Howard on climate change:
What we were experiencing was not the product of global warming, it was just the product of the normal cyclical drought experience. The really good story was the suggestion that the drought might break. It would be good if it's true. The southern oscillation index prediction is that 2007 will drop back to a greater level of normality. Some isolated parts of the country (such as) northern NSW have done quite well.
On the greatest challenge facing Australia:
Probably (the) greatest long-term challenge Australia has is to get a proper solution to our energy and climate challenge. One that's balanced, one that doesn't panic us into short-term solutions that will cost our economy dearly, one that recognises in a measured way we have to control all our emissions, but it's got to be done in a measured way.
I just released this nuclear report - now that has to be part of the solution. You can't even begin to seriously examine our energy security issues and climate change without factoring in nuclear. Now I'm not saying we need to build nuclear power stations tomorrow - and they won't be economic tomorrow - but they will in time be economic, because the use of coal will become more expensive as we apply clean coal technologies, and that's unavoidable.
We're the only side of politics prepared to be honest about the future in relation to energy, and you can't say nuclear power's not part of it. It's unbelievable that the Labor Party can say that. It has to be part of it.
The Chief Scientist has written to me and said there are only two sources of base-load power in this country: one of them is clean coal, and the other is nuclear. Now this is a scientist, not me.
Wind and solar and all that are nice at the margins, and are a nice add-on, but if you really want base-load power - gross-load power - our electricity needs will double between now and 2050. Double. And you've got 435 nuclear power stations around the world, in 32 countries. Fifteen per cent of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear power, yet the Australian Labor Party says no, not in Australia.
On fertility and feminism:
We've seen a tiny improvement in the fertility rate. It's positive; that's good. I think some of our policies have helped somewhat, but I think there's probably a greater awareness now of the disadvantage of postponing having your children too long.
Fortunately, I think today's younger women are more in the post-feminist period, where they don't measure their independence and freedom by the number of years they remain full-time in the workforce without having children. They've moved on.
I think they have moved on from that sort of demonstration phase, in the sense of ``Ill be letting the sisterhood down if I don't stay in the workforce until I'm a certain age.'' I think they are more confident.
I think what I would claim is that we support choice and we don't measure women's achievements and women's rights by the number of full-time female participants in the workforce. The truth of the matter is that when most Australian families have children, they really want a situation where, in the very early years, in the very early stages, somebody - usually the mother - is at home caring for the child full-time. Then, after a little while, they go back into the workforce, usually part-time.
The largest, most common family formation is what I call the one-and-a-half to one-and-a-quarter, where you have a fulltime breadwinner and the other one is part-time.
Some of them turn full-time, but the norm is not two people in full-time workforce from the time a child is born; that's not the norm. And I think you have to have policies that accommodate all those choices. In the last figures I saw, about 27 per cent were one-and-a-halfs, 18 or 19 per cent were two full-times and about 22 per cent were on single incomes. It's an interesting statistic: when you add the first and the third together, it's more than double the other one. Now you've got to accommodate all of those choices. We're not trying to tell people how to organise their lives; we're trying to give them help to facilitate their choices.
On WorkChoices and working weekends:
The truth is that some people have always been required to work on holidays, depending on their particular job - policemen, security people, transport people. We now live in a society where we expect to be able to buy something virtually at any time of the day or night. And we don't expect to pay a premium for buying at three o'clock in the morning, do we? I think what (Opposition Leader Kevin) Rudd was suggesting was that people being rostered on at weekends was something that arrived with WorkChoices; well, it didn't. It has been there for years.
On jobs growth:
The strength of the economy is the main explanation. The removal of unfair-dismissal laws has taken away a lot of the disincentives that existed for a lot of small employers. I can't prove that, but you're asking me for an opinion. It passes the commonsense test, and it's borne out by anecdotal evidence.
I get plenty of anecdotal comments from small businesspeople who say, "Well, I don't have to worry now. I can put on a few extra people, and if it doesn't work out, well, I can let them go, but previously I was scared to do it in case I had to pay them $30,000.'' And that did happen. If a bloke with seven or eight employees has somebody who's not helping, he just can't afford that.
A big organisation is different, but a small organisation isn't, and I think the unfair-dismissal laws have changed that atmosphere. That's a good thing. But the main reason is the strength of the economy, particularly in the resource states. It's not as strong here, but particularly in the resource states.
