TRANSCRIPT
THE HON PETER COSTELLO MP
Treasurer

Interview with John Laws

2UE

Thursday, 17 July 2003
9.20 am

 

SUBJECTS: Tolerance, social capital, North Korea, Iraq, leadership

LAWS:

Peter, good morning and welcome.

TREASURER:

Good to be with you John.

LAWS:

Good to see you again. I was interested in the opening paragraph of the

speech that you made, which I thought was terrific incidentally, and

I think it made a whole lot of sense in the areas in which you chose

to make a whole lot of sense. You say here: “The pollsters and the

professional advisers will tell you that it is dangerous to become reflective

about political life. If you reflect on things you are liable to say

what you think.”

TREASURER:

(laughter)

LAWS:

Should a politician not say what he thinks?

TREASURER:

Well sometimes when you say what you think you can get into trouble.

That is the point I was making. I was having a bit of a joke at my own

expense there. But when you do get the chance to talk about, in my case,

non-economic things, it is actually a breath of fresh air, because I

spend so much time talking about the economy.

LAWS:

Yeah.

TREASURER:

And I just wanted to make the point that there are some other things

that are very important about our society and if we lose sight of them,

then we are going to lose important things.

LAWS:

Yeah. Well, I agree with all of that. But I am still intrigued by your

saying that the professional advisers say don’t reflect because you might

say what you think.

TREASURER:

Yes, all the time.

LAWS:

Well, I think it would be very refreshing to have a politician who did

say what he thought.

TREASURER:

(laughter) Well, it would be refreshing that is right. But, what I think

what they say is you have got to remember that people are going to analyse

everything that you say and you have got to be careful for that reason.

LAWS:

That’s what I am doing now.

TREASURER:

And particularly when people are making investment decisions and money

markets and all that kind of thing, you have got to be doubly careful.

So, I find if you can get off the economic stuff and talk about some

of the values that people think are important they enjoy hearing from

you.

LAWS:

Okay. Is Australia a prosperous country?

TREASURER:

Yes.

LAWS:

Do we have high living standards?

TREASURER:

Yes, by world standards we do.

LAWS:

Do we have high standards of health care and education?

TREASURER:

By world standards we do. It is not to say that we can’t make them better.

But by world standards if you compare Australia to any of the countries

in the region or most of the countries in the world, we do, yes.

LAWS:

You would have to say we had high standards of communication given this…

TREASURER:

Yes.

LAWS:

…very radio programme on which you are speaking?

TREASURER:

Yes.

LAWS:

And we are not too bad in the disposable income department?

TREASURER:

Right.

LAWS:

But you said that you were thinking about a country like this, I mean,

Australia is already like this?

TREASURER:

Well, we have made enormous strides and we have to keep Australia there.

Look around at the world at the moment, Europe economically in a lot

of trouble.

LAWS:

You bet.

TREASURER:

The United States just been through a recession, they announced yesterday

that their Budget deficit is 4 per cent of GDP, huge, bigger than Australia’s

economy, huge, massive.

LAWS:

Yeah.

TREASURER:

And we are in front of, in many of those indicators we are in front of

Europe and America at the moment, but you have got to work hard to keep

there. The world moves on John.

LAWS:

Okay. But let me quote you: “As I was speaking I was thinking about

the kind of country I would like Australia to be. I was thinking about

a prosperous country” which you admit it already is, “high

living standards” which it already has, “high standards of

health care and education” which it already has, “high standards

of transport and communication” given this very radio programme

which it already has, and plenty of “disposable income”. So

you were actually thinking about a country that already exists?

TREASURER:

About getting it there and keeping it there, absolutely. Absolutely.

LAWS:

Are we respected in the region?

TREASURER:

Yes, I think we are.

LAWS:

Are there any doubts?

TREASURER:

Well, look, we have had our troubles with some of the countries in the

region. But I think particularly in the wake of Bali, the co-operation

between Australia and Indonesia in relation to terrorism has been very

good.

LAWS:

Yeah.

TREASURER:

And we had some difficulties over East Timor…

LAWS:

Yeah.

TREASURER:

…as you know. But I think particularly in the wake of Bali the co-operation

has been pretty good. We have had our disagreements with some of the

other countries in the region.

LAWS:

Have we, and still have some?

TREASURER:

And still have some.

