Labor’s Asylum Seeker Policy, War On Terror, Pre-Emptive Strikes

Press Conference

Transcript - Parliament House, Canberra - 5 December 2002

E & OE – PROOF ONLY

CREAN: On Tuesday I released Labor's policy protecting Australia and protecting the Australian way. I indicated that the Caucus was adjourned to consider the full detail of the document and would resume again today. I'm pleased to announce today that the Caucus has adopted this policy. I'm not so pleased to announce that my Shadow spokesperson has lost her voice, but there have been a lot of discussions over the course of the last few days.

But there was a debate in the Caucus today, as you would imagine. There were amendments moved, and they will be available, I think – have they been circulated? There on the first page is the non-controversial changes. These were adopted. In relation to the substantive amendments moved, none of those was carried.

The debate was civil. There was no rancour in the debate. There was a genuine desire to express opinion and, as I said the other day, there are clearly differences in relation to the issues contained within the document. Nevertheless, the amendments were defeated in relation to the excision of Christmas Island amendment. That was defeated on a show of hands. The others were defeated on the voices.

So this is now Labor's policy in relation to asylum seekers and refugees.

JOURNALIST: Have you told members of your frontbench that they if they don't defend your policy now, they have to resign – particularly from Shadow Cabinet?

CREAN: No, I haven't told them that at all. Every member of the Shadow Cabinet is fully aware of the principle of Cabinet solidarity, but I haven't had to restate that principle.

JOURNALIST: Can the National Conference overrule this?

CREAN: Well, National Conference can determine positions on all matters, Paul, when it's called. But I expect that this policy will be taken to the National Conference and adopted by it.

JOURNALIST: Ms Gillard, we take it this is not enforced silence from Simon Crean?

GILLARD: I really don't want to hurt your ears too much. I've had to do that to my Caucus colleagues. I did start with the line, ‘I've been to a marvellous party', but I'm not sure that they believed me.

CREAN: Those Whitlam celebrations were just too much. She hasn't even got that excuse – she didn't turn up. She was still talking.

JOURNALIST: Have you had any discussions with Carmen Lawrence at all?

CREAN: Well, I have had a number of discussions with Carmen over the course of the last couple of weeks.

JOURNALIST: And what have you told her?

CREAN: I haven't told her anything. We've had a lot of discussions about the policy.

JOURNALIST: If she doesn't defend this policy, what will you tell her then?

CREAN: Well, the decision has been taken by the Caucus – as it has by the Shadow Cabinet. And, in terms of the Shadow Cabinet, it's the position that needs to support it. Insofar as the Caucus is concerned, it's one where members are expected to go out and publicly support it.

JOURNALIST: Anthony Albanese indicated today that those who felt differently on this policy would continue to fight on within the party. This is a very hard line, though, isn't it – a fine line to pursue. How do critics who are members of the frontbench fight to change the policy at the Conference and yet not be seen to be speaking out about it? Does it mean that they can talk – for example, at the State Conferences – against the policy?

CREAN: It means that, to the extent to which these are issues that go to Conferences and the internal party mechanisms, of course they can argue positions for change within those forums.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] speak out in public forums?

CREAN: Well, as you say, it's a fine line. But, obviously, the mechanisms within the party are there and that's where the debate should be contained.

JOURNALIST: So you would be happy for frontbenchers at State Conferences to state their conscience position?

CREAN: I think that, in terms of policy recommendations coming to Conference, I would expect the frontbenchers to do as they did today. And that is to indicate where they may have had the reservations, but indicate that they supported the policy.

JOURNALIST: So at State Conferences, frontbenchers, you feel, under the solidarity rule are bound to defence this policy?

CREAN: I think they would make it clear when they were speaking as to why they were bound, but I don't see why that should inhibit them in arguing for changes that they support. After all, the Conference will be reviewing all policies.

JOURNALIST: Will this policy be reviewed again before the next election?

CREAN: No, this is the position that the parliamentary party takes forward. It's a position that, like every other policy, can be considered at the National Conference. But it's the position that we will be advocating as a party – putting pressure on the Government to embrace. And as you would be aware, the Government has already embraced some of the initiatives that we have announced earlier. This is Labor leading the way. This is Labor with a better policy in terms of dealing with asylum seekers. And it's also Labor with a better policy for protecting our borders.

