Howard’s Visit To Washington, Iraq, Shadow Ministry Reshuffle Simon Crean - Leader of the Opposition

Doorstop Interview

Transcript - Canberra - 3 February 2003

E & OE – PROOF ONLY

CREAN: The Prime Minister's timing in terms of his visit to Washington is incredible. This is a person that refuses to come clean with the Australian people about the commitments that he's made to George Bush. And, at the very time that Parliament has come back for the first time in 53 days, he's going to be missing from Parliament all of next week.

This is a person that continues to treat the Australian public like mugs. He won't come clean and say what commitments he's made to George Bush, but at the drop of a hat he'll go to Washington to get further instructions from George Bush.

The Prime Minister, as I understand it, has cancelled Question Time tomorrow – which means, if he's not here next week, there will be only two Question Times in which we have the opportunity to demand of the Prime Minister the answers to questions that he's refused to respond to publicly. What commitment has he made to George Bush in terms of troops? What commitment has he made to support the US regardless of UN decisions? How does he extricate Australian troops from US command in the event of an involvement of nuclear weapons?

John Howard went to Washington last year, and I've got no doubt that at the meeting last year he made a commitment to support George Bush regardless of what came out of the United Nations. What he's doing on this trip is going back to get further instructions.

The Australian people deserve much better than this. They deserve of a Prime Minister someone who takes them into his confidence, who explains the reasons as to why people have been sent. But this Prime Minister has committed Australian troops to war without a mandate and without an explanation to Parliament.

And, in the very week that Colin Powell will be reporting back to the United Nations and in which there will be a follow-up report by Hans Blix, he will be absent from the Australian Parliament and from Australia.

This is a Prime Minister that has got to start acting in the Australian national interests, not just in the interests of George Bush. And it's a Prime Minister that has an obligation to explain the totality of his commitment and come clean with the Australian people. The Prime Minister has breached the trust of the Australian public. He's committed troops without a mandate. He won't be here to explain his actions. And he's going to Washington to get further instructions.

JOURNALIST: Are you satisfied with the debate the Prime Minister will lead tomorrow on Iraq?

CREAN: Well, we've heard no details as to what debate he's proposing. What I do know is he's proposing to cancel Question Time. Now, we have known that the Prime Minister gets up to explain his position, but he doesn't answer the questions. You've been at press conferences where he simply refuses to answer the questions as to what commitments he's made.

He's a Prime Minister that says that he wants peace, and yet he's committed the troops to war. He's committed troops on the Kanimbla and he's committed fighting aircraft, attack aircraft. They're not there for any monitoring or acclimatisation role. They're there to go into action at the drop of a hat.

He says that he wants a resolution through the United Nations. Well, where is his commitment to insist upon no action taking place before the United Nations determines it? These are the questions that he's got to answer.

And, as I understand it, he says that he's going to Washington to explain to George Bush what the views of the Australian public are. Well, the Australian public are quite clear. They don't want war, and they don't want any commitment, any military action in relation to Iraq unless the United Nations determines it. That's what John Howard could tell George Bush over the telephone, but he hasn't done it yet. And I don't believe he will tell it when he goes there to visit him in person.

All he does in these conversations is get instructions. Well, Australia wants a Prime Minister that acts in the Australian interests, not just follows what George Bush tells him to do.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, do you think this is a vote of thanks from Mr Bush to Mr Howard?

CREAN: Look, this is further instructions from George Bush as to what he wants in terms of the US military build-up. That's what it is. And John Howard hasn't had the courage to stand up and say,' We will only consider action if the United Nations determines it.' That's what Article 1 of the Australia-US alliance says – international conflict resolved through the United Nations.

So I don't see it as anything but John Howard kowtowing – again – to George Bush's demands. And that is a terrible position for the Prime Minister of this country to put himself in.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, Mr Howard says that he's going to Washington to search for peace, not war. What do you say to that?

CREAN: I say, ‘Go to the United Nations, because they're the only vehicle by which we can get a peaceful outcome.' We know that the US President is intent on a military solution alone. He said that in the State of the Union address. If John Howard's searching for peace, it's not Washington he should be talking to, but the United Nations.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, there seems to be now debate on whether there's a UN-led force or a US-led military attack. You've said Labor would support a UN attack if that's what they came down with. But haven't you said that there is a high evidentiary bar which needs to be proved – and that's a connection between September 11 and Iraq or a build-up of WMD, weapons of mass destruction – and that hasn't been proven yet, has it?

