s very important that this whole thing therefore  be kept in proper perspective.  I, of course, retain full confidence in the expertise of ONA.

JOURNALIST:

Did they withhold crucial information from you though, with hindsight?

PRIME MINISTER:

www.pm.gov.au



No, withhold is a pejorative word, withhold implies that you’ve looked at it and you’ve made  a decision I won’t show him that.  That didn’t occur on this occasion and I don’t think their  behaviour should be looked at in that light in any way.

JOURNALIST:

Should they have informed you though?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well ONA has made a statement, they’ve explained what happened. The important point to  make is that the material would not have in any way, had it have been in my possession prior  to the last few days, it would not in any way have affected our decision, it really wouldn’t  have, I mean we have to preserve a sense a perspective, I know there is great excitement  about any issue understandably relating to this matter but we’ve got preserve a sense of  perspective, out assessment would in no way have been affected if this material had been in  my possession.

JOURNALIST:

What does it say about Australia’s intelligence (inaudible)…

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I think you have to look with respect at the totality of their performance and they’re very  good, and I don’t believe that this incident on its own can be regarded as an illustration that  the intelligence services are lacking, I think they’re very good but they’re human beings like  the rest of us, any suggestion that they deliberately withheld this information I reject and I am  satisfied with the explanation of the chain of events that I have been given.

JOURNALIST:

So do you feel confident and the Australian public can feel confident that all the information  that you used to justify…

PRIME MINISTER:

Well withhold, I have to say to you, withhold implies, with great respect, it implies that they  made a deliberate judgement not to send something that they thought about sending to me.   The fact is, that you get acres of this stuff every day and as I understand it, I mean I haven’t  seen it, the 86 page document but it’s one sentence in an annex to that document and it hasn’t  affected in any way their overall assessment.

JOURNALIST:

So would there be other things that we don’t know about?

PRIME MINISTER:

Look I don’t deal in hypothetical situations. I do know this - that on the basis of all of the  intelligence in their possession they formed certain conclusions and we acted on those

2

conclusions, me made certain judgements as well and I’m satisfied that the agencies that  behaved in a bona fide fashion all along.

JOURNALIST:

It’s pretty rare for ONA to come out with a public statement (inaudible) Cabinet’s suggestion  (inaudible)?

PRIME MINISTER:

You’ll have to ask them that.

JOURNALIST:

[inaudible]

PRIME MINISTER:

Well they occasionally make public statements.

JOURNALIST:

The information, you say it’s not that important, but you still brought it up Parliament.

PRIME MINISTER:

The information you were just talking about? I didn’t bring that up in Parliament.  What I  raised in Parliament was a paragraph in a published document of the British government and  that’s what I raised in Parliament. The point I’m making is that the fact that ONA received in  January of this year the view of the State Department that there may have been some doubts  about the British conclusion, the point I’m making is that if that had been communicated to  me in January it wouldn’t have altered in the slightest the Government’s decision in relation  to participation in the coalition in Iraq. That’s the point I’m making.

JOURNALIST:

But Prime Minister, why not though?  If your own office is raising doubts and yes it is a  sentence why wouldn’t you take it into account?

PRIME MINISTER:

Because there was so much other material that was relevant that the existence of that would  not in any way have qualified my view. That’s why.

JOURNALIST:

But you actually did raise it though Prime Minister and you don’t want to look foolish so  when you raised the information in Parliament and then your own office has got doubts about,  you don’t want to look foolish and you don’t want the Australian people to …

PRIME MINISTER:

3

It’s not a question of looking foolish. It’s a question of keeping things in perspective and what  I said was that if I had been told in January of this material it would not have altered in any  way our decision to participate in the military operation. That’s the point I’m making. The  other point to remind you of is that the assessment that the British made, they are still  standing by. I mean everybody is going around incorrectly saying that the International  Atomic Energy Agency has concluded a document was forged.  But what the British are  saying is put that aside because they have other evidence. That’s their judgement. It’s not  mine because I haven’t seen any of the evidence. I’m only reporting their judgement, I’m not  saying that I have independently reached the same conclusion. I can’t do that. But what the  British are still saying as of now is that forget the forged document, accept that it is a forgery,  it doesn’t alter the view that we held then and which we still hold to. So the suggestion that  the original claim has been disproved is itself not proved and all that’s been established is that  one piece of evidence on which it rested has been established as a forgery but according to the  British they have other evidence which does not in any way alter their conclusion.

JOURNALIST:

Prime Minister the decision to go to war is a very serious decision and it was ultimately your  decision, would you in future demand all of the evidence be put before you?  Are you  concerned that some didn’t come before you?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I would want to be satisfied on the evidence that was presented to me that proper  grounds existed and what I’m saying to you is that if this material had been specifically  drawn to my attention, it wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference to the decision.  That’s what I’m saying.

JOURNALIST:

… could have been something there that may have altered your decision?



PRIME MINISTER:

Well I mean you can hypothesise, we can all hypothesise that the world might come to an end  tomorrow but I mean I have to deal with what is and not what might be.

JOURNALIST:

You can only judge what’s given to you, you can only judge what’s given to you can’t you?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well of course I can only judge, but bear in mind that I have formed a judgement and so did  President Bush and so did Mr Blair and so did many others. And can I also make the point  that before the war started, nobody was arguing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  Mr Crean said they did. Mr Rudd said they did. Everybody said they had weapons of mass  destruction. The argument then was about how you dealt with the problem - whether you let  the United Nations try and deal with it or countries acted to do something about it. It’s only  now that this war is over that people are understandably going back over details. I don’t mind

4

that. It’s a perfectly understandable thing to do. But we want to keep these things in  perspective.