JOURNALIST: You've heard some of the Government criticisms already about the monitoring of returned refugees. Are you going to have to be more specific coming to the election about how you're going to monitor them and where you're going to monitor them?

GILLARD: The proposal in the document is to negotiate monitoring arrangements with non-government organisations – the predominant one is the Red Cross – and to use our foreign embassies to do that. It specific targeted monitoring. That means that, obviously, there are some regions where you are more concerned about what could happen.

The Minister yesterday was making absurd suggestions about monitoring people for a lifetime every month if they were returned to France and, of course, that's not the aim of the policy. But the Minister does need to acknowledge that on his watch a Colombian was returned by this country and met a death squad on return. Now, I don't think anybody in Australia would think that it's a proper thing for this nation to return someone who is then going to meet a death squad. We do have an obligation to save people from persecution. So we will, with NGOs, be monitoring in targeted regions on return – not monthly monitoring for a lifetime in the way in which the Minster tried to characterise the policy yesterday.

JOURNALIST: But isn't it too late when they're dead?

GILLARD: Yes, the aim of any processing system, obviously, is to sort out who has a genuine claim and gets to stay, from those who don't have a genuine claim. The purpose of monitoring is to guarantee to the Australian public that we think the processing system we will run on the mainland and on Christmas Island will guarantee that we're helping the right people and we're returning the right people. But the only way you can give that guarantee is by being prepared to do something demonstrable that shows you're getting it right. Monitoring is the thing that shows you're getting it right.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, just to clarify Caucus [inaudible]. Can Shadow Cabinet Ministers speak – apart from Julia who, obviously, had carriage of the policy?

CREAN: Yes, of course. There's no restrictions, there's never been a restriction on the right of Shadow Cabinet Ministers to speak at Caucus.

JOURNALIST: How many raised concerns?

CREAN: How many raised concerns? Well, I think you know the people who have raised the concerns, and those concerns were raised again today. It's an entirely appropriate thing to happen in a Caucus meeting. That's what they're there for.

JOURNALIST: Doesn't your Shadow Cabinet usually take solidarity into the Caucus?

CREAN: Yes, and that was not breached.

JOURNALIST: So there were no Shadow Cabinet people speaking against the policy in the Caucus today?

CREAN: There were no Shadow Cabinet Ministers that didn't support the policy today.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] No, Albanese is in the Ministry, I'm sorry.

CREAN: Yes, he's in the …

JOURNALIST: Yeah, he's not in Cabinet.

JOURNALIST: This has been a test of your leadership, Mr Crean. Do you feel you've come out successfully?

CREAN: We have the policy endorsed, endorsed by Caucus through a very exhaustive process. You would be aware how difficult an issue this has been for the Labor Caucus. But it's built around solid Labor values.

First of all, the value that says that we as a nation should protect our citizens, and we as a Labor Party are putting forward initiatives that do better protect our citizens. The Coastguard is a good case in point.

But there's also the Labor value that says, in terms of dealing with asylum seekers, we can't deal with it alone. There has to be an international framework, and we've strongly advocated that international framework and we've indeed promoted, in the context of the Christmas Island issue, that as a model for a UNHCR approach. And we would like to see it developed that way, because it's a constructive initiative by which we can engage with the UNHCR and try and get some sort of international order and international solution to the overall problem of asylum seekers. This is something we've actively engaged. I've been and spoken with the UNHCR, so has Julia. We've spoken with the leadership in other countries about these sorts of issues, and I know – if we had the opportunity as a Government, and I was Prime Minister – we could advance this direction forward.

The third Labor value is to argue very strongly that, in relation to asylum seekers, they have to be treated humanely. We have to do the decent thing by them. And the initiatives in here contain significant improvements in that direction.

All of those who spoke in the debate today have acknowledged that this is a significant step forward in policy. All of them acknowledge that there are important differences between this and the current policy. There are still differences within the party, and these were argued out today. But those differences have been resolved by the adoption by the Caucus of the document – not unanimously, but adopted.

JOURNALIST: What are your thoughts about the role of the refugee policy in the next election? Is it going to play [inaudible] or is it more [inaudible]?

CREAN: Look, it's not a question of getting it out of the way. I just remind you that at the beginning of the year when I was asked about this, I said I wanted us to resolve the policy within the party by the end of the year, and I've delivered on that. Now, of course, the question of policy will be evolving. We would hope, in the way in which I just talked about the international framework, that we could continue to pressure to get some movement in that direction. And we will be advocating it.