LAWS:

Yeah. Have we lost the respect of some countries in the region because

of the apparent closeness to the United States?

TREASURER:

I don’t think so. I think, coming out of the Asian financial crisis,

the countries of the region looked at Australia and said, well, it is

one of the success stories. Go, let me take you back, to the early nineties.

The feeling around this region was that Australia was just gradually

slipping away.

LAWS:

Yeah.

TREASURER:

Asia was booming, Australia was slipping away. I don’t think Australia

had much respect. And then the Asian financial crisis, a lot of the Asian

economies got into trouble but Australia was strong. And people started

sitting up and taking notice. What are they doing in Australia that is

making them strong? And I think we got a lot of respect. Now, we have

had our difficulties over particular issues, East Timor gave us some

difficulties in the relationship with Indonesia but I think that is in

a much better situation now. Look we have disagreements from time to

time. But I wouldn’t think that Iraq has affected our relations with

the region in a significant way.

LAWS:

What do you think Korea might think about us now in relation to…

TREASURER:

Oh well North Korea, obviously North Korea which is a totalitarian society

which is on a nuclear weapons programme may have all sorts of views about

Australia. That doesn’t really worry me that much. We are not in this

business to appease North Korea.

LAWS:

Certainly not.

TREASURER:

In fact, our view is, and it is the view of all of the other countries

in the world, that the place would be a better region if North Korea

did not have a nuclear weapons programme.

LAWS:

Well, I think the world would agree with that. But should we be involved

there in making sure they don’t continue with the proliferation of nuclear

weapons?

TREASURER:

I think we should make, we should do what we can at the diplomatic level.

And I think we should co-operate with other countries of goodwill. This

is a big problem. You have got a dictatorship with a nuclear weapons

programme and if it has the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons, countries

like China and Japan and South Korea are going to be very, very nervous.

LAWS:

Yeah, well they are going to be at risk.

TREASURER:

And they are going to be at risk.

LAWS:

But if we interfere are we not going to be at risk?

TREASURER:

Well, I have never believed John that if you keep your head down and

ignore a problem somehow it will go away or it won’t affect you. We like

all the other countries of the world ought to do our bit to try and persuade

them to abandon this nuclear programme. I don’t think it is fair for

us to say, oh well that is the business of the Japanese or the Chinese

or the South Koreans because they are closer than we are. We could be

affected. We would be affected by any knock-on effect if those countries

were under immediate threat and so we have got an obligation to help.

LAWS:

An obligation to help the United States in particular?

TREASURER:

Well, I would say in this case an obligation to help Japan and South

Korea, who are much closer to the action than the United States.

LAWS:

Funny isn’t it how times change. Not all that long ago we were enemies

with Japan. Now we feel we have got to help them.

TREASURER:

Well, look, I know a lot of people say, you know, if you have got a long

memory it is a funny thing. But let me remind you, Japan is our number

one trading partner.

LAWS:

Sure. I see nothing wrong with helping Japan.

TREASURER:

Japan is the second largest economy in the world. And over the last 30

or 40 years Australia and Japan have developed a relationship which has

been pretty supportive of each other.

LAWS:

Back to the speech, which I found fascinating, I was surprised that some

people reacted against your use of the word tolerance.

TREASURER:

Yes.

LAWS:

And that suggested to me, given I only read what you were able to pass

on, that we are not a tolerant country?

TREASURER:

Well, there are people that don’t agree with tolerance.

LAWS:

Sure.

TREASURER:

That is what I was trying to say. If you say, well I think we should

be tolerant, there are a lot of people who say, no, I don’t agree with

you.

LAWS:

But they expect us to tolerate their view?

TREASURER:

And so I am basically trying to set out for people who take that view,

why tolerance is a good thing, and how it helps society generally. Now

I may or may not have convinced them, but somebody will say, oh well,

why bother even talking about that, we all agree with that. The fact

is we don’t all agree with that.

LAWS:

We don’t. I couldn’t believe this part of the speech, somebody from Coburg

North in Victoria sent you a note saying, “Please note that if your

personal policy is to pander to and show lenience to one illegal Muslim

immigrant who are queue jumpers and sworn enemies of all Christians,

my family and I will most certainly will not vote Liberal.” Now

as soon as you mentioned tolerance he immediately thought of tolerance

to religion. That’s to me a bit frightening.