CREAN: I think there are two stages. One was the UN process. Those evidentiary tests were in the context of the UN processes failing. Have a look at the document of April, and that's quite clear. But what we're saying is, clearly, this is a matter that can be resolved, and only resolved through the United Nations. Since April of last year, there is a growing body of opinion that says that's the way it should go.

The fact that the United Nations unanimously resolved in October that the weapons inspectors go back in, this is the mechanism that Australia should be getting solidly behind. And I will continue to argue that the appropriate course of action is for the UN to determine the next steps, not George Bush.

JOURNALIST: But if the UN determines a war against Iraq, will you support that even if those evidentiary tests haven't been proven?

CREAN: If the UN determines that its decisions have to be upheld and determines a course of action, then that is the position that we should support.

JOURNALIST: How much resistance did you face today, Mr Crean, from within your own Caucus on the position you adopted last April?

CREAN: Well, the position adopted last April was unanimous, and has been reiterated on a number of occasions since then. The position that I have adopted over the past three weeks in clearly differentiating ourselves from John Howard since the deployment of the troops was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Caucus today. And it is a Caucus that says no to US-led unilateral action, that no military action against Iraq should be supported unless authorised by the United Nations, and that we want the United Nations to continue to make decisions as to what the next steps are, not the US.

JOURNALIST: So does that mean that, even if there is in the Security Council, say, one veto or one or two countries against but 13 or 14 countries in favour of military action, that you would not support any action under those circumstances?

CREAN: We're saying that the decision should be taken through the UN Security Council, and all of the advice that I've had over the last few weeks suggests that the UN Security Council is capable of arriving at a decision. It's that decision that should determine our response, not what the US seeks.

JOURNALIST: Will Labor be supporting a Senate motion against the Government, a no-confidence motion against the Government?

CREAN: Well, I haven't seen what the – we'll be determining our own course of action, and in the context of the Senate clearly Labor will be having negotiations as they always do, discussions with the other parties as to the procedures. But Labor will be using both houses of Parliament to strongly argue the fact that the UN be the authority under which any decisions are taken, not the US.

But, just as importantly, we'll be seeking to use the Parliament to get the Prime Minister to answer the questions he won't tell the Australian people about. He has breached the trust of the Australian public. He has committed troops to war without full explanation and without decision by Parliament. What he's seeking to do tomorrow is to make a statement and then allow debate. We welcome that. But no Question Time tomorrow to answer the questions, and he will be absent all of next week.

So here we are in the middle of circumstances in which the next two weeks are crucial in terms of the United Nations deliberations, and he will be absent for one of them. It's not good enough, not good enough for a Prime Minister who has got to stand up in the Australian national interests, not just the US interests.

JOURNALIST: Do you not see the value in our Prime Minister going and speaking to the United Nations, for instance? You are just saying the UN should be the body, he is going to talk to them?

CREAN: Well, I note that when I called for that today, he's now added that to his trip. And to the extent to which he's going, he must go to the United Nations. That's not what was being talked about earlier today. But why, if this was important, Fran, didn't he make the trip before Parliament came back? I mean, Tony Blair was over there last week. There are only two countries that are supporting the US in the pre-deployment, and Australia wasn't even invited to be there.

As an afterthought John Howard's been invited and, in his mad rush to be duchessed by the US President, he leaves the country in the week Parliament is meeting to debate and to discuss key developments which will unravel over the course of the next fortnight.

Now, he has an obligation to speak to the United Nations, but he's got the first and prime obligation to the Australian people. He's been avoiding scrutiny of the Australian public, and now he's avoiding that scrutiny through the Parliament.

And the Australian public will support our troops going to fight just causes, but they need to have those issues explained to them honestly, openly, frankly. The Prime Minister has not been honest, open and frank in terms of the commitments made to date. He's avoided the tough questions, and he's going to avoid them next week.

JOURNALIST: Have you had talks with Mr Beazley today about his interest in a frontbench position?