We also are strongly advocating the closer cooperation in terms of our region, because we believe in building the security and peace in the region by cooperation. That's why the Prime Minister's reckless statements over the last couple of days have got Australians seriously worried that those statements are placing us in danger. I mean, how do you build the argument for peace and cooperation and consultation when you're out there threatening people? And to have this extraordinary revelation last night by Alexander Downer to ambassadors, that the Prime Minister only intended this message for domestic consumption, is an outrage. It's all very well to tell the ambassadors that. Why won't the Australian Prime Minister tell the Australian people what he really thinks?

We've got to end this circumstance where the Prime Minister, in terms of our national security, is trying to walk both sides of the street – send a domestic message, but inflame our neighbours as a consequence of it. And the Australian people are rightly entitled to be worried that these dangerous and reckless statements are placing us in danger. They want to know why he's not prepared to chart an independent direction and build the cooperation in the region, not just be the lapdog for the United States. We want a Prime Minister that stands up for Australians, and they're rightly worried at the moment, that he's placing this place in risk.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] next election?

CREAN: I think it'll depend on the circumstances at the time. But I think, my assessment is that this will be an important injection into the policy debate to inform a better direction for policy development. But we've demonstrated that you can be tough on the border protection whilst at the same time dealing with asylum seekers in a more humane way. We've addressed the real concerns that this Government's policies have thrown up and we've come up with constructive solutions. So we haven't just opposed the Government's initiatives, we've proposed real alternatives. And I think that, increasingly, people will see that this is a better way, it's the decent way, and we can strengthen the borders at the same time.

JOURNALIST: What do you mean by saying the comments will place Australia in danger and at risk.

CREAN: Where you've got our regional neighbours – and one of them threatening to tear up the basis of the anti-terrorism cooperation because of those statements – that's what's placing it at risk, in their view. Here you have the circumstances in which we know we have to fight the War on Terror in our region – again, another example of Australia not being able to do it on its own.

I have argued for the Regional Summit, for the Prime Minister to actually engage the Heads of Government in our region to fight the War on Terror. But how is he going to be able to convene any such meeting – even if he was of a mind to – when those same countries feel threatened by his statements? Now, he has got to clarify those statements, one to one, with these leaders. He has got to pick up the phone and say that he got it wrong, to say that he didn't intend that threat, because that is what his Foreign Minister was trying to tell the ambassadors last night.

JOURNALIST: The ambassadors, through the Vietnamese Ambassador, as their spokesman said that it was agreed that there would be no further discussion outside the meeting on pre-emptive strikes? Doesn't that make, doesn't that end the matter if all participants have agreed on this?

CREAN: The Prime Minister has to end the matter because he started the matter. And interestingly, the Prime Minister also was arguing on the Sunday Program that we needed to change the UN Charter to deal with these new threats. His Foreign Minister, according to the same newspaper report today, said the Government was dropping the argument for those changes.

Where is the Prime Minister in terms of these statements? I will tell you where he was on Sunday, he was on national television trying to divert attention from a Liberal Party debacle in Victoria and he threw, as always, out the diversion. He threw it out on tax cuts. This is a man promising tax cuts for Australia when he is the highest taxing Government in the history of the country.

And he also threw out a diversion in relation to the pre-emptive strikes. He knew what he was talking about when he was asked the question about pre-emptive strikes, because they have resonance out there. There has been a public debate about them in the context of the US going into Iraq. He knew exactly the signal that he was sending, but what he was looking for was a diversion. He hadn't thought through the regional politics, and now the regional politics have come home to roost. And that is why Australians are worried about the implications of those statements.

Sure, they want a Prime Minister that is going to be tough on terrorism. But they also know that we need to cooperate with our neighbours in stamping out terrorism. They know that that terrorist attack at Bali happened near to our shores. It impacted upon Australians. It killed them. But unless we have got the cooperation of the Indonesians, we don't bring those perpetrators of it to justice. And the cooperation with the Indonesians has been tremendous. When you have got other countries now threatening to tear up the cooperation because of the Prime Minister's statements, that is limiting our capacity to fight the War on Terror. The Prime Minister has compromised our position. He should be out there advocating a solid base for it. And he has a responsibility now to apologise, to correct the record, to ring directly the Heads of Governments to those countries and to clarify that he has no intention of supporting pre-emptive strikes against them.