On key issues for next year's election:
(The election) will be fought on the future, and people will want to know what each side of politics has to say about the future. It's not enough for a government to run on its record. I'm very proud of what the Government has done. We will be contrasting our confidence about the future - our willingness to embrace change, to make things better in the future such as in the energy area, things like that - as evidence that we're more a party of the future than a party of the past.
Sure, I'm going to talk about my record. We've got a good record, and I'm very proud of it, but we're going to be talking about the future - not just the next two or three years, but some of the longer-term issues. You've got energy, security, water, generational issues. I suppose the totality of our foreign relations. We have achieved the remarkable double of building a close association with China and at the same time being closer than ever to the United States.
And the educational future of Australia, because we, like all nations, need to invest in education, in large amounts. To preserve the balance between public and private contributions to education is one of the great things Australia has achieved.
On Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd:
I'm not going to attack him as an individual. I mean, he can do that. It seems, though, that already any disagreement with him is regarded as some kind of sensitivity or personal attack. I read some extraordinary comment the other day because (Finance Minister) Nick Minchin properly drew attention to the double game they were playing. I mean, here was Rudd running around the country promising all manner of goodies to everybody, then Lindsay Tanner said, "Oh, but he's not really serious.'' I mean, $3.5 billion in promises and Lindsay says, "No, no, take no notice.''
Well, hang on. The people who heard those individual promises were meant to take them seriously. If Nick says that, he's engaging in legitimate political comment. Rudd's in the big school now, and you've got to deal with those things. I'm very interested in an election campaign where you're talking about the quality of the alternative policy.
On beating Kevin Rudd:
I think winning the next election will be quite hard. I was looking at the History Channel last night, a short profile on (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair; he's won three elections. I'll be going for five. There's only been one individual who has won five elections in a row in Australian history: Menzies. I suppose there was only one election where he almost lost, in '61. He was saved by the DLP. It was an extraordinary election, the first election I voted in. Menzies won five in a row, so it's quite tough.
I treat every opponent I have had, and now have, seriously. You won't get any complacent assumption of an easy victory from me - none whatsoever.
On NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam:
I think there is a mood for change in NSW. There is more legitimate criticism of the NSW Government than of any other state government in the country.
I think Debnam's still got a very good chance, because there's a mood for change, I'm picking it up everywhere I go. I'm spending a bit more time in Sydney at the moment, and I'm picking more up, but there's only one poll that counts.
On HECS debts:
They don't start repaying their HECS debts until they're getting $36,000 a year. A lot of people who get university degrees only ever work part-time, and some of them dont ever repay that money or start to repay it until much later in life. I think the HECS system is good; it was introduced by the Labor Party, of course. There's no doubt that the average contribution for a HECS-funded place is about 25 per cent from the student and 75 per cent from the public. I don't think that's a bad mix. I think that's a good mix.
On the economy:
We're not going to put aside former policies that are working. You can still expect this government to run a disciplined fiscal policy. We won't be like state governments, which are now sliding into deficit. We won't be putting up with pressure on interest rates by sliding into deficit. We'll still maintain a very strong surplus, and we'll continue all of those things, but there are longer-term issues, some of which I've mentioned, and we'll have policies.
On water:
The National Water Commission is looking at whether it's feasible to pipe water from northern NSW into Queensland, which seems to me to be an entirely sensible thing to look at, but the NSW Government says, "Oh, no, we wont co-operate. It's NSW water.'' Well, sorry, it's not. It's Australian water, and we've got to stop thinking parochially on things like this.
Sometimes we can make progress. We had a good meeting on Melbourne Cup Day, and I got the results of the examination of what was needed to help the towns along the river system. I've sent all of that off to the states for a course of action, and I'm waiting to hear back from them, so it'll be interesting to see. I hope they react well.
My preference is to work collaboratively with the states, because they have a clear constitutional role. But you do get frustrated because states tend to look at these things from a parochial point of view, particularly the Murray-Darling states. It gets quite frustrating, and we've really had to push very, very hard indeed to get progress on the the water-trading system. They promised to have it running from the first of January, but that's two and a half years since the national water initiative which we promoted.
On the ACT:
I think if the Chief Minister spent more time worrying about the bread-and-butter issues and less time about bills of rights and giving us lectures on foreign policy, he would do a better job.
On Iraq:
In the long run, the solution to Iraq has to be found by the Iraqis. They have to find their own solution, they have to own their future. But we're making a very valuable contribution, the British are making a very big contribution but the Americans, their contribution is one hundred times what ours is, so you have to keep a sense of proportion.