TREASURER:

Well, I don’t make these letters up.

LAWS:

No.

TREASURER:

People send them to me unsolicited. And I got a huge welter of mail and

I went through, most of them I said were positive, but there are people

that are against tolerance. And I said, they wrote to tell me why, and

I will tell you what their argument is, and now I will tell you why I

think they are wrong. Why it is important in a society, that you know,

within the realms of fair order and protection for property and the rest…

LAWS:

We should.

TREASURER:

…we should tolerate different views. And that is what I was talking

about last night.

LAWS:

And that is what you said. A tolerant country will allow dissenting views…

TREASURER:

Yes.

LAWS:

…it will allow the minorities to live in peace and security.

TREASURER:

Yes, that is right. This is one of my main complaints against Saddam

Hussein by the way. He doesn’t allow these sorts of things. If you spoke

out in Iraq they used to cut your tongue out.

LAWS:

Yeah, and then while you were still alive put you in a paper shredder

of large proportions.

TREASURER:

That is right. And we all look at that country and we say isn’t that

shocking. Why is it shocking? Well, it is a shocking country because

they don’t tolerate dissent and they don’t respect human rights. And

doesn’t that tell you that a better country will tolerate dissent and

will protect human rights. That is the kind of argument I am trying to

get across.

LAWS:

Yeah, and it’s a very valid argument. But tolerance has got to be a two-way

street hasn’t it?

TREASURER:

Sure.

LAWS:

And people have got to understand that.

TREASURER:

Yes.

LAWS:

Because tolerance isn’t a one-way street.

TREASURER:

If you want to take, you have got to give a bit. It’s like most of life,

in a relationship you have got to give a little, you have got to take

a little.

LAWS:

Good song.

TREASURER:

(laughter)

LAWS:

You are not going to burst into song?

TREASURER:

Give us a few bars.

LAWS:

No, you’re the singer. You say here, Iraq is a country with a wonderful

economic base, which is quite right, second or third largest oil reserves

in the world. I read this morning, where the White House claims it’s

costing $2 billion a week, American dollars I presume, $2 billion a week

to take care of Iraq. Now why don’t the Coalition of the Willing say,

well you blokes have got all this oil, you’d better start to take care

of yourselves?

TREASURER:

Well, this is my point. This is a wealthy country.

LAWS:

Very.

TREASURER:

And properly run, this would be a very wealthy country. At the moment,

countries around the world are giving it aid. But properly run it is

a country that should be able to manage itself and you would think be

a net donor.

LAWS:

Yep. You also say here, that surprised me, I was not aware of this, it

has fertile arable land.

TREASURER:

Yes.

LAWS:

I thought it was pretty much a desert?

TREASURER:

Well, lots of it is. But there is arable land, particularly in the delta,

this the Euphrates and the Tigris. This was, this is the site of the

original Garden of Eden you know?

LAWS:

No, you forget that don’t you?

TREASURER:

And around those rivers, these are huge rivers, there is arable land.

Now, a lot of it is desert, like a lot of Australia is desert too, but

there is also a lot of arable land. And properly run, this is a rich

country. And, you say to yourself, well how would you rebuild a country

from the ground up? What do you need to run it?

LAWS:

You need people. And they have got plenty of those.

TREASURER:

They have people, they have got highly educated people. They have people

who could, you know, highly educated scientists.

LAWS:

Yes.

TREASURER:

Highly educated. One of the things they lack in Iraq is they lack this

culture of tolerance and trust. And it is very hard to build a society

without it. And if you know, then I draw back to Australia, and I say,

if you take these things out of a society, it is, you know, we can see

what the results are. So let’s make sure we keep these things in a society

when you have got them.

LAWS:

You say here, if you want to run a successful, modern, liberal economy

then trust and tolerance between citizens gives you a long head-start.

Nobody would argue with that. But I do feel that there is a certain lack

of trust, and that’s the word you use, in relation to the Government.

I don’t think that you, not that I would pursue it, but I think the debate

over the intelligence bungles has shaken the trust that people have in

the present Government. Do you agree with that?

TREASURER:

Well, look, there has been a lot of criticism about the intelligence.

My view is that the Government relied upon the intelligence. It certainly

didn’t cook the intelligence.

LAWS:

No, of course not.