JOURNALIST: How important do you think an apology is at this stage, Mr Crean?

CREAN: I think that it is terribly important if we are to move quickly to rebuild the regional coalition to fight terrorism that is needed. If we are not taking the steps, through the Prime Minister, to make those apologies, or to make the clarifications himself, personally – not through the Foreign Minister talking to ambassadors, but directly saying it – then I think our ability to get that cooperation and to be as effective as we should be in fighting the War on Terror is seriously compromised.

JOURNALIST: So you want an apology at Head of Government level, quite clearly?

CREAN: I want the Prime Minister to correct the record. I want the Prime Minister to correct the record, because that is what he has been trying to say. And I want him to tell the Australian people what his Foreign Minister told the ambassadors – that it was a message for domestic consumption, not for international consumption. Because what does that mean, Paul? That means a Prime Minister walking both sides of the fence, a Prime Minister who is duplicitous on this issue.

JOURNALIST: So do you think some of these Asian countries overreacted to these comments?

CREAN: There are too many of them to say that they overreacted.

JOURNALIST: …[inauible]…Mahathir?

CREAN: Well, everyone likes to use the example of Mahathir, and I answered this question yesterday. I do believe, in the case of Mr Mahathir, we have to consider his language in the context of previous outbursts against Australia. But his was still a complaint, and a complaint backed up by many other countries in the region.

JOURNALIST: Do you think the complaints were justified?

CREAN: Of course the complaints were justified if they were made by so many of our neighbours. They have clearly taken a signal from this message that they don't like. And it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to correct the record.

JOURNALIST: What are you saying for domestic consumption, Mr Crean? Are you saying that you agree with the Prime Minister or disagree with him?

CREAN: I disagree with what the Prime Minister said. I've…

JOURNALIST: So you don't think there should be pre-emptive strikes to protect Australia?

JOURNALIST (2): As a last resort against a known and specific threat?

CREAN: I answered this question again at the beginning of this week. There isn't a need to change the UN Charter for that purpose. What has to be established is that there is clear and present danger. And any country takes steps for self-defence, but that is a different proposition. The Prime Minister was arguing that we needed to change the UN Charter. His Foreign Minister is now arguing that we will drop it. But that is a different proposition to responding a question about support for pre-emptive strikes - a completely different proposition.

JOURNALIST: But people don't care about the UN Charter, though. They want to know whether a leader would be prepared to take pre-emptive action to stop an attack on Australians. And are you saying that…

CREAN: Any leader has to defend the country. But a leader has to be careful with the language that they use - that is my point. A leader has to be careful with the language used, particularly where the terminology `pre-emptive strike' has had such significance in the recent context. And the Prime Minister wasn't careful with the language, and that has caused this nation serious problems.

JOURNALIST: So you're not complaining about what he said? You are complaining about how he said it, or even that he said it?

CREAN: I am complaining about how he said it. I am complaining about the fact that he hasn't sought to correct the record. Indeed, he said the next day in the Parliament he didn't resile from it. His Foreign Minister is now telling us that he wanted the message to be only for domestic consumption. That is what my criticism is, that he has got to be careful about the language because of its implications in the region. This is not just a domestic issue. This is a solution for the country that requires a regional solution. And you can't get that regional solution unless you build the cooperation. And you can't build the cooperation and the peace by talking war.

JOURNALIST: On this point about the language, are you concerned at the racial stereotyping in the comments made by Dr Mahathir?

CREAN: The racial stereotyping of?

JOURNALIST: You talked about the language. Are you concerned about his language and the racial stereotyping in his language and the criticism which he's used of this country?

CREAN: Well I am concerned, and have been concerned about that for some time. I think that we do need better understanding, not ramped-up rhetoric. But I think that that is something that can better be achieved by building the cooperation. And I think that the War on Terror is the perfect building block, Paul, by which we can start to build for that better understanding. This is a common enemy. It is a common enemy that strikes on different terrains. It needs a regional solution. I advocated from the beginning – since Bali – the need for the Regional Summit. I still think that it is essential. But as a precursor to it, the Prime Minister is going to have clarify his statements. And I think the next sensible thing for him to do, to build on the bona fides of his clarification, would be to convene such a Summit.