Im sure (the Americans) are looking into all sorts of alternatives to rejig their tactics, but the bottom line will be they're going to stay until they think the Iraqis can look after themselves. They've made too heavy an investment of blood and treasure to suddenly turn on their tails and go. It would be a huge defeat.
The implications of it for the Middle East would be enormous. It would embolden the Iranians; it would unleash tension between the Sunni and the Shia all over the region; it would further destabilise Lebanon; and it could have implications in Saudi Arabia. What might that entail for the West's oil supplies? What might it mean in relation to the Palestinian issue?
It would gravely weaken American influence there. One thing you can be certain of is that the Israelis will never be driven into the sea. It would be the most destabilising thing imaginable, and that's why it won't happen.
It's very difficult for the Americans, but in all of these things you can only be guided by what you think is the right thing to do at a given time. A lot of people who are now saying the Americans shouldn't have done it, they weren't saying it then. They were either silent or supporting it. I notice Hillary Clinton is sort of against it, but she voted for it.
On Australia's role in Iraq:
I'm always cautious not to rule things out, but I don't expect there will be any increase in Australia's commitment.
On African refugees:
It's hard, because the cultural differences are great. We gave some priority to them because, according to the humanitarian measures, their need was great. This is Australia doing the right thing, being very compassionate. We deliberately gave some preference. The UN High Commission for Refugees said, "These people's need is greater than anybody else's, and will you please take them?'' And we did.
I defend what we've done there, because it was a humanitarian gesture. You've got to have a mix of realism and humanity with these things. We are a country that traditionally has taken a lot of humanitarian cases, and will continue to do so, but you've got to make sure there's an appropriate level of integration.
On the South Australian car industry:
It's hugely important to the South Australian economy, and it's not easy. Automotive manufacturing is not easy. People are showing a greater preference for smaller cars. There's a limit to what a government can do. There's no industry in Australia that has benefited more in relative terms from the GST than the automotive manufacturers. We replaced a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax with a 10 per cent GST, along with a rebate of business inputs. It's a very important industry for South Australia, and a very challenging period for motor manufacturing, but I don't hear this grand alternative plan from Mr Rudd.
On Palm Island:
I think I can understand the feelings of people on that. I really can; it's very, very difficult. I never like to see the independence of the public prosecutor interfered with in any way. I think it would be a good idea if the Queensland Government found another person outside the state to get involved. I think that would make a lot of sense
On struggling Pacific island states:
This is a long, hard road, and it will need great patience and understanding by the Australian public to live with, probably for a period of 10 to 20 years, with a two-steps-forward, one-step-backward situation.
The South Pacific has the enduring problems of poverty, bad governance and corruption, and what we're trying to do is do something about both. It's in our interests strategically, historically and sentimentally.
I can understand Australians saying, "Well, look, let's forget about it. Leave them to their own devices; don't waste any money, but that's the wrong approach to take, because they will fall into the hands of the evil from other countries and we have to work very hard.
It's very hard, because you get some early gains, then, as the shoes start to pinch, they start saying, "This is going too far, you're bullying us, you're interfering.'' We're not doing anything. We weren't interfering in the Solomon Islands when we rescued the place from chaos. It worked extremely well. It becomes interference when some of the local people have to live with the rules that were trying to support. That's when it becomes interference. But this will go on for a long time.
If we just throw up our arms and go away, you'll end up with these places being taken over by interests that are very hostile to Australia. It's also walking away from our moral responsibility. We are far and away the most powerful and influential country in the whole area, and nobody else will do the job if we don't.
On Australia's defence policy:
Much of the emphasis of our defence policy, much of my emphasis in this whole area - and it has been a great personal interest of mine - has been to equip our defence forces for three roles: the defence of Australia; an ability to take part in Coalition operations, usually with the Americans, in different parts of the world; and to have the capacity to deal with trouble spots in our own region.
That's why we bought the defence force these C17s, because we can give them airlift capacity in our region. That's why we've been increasing the size of our army. It's all designed to give us the capacity to deal with things in the region. And this is our responsibility. The rest of the world looks to us to do it, and the more we are able to play our part effectively here, the less is legitimately expected of us in other parts of the world. That's not to say we won't do other things, but if we can have an effective stabilising role in the whole Pacific region, I can assure you that is mightily important to the Americans and to our allies in Europe.
On his holidays and the Ashes:
First (cricket) Test I have been to in Melbourne for years. As Prime Minister, I've normally not gone down to Melbourne. I'll spend each day at the Sydney Test and play golf with my two sons. The greatest thing Shane Warne has done is to rebalance interest in bowling away from the total preoccupation with fast bowling.