JOURNALIST:

(inaudible) any measures (inaudible)?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well look you can always, people can always improve the way they do things. The news  media can improve the accuracy of its reporting in relation to the theft of 180,000 items from  Iraqi museums. And I mean everybody can improve the way they communicate things, but  you have to look at things in perspective. And this piece of opinion from the State  Department, if it had been drawn to my attention in huge capital letters at the beginning of the  year, it wouldn’t have altered my decision.

JOURNALIST:

Does this compromise national security?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, no.

JOURNALIST:

[inaudible] national security…

PRIME MINISTER:

Well it certainly doesn’t compromise national security.

JOURNALIST:

But it is a failure by the ONA.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well the ONA has explained what happened and I think to use pejorative words like failure is  to ignore the totality of what an agency does. I mean it implies a level of perfection that  nobody else I know aspires to or is able to achieve.

JOURNALIST:

Do you think the ONA may have picked up on the discrepancy had the speech been shown to  them before it was presented to the Parliament?

PRIME MINISTER:

Which speech? The one of mine? It was.

JOURNALIST:

5



It wasn’t…

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, it was. My speech was, the intelligence parts of my speech were cleared by ONA.

JOURNALIST:

They’ve let you down somewhat before over the children overboard…

PRIME MINISTER:

No they didn’t let me down. I’ve never… that is an incorrect assertion. They did not let me  down over the children overboard. That’s not correct. I have no complaint about their  behaviour in relation to that. None whatsoever.

JOURNALIST:

Prime Minister, you claim that weapons of mass destruction will be found, as times goes by  without having found any are you more convinced (inaudible)?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well look, I’m certainly… I remain rock solid in the belief that the decision we took was  justified on the basis of the intelligence assessments that were available. There were clear,  compelling intelligence assessments available to the effect that Iraq had a WMD capacity and  nothing I have seen since has shaken the assessments that were made at that time. As far as  the current search for evidence and material, that goes on and I think it’s too early for people  to jump to the conclusion that it won’t be successful.

JOURNALIST:

Prime Minister, could you clarify what role Australia could play in regards to North Korea?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well North Korea is clearly a huge challenge for our region and for the world.  It's too early  to make a pre-emptive judgement about what roles we'll play except to say that we will work  in partnership with other countries.  We are very concerned about North Korea's nuclear  aspirations and behaviour.  We remain hopeful that diplomatic pressure combining the views  of the United States, Japan, China, Russia, the European countries, Australia, South Korea  and indeed the rest of the world.  But if all of those countries acting in concert and  communicate the same view to North Korea, one hopes that North Korea will walk away  from her non-compliance with international obligations.  It's going to be difficult.  It's too  early at this stage to start speculating about a military involvement by Australia, it really is.   It's a question of working towards an outcome that can solve the problem in a peaceful  fashion, but it's certainly a very big challenge because there's not much doubt that North  Korea is flaunting a nuclear capacity and nuclear aspiration and that ought to be of a great  concern to all of us.  And it means that we have to work very closely with other countries,  that's why we've been hosting a conference in Brisbane.  And I discussed this matter at some  length with President Bush in Texas a couple of months ago.  We have put certain proposals

6

to the Americans, we're working through those.  But at this stage we haven't made any  commitment of military assets and it's too early to be talking about that.

JOURNALIST:

[Inaudible] is it fair to say that Australia's military is on standby?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, that suggestion that we're about… I mean, standby means you're about to get involved in  military action and that is not right.

JOURNALIST:

No discussions?

PRIME MINISTER:

We have not canvassed a particular military commitment.

JOURNALIST:

South Korean intelligence overnight…

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes.

JOURNALIST:

[Inaudible] military is now [inaudible]…

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes.

JOURNALIST:

… producing atomic bombs.  How much more urgent is it now to [inaudible]?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, you don't make a decision to deploy military assets on the basis of every report you  read in the press about the behaviour of another country.

JOURNALIST:

The Solomons…

PRIME MINISTER:

Yep.

7



JOURNALIST:

[Inaudible]

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I haven't had any advice that that is likely to happen.  I don't think there's anything  gained by my hypothesising on something like that.  I would expect the Parliament to pass the  legislation.  If the legislation is not passed, well we don't go in.  If the legislation is passed in  a form that's acceptable to Australia, we do go in.  They're the alternatives and I don't think  anything's gained hypothesising about what we may or may not do.

JOURNALIST:

Can I just ask you a question?

PRIME MINISTER:

About…

JOURNALIST:

Can I ask you about a domestic issue?

PRIME MINISTER:

A domestic issue.  How domestic?

JOURNALIST:

Are you concerned about the unemployment [inaudible]?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, it's not happening.  I mean, the unemployment rate has essentially remained the same.   It's gone from 6 per cent to 6.1. It went up by 29,000 last month, which come back to the  same amount, it's essentially flatlining at a low rate.  And a much lower rate than it used to  be.

JOURNALIST:

Prime Minister, will you be calling for more detailed reports from the ONA in future just for  your own piece of mind?

PRIME MINISTER:

I get very detailed reports from ONA on everything.

JOURNALIST:

But not the last time, or…?

8

9



PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I've said what I intend to say about that issue and I retain a great deal of confidence in  ONA.  Very last question, yes.

JOURNALIST:

On David Hicks.

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes.

JOURNALIST:

On David Hicks, the Law Council’s now saying he may be held for the rest of his life, even if  he’s found not guilty…

PRIME MINISTER:

Yeah, I haven't read the detail of what the law council said and I suggest that for more  detailed responses on this you speak to the Attorney General.

Thank you.

[ends]