CREAN: Look, I have and I had indicated to him in previous discussions that my position was this, that if he had made up his mind to stay in the next Parliament, that I believe that he was wasted on the backbench and should be on the frontbench. And if he had made up his mind to stand next time, I would have discussions to facilitate his return to the frontbench, but the threshold question was clear. He has not made up his mind about that. I respect the fact that he hasn't made up his mind, but that's the end of the question.

JOURNALIST: Are you disappointed that he hasn't joined the Shadow Ministry?

CREAN: Well, I always said when I took over the leadership that the question for Kim as to his future was for him, and him alone, to make. And I still hold that view very strongly. I went to him on the basis of saying if in fact he'd made that decision, I would prepared to facilitate his return. Now, the fact is we've been able to use Kim's talent, his input, on a whole range of things whilst he has been on the backbench. I'll continue to draw on that and I respect his advice.

JOURNALIST: Did you offer him a defence portfolio?

CREAN: No, I didn't.

JOURNALIST: Should he make up his mind and decide he will continue, is the door still open for him?

CREAN: Well, no, these doors don't open too often. It opened last year in circumstances in which it was unexpected. I had the opportunity to think about it and talk about it over the break, but he has not made the decision in relation to the threshold. So that's the end of the story.

JOURNALIST: When do you expect to announce your frontbench?

CREAN: What I've indicated today is that the position will be filled. The Caucus has called for nominations and it will do it, presumably, at its next meeting.

JOURNALIST: So you wouldn't consider a reshuffle if, further down the track, he decides that he will contest the next election?

CREAN: No, no, no. The threshold point was there, he hasn't made up his mind. And, whilst that's unfortunate, I respect his decision. And he will continue to make up his own mind.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, you told the Financial Review that you reserved the right to support military action against Iraq in the event of a single country veto. Is that still the position?

CREAN: I said that if the circumstances were there for overwhelming evidence that something had to happen – like information that came to the Security Council, and this I think comes back to the threshold, the evidentiary threshold tests that Fran was alluding to before - that that would be a factor that we couldn't ignore if, despite that evidence, a UN Security Council resolution couldn't be carried by virtue of the veto. But it would have required a higher test. But it's in that context that I put that proposition forward.

I believe that, well, certainly over the course of the last couple of weeks, all of the advice I'm getting – and this continues to unfold – the advice I'm getting is that the vetoing of the decision is significantly less likely. And there, I think, is the huge challenge to everyone committed to get Saddam Hussein to disarm – to use it and use the authority of the United Nations to do it.

The argument that this could be an outcome frustrated because of vetoes and all sorts of things, has significantly moved away. If that's the case, what we have to do is to strengthen our efforts to ensure that the UN asserts its authority. And that's what John Howard should be arguing to George Bush is the correct course of action.

JOURNALIST: Isn't it another way of saying that only way to get Saddam Hussein to disarm is to threaten the UN-sanctioned military action against Iraq?

CREAN: No, I'm saying that, who determined that Saddam Hussein should disarm? The United Nations. They determined that in the wake of the last Gulf War. And they imposed a course of action to achieve it – UNMOVIC, economic sanctions – and ultimately UNMOVIC pulled out. What's happened is that the cause has been reactivated. And just as, on the last occasion it was the UN that determined he should disarm, that's where the decision should be taken again.

JOURNALIST: But how do they enforce that? If they make that decision that it has to be …

CREAN: That's a matter for the UN to determine.

JOURNALIST: Can you see an alternative besides military action?

CREAN: It is a matter for the United Nations to determine on the evidence before it, and collectively. It's not a matter to be determined unilaterally with the compliance falling in behind. It's a matter for serious attempts at diplomacy, serious attempts to enforce the authority of the United Nations because it's that body, it's that body which has shown the capacity in the past to get the resolutions. It's that body that should be in the enforcement mode.

JOURNALIST: But can you see any other way of that being enforced beyond military action?

CREAN: Of course I can. And the United Nations has on previous occasions. The problem is…

JOURNALIST: But it hasn't worked in the past.

CREAN: What worries me is that the US President is of the view that the only way to disarm is through military action, and John Howard has limply followed him. That's not what the reports of the weapons inspectors conclude. They still say it's possible to achieve it by peaceful means. But you don't achieve the peaceful means by deploying the troops in advance. That's pre-empting and undermining the United Nations' authority, and that's what John Howard should move away from.

(ends)