TREASURER:

The agencies themselves said, there was a lot of argument about, this

is the point about whether or not Iraq had sought nuclear material for

Niger…

LAWS:

Yeah, well the world was saying that.

TREASURER:

Well, British intelligence still maintains it.

LAWS:

Still?

TREASURER:

I think so. British intelligence was the source of this, and people were

relying on it. Now, it appears as if there were doubts about it in the

United States. But the source was British intelligence.

LAWS:

Are you surprised that the Prime Minister was able to issue that statement

in a very, very important speech when people in Departments around him

obviously knew that there was some concern about the veracity of that?

TREASURER:

Well, I think the people in the agencies say, look we knew that there

were counter views but it was their view at the time, it may well still

be their view, but it was their view certainly at the time that that

was the case. Now, that is a matter of their judgement. But I have no

doubt that he was relying on those agencies. But the thing, the point

I would make here is that to me this was never a big part of the jigsaw,

whether or not it was Iraq was getting uranium from Niger. The big part

of the jigsaw was that they had had weapons of mass destruction and they

couldn’t account for where they had gone. That was the main point here.

LAWS:

And we didn’t find them?

TREASURER:

Haven’t found them yet.

LAWS:

And the fact that they’re not found and the fact that part of the intelligence

was wrong and you link that to the wretched children overboard thing

which has been done to death, do you think that, and even though I believe

those things have been done to death, do you think that that has shaken

the trust of the people in the Government?

TREASURER:

No, because as I said in relation to Iraq, that was not the main point.

The point about Iraq was this, that after the Gulf War there had been

an inventory of their weapons of mass destruction.

LAWS:

Yes.

TREASURER:

Everybody knew they were there and they were asked to account for what

had happened. If they’d have been destroyed, if they had have been destroyed

then Saddam presumably…

LAWS:

Would have let the inspectors in?

TREASURER:

…well he just would have said, look I poured these anthrax litres you

know into such-and-such a dump at such-and-such a place, go and have

a look at it. To me that was the most obvious point here. They undoubtedly

had these weapons and so and they say, well we haven’t got them now.

Well, why don’t you account for how they were destroyed? This is what

they were continually being asked. If they had have been destroyed, it’s

the easiest thing to say, over at such-and-such a place, those litres,

that could have made the anthrax…

LAWS:

Have been dumped?

TREASURER:

…have been dumped. Go and have a look. But it was this hide-and-seek

process which makes you think that they tried to break them down, to

keep them, maybe break them into small lots and maybe put them out amongst

the public rather than actually dispose of them. And that was the point

that the international community kept coming back to. I think, and I

think the fact that they would not account, the fact that they could

not account, is the best evidence that they had not destroyed them.

LAWS:

But do you believe they still exist?

TREASURER:

I think they have been broken down and farmed out.

LAWS:

Yeah.

TREASURER:

So, in what form they exist, I don’t know.

LAWS:

Maybe farmed out to other countries like Syria?

TREASURER:

It is possible, certainly farmed out around Iraq, Baghdad and other places

in Iraq. You know, where you have got facilities, bits of the facility

could have been broken down, shipped to different points. But the thing

I keep coming back to, and this was the main point all the way through

Iraq, was this, it was known that they had these weapons and they were

asked to either produce them or account for their destruction.

LAWS:

Which they failed to do.

TREASURER:

And the probabilities are that if Saddam had done that, he might still

even be there. If he had done it.

LAWS:

That’s true. He may well have been left alone.

TREASURER:

And I think the reason why he couldn’t do that, is that he hadn’t destroyed

them.

LAWS:

I know you have got a lot to do today, a busy day. I thought the speech

last night was terrific. I have got all seven pages of it here and I

read it reasonably thoroughly, I will read it more thoroughly later in

the day. It was interesting to see you stray away from the regular domain

of money. Was there a motive for that?

TREASURER:

Oh well, I am sure I will talk about money again, but you can have one

day off. One day off in 364, every now and then John.

LAWS:

Do you still want to be Prime Minister?

TREASURER:

Oh look, let me say this, if an opportunity arose in future years, well

I would certainly look at it.

LAWS:

Don’t you think I put that question well?

TREASURER:

Yes. Did you think I put the answer well?

LAWS:

Terrifically, better than my question. Good to talk to you Peter, thank

you very much for your time.

TREASURER:

Thank you. Good to be here.