JOURNALIST: You said before, Mr Crean, about being a lapdog of United States. Do you think that the language that Mr Howard used was an example of that or, I mean, his whole intervention on this matter was an example of that?

CREAN: I think the Australian people see it that way, Michelle. They see him as a person that won't take a decision on these things other than that which the US determines. It always seems to be in the context of statements of what the US wants. Now, I say that we have to understand the importance of our alliance. But we have to use the strength of the alliance to influence our friends in the United States to actually go through the UN solution. I have advocated that since April. That is what Australia, being a good ally, is about. And what Australians want is a Prime Minister that stands up for Australia's national interests, and one that doesn't simply follow what other countries want us to do.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean… [inaudible] … why haven't you been demanding apologies? Is it because you are worried about the effect on the region, or…? I thought it quite odd that you haven't raised this issue in Question Time.

CREAN: We did raise it in Question .…

JOURNALIST: One question.

CREAN: Well, you just said that we didn't raise it in Question Time, and the fact is we did. And the Prime Minister gave the answer about not resiling from the statement, not resiling from the statement, but he really wasn't offending his neighbours. Well, I think the next 48 hours showed how offended the neighbours were. Didn't they?

JOURNALIST: [inaudible]

CREAN: No, no, I think that it is important that we have to realise what is happening out there in terms of the neighbours' response. And what I am saying is that the Prime Minister has a responsibility to correct the record. Clearly, the actions of the Foreign Minister last night suggest the Government sees some need to try and correct the record. But all Alexander's correction of the record has done is expose the duplicity of the Prime Minister. I want the Prime Minister to come out and say what he really means. And he should make a statement in the Parliament about it,because this is a matter of significant importance.

JOURNALIST: Will you be challenging him in the Parliament today to do that?

CREAN: You wait and see in the Parliament.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, just to return to the policy. To clarify the principle of Cabinet solidarity, are you saying that it is okay for frontbenchers to say, to support the thrust of the policy – but to argue in public party forums for the amendments that were defeated today?

CREAN: Sorry, can you just repeat that?

JOURNALIST: Are you saying that it is okay for frontbenchers to argue at party public forums that they support the thrust of the policy, but would like it changed in line with the amendments that were unsuccessful today?

CREAN: In essence yes, but understand this, Michael. This is seen by the Caucus today as a significant advance forward. Of course, people are going to be continuing to argue that changes should be made. They are entitled to do that. But whether or not those are issues that come up at the State Conferences is a matter for them. But frontbenchers – especially the ones in the Cabinet – support the Cabinet position. They are bound by that. But they can continue to argue where they think improvements could be made, without compromising that position. Of course they can.

JOURNALIST: How many Caucus members voted against the policy today?

CREAN: There was no count. It was a show of hands on one amendment only.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, I just have one question on Mr Reith. He says that in terms of his work for the Tenix that it does not involve in any way negotiations on contracts, tenders, involving the Commonwealth Government – that it is to do with other work. Do you accept that? And you have not as yet produced evidence that he has somehow, that Tenix has received a commercial benefit as a result of his work?

CREAN: What we have demonstrated is this, Steve, that the Minister for Defence changed the tender process for the DIDS contract in 2001. He changed that contract after he had signalled that he was getting out of Parliament at the end of the year. Having changed the contract, and let it, he then became a consultant with one of the tenderers. And became a consultant, as I understand it in the timeline – or was negotiating to become a consultant – before his commission as Minister had terminated.

I think that there are legitimate questions to be asked as to what involvement he had in all of that, and we will pursue that in different processes. But the point I am highlighting is that it is inappropriate for Ministers in a government to take up a position in a company that deals in the area of their ministerial responsibility for at least a period of 12 months – there has to be a cooling off period. And I have argued that as a policy prescription. What I am trying to highlight is the need for such a policy initiative, because the appearance of conflict of interest certainly is there, and that is important in terms of public integrity. Whether there is actual conflict of interest is another question.

JOURNALIST: Why don't you just introduce a Private Member's Bill to that effect? And if not, why don't you try and get the support of the Senate and put pressure on the Government to get some sort …

CREAN: Well, we will continue to pressure it, and the Private Member's mechanism may be the appropriate way to go. But it is an important policy change, and I would certainly implement it when elected.

Okay, thanks very much.

(ENDS)