Australian Intelligence On Iraq And Bali, Consequences For The Federal Government, Interdiction In North Korea, Labor Party’s Standing With The Jewish Community, Labor’s Policies On National Security, David Hicks Kevin Rudd - Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs

TV Interview with Greg Turnbull

Transcript - Meet the Press, Channel 10 - 13 July 2003

E & OE - PROOF ONLY

GREG TURNBULL, MEET THE PRESS PRESENTER: Hello and welcome to Meet the Press. Did Australia go to war with Iraq on the basis of dodgy intelligence? And should going to war on dodgy intelligence have political consequences for the Government? One man answering yes to both those questions is the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, and he's our guest this morning on Meet the Press. Good morning, Kevin Rudd.

KEVIN RUDD, SHADOW FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER: Good morning. Good to be with you.

GREG TURNBULL: Three agencies expressed doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program that was not passed on to the Prime Minister, but does that matter so long after the war has technically concluded?

KEVIN RUDD: I think from the point of view of the Australian people, it does because what they want to know is whether their government is levelling with them on important matters of national security. You see, it is not just the three agencies from Australia who have 'fessed up this week about all of this. In the last six months or more what we've now discovered is that in the United States, the State Department, through its Bureau of Intelligence and Research, had reservations about this claim. The CIA back in September-October had reservations about this claim and put those reservations both to the British and to US Senate committees. And then we now have the revelation that in January this year the Prime Minister's own intelligence agency, Mr Downer's own department and Senator Hill's intelligence agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, all knew of these American concerns but mysteriously neither Mr Downer, Senator Hill, or the Prime Minister, or the 60 or 70 staff who work for them ever knew of any of this. Frankly, I don't think the Australian people find that all that convincing.

GREG TURNBULL: The former UN weapons inspector Richard Butler has weighed into this now saying that the buck should stop with the Prime Minister and his ministers and that they should resign over this matter. Do you go that far? And if not, why not?

KEVIN RUDD: The key question here is who is responsible in a Westminster system of government. John Howard constantly says that in our system of government it's ministers and the prime minister ultimately who have responsibility for their departments. But the practice in the history of the Howard Government has been a bit different. When Richard talks about calling for heads at this stage, I'd prefer not be as dramatic as that. I want to get to the absolute bottom of this first, which is to establish how much information did the Prime Minister and those advising him on his personal staff, Mr Downer's staff and Senator Hill's staff, have available to them before John Howard made his key claim to the Australian people on February 4 in the lead-up to the war that Iraq was continuing its nuclear weapons program and that evidence of this was that it had sought to obtain uranium from Africa. That's what's at stake here and I think the Australian people are a bit concerned about an emerging pattern of behaviour on the part of the Howard Government on being somewhat loose with the truth when it comes to important matters of national security.

GREG TURNBULL: John Howard, of course, disputes all of that and says that far from being a key piece of information this was not a key piece of information, and furthermore if he'd known about the doubts, it would not have in any way have altered his commitment to the war and Australia's involvement in the war. Doesn't that make it all a little bit irrelevant?

KEVIN RUDD: Not at all. I think this says everything of John Howard's arrogance, as if to say that it was only a matter for him, that the Australian people didn't need to know the full picture at the time as we're about to go off to war as a nation. Frankly, I just think that's extraordinary. And John Howard's further claim that the Australian people have, quote, "moved on" as far as this debate is concerned. That is equally as extraordinary and I think quite arrogant. But on his essential claim that this somehow wasn't central to his argument about going to war, could I just say this - John Howard prior to the war said repeatedly that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He and Mr Downer said that they were stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and furthermore that these weapons of mass destruction were capable of inflicting mammoth destruction. Now, that was the claim before the war. If the claim subsequent to the war is now different to that, then let John Howard say so in plain, simple English. Because what I think the Australian people are beginning to think is that John Howard, 'Honest John' has somehow become loose with the truth when it comes to these questions of important matters of national security.

GREG TURNBULL: But, Kevin Rudd, you say it was John Howard's claim before the war, but it was your claim before the war too, wasn't it? You believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

KEVIN RUDD: We in the Opposition, Greg, have one source of information and one source of information alone, on these key questions, and that is the intelligence briefings provided to us by the Howard Government. Now if those briefings were in any sense wrong or whether we were not given the complete picture, these are things yet to be tested by the upcoming investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Parliament. And we just want to get to the bottom of all of that.

GREG TURNBULL: Let me put this to you though. In September last year you went to London - the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia in London, presumably not enjoying briefings there from Australian intelligence authorities - and you said this in an interview back to Australia, you said, "There is no debate or dispute "as to whether Saddam Hussein "possesses weapons of mass destruction. "He does."

KEVIN RUDD: Absolutely. Absolutely.

GREG TURNBULL: Not "We're told he does", "On advice to us he does." You asserted that he does. Were you wrong?

KEVIN RUDD: As I said before, Greg, the Australian Labor Party does not possess its own intelligence service. We rely exclusively on the intelligence briefings given to us by the Howard Government. And what I said then was consistent with the briefings given to myself and Simon Crean over a period of time. So the key question here is were we being given at that stage the complete picture or not? And beyond that, was John Howard giving the complete picture to the Australian people? I mean, he says, on this nuclear question that it wasn't central to his argument about going to war. Could I just say this - that Mr Fielman of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the United States' State Department, said that the argument about Iraq reconstituting its nuclear weapons program was something for which he had not found evidence. And furthermore he went on to say that this would not have been unknown to the Australian government at the time. Now this is all happening below the surface, within the intelligence community, under the control of the Howard Government. We in the Labor Party are simply the recipients of the information we are given at the choice and direction of the Howard Government.

GREG TURNBULL: This issue raises again the question of the relationship between the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies and the government. What do you say it says about the nature of the relationship, as you've said through the week, post the "children overboard" affair?

KEVIN RUDD: The great concern in the Australian people is we are beginning to see a pattern of behaviour on the part of the Howard Government about being loose with the truth on important matters of national security. With kids overboard - leaving the detail to one side - the bottom line is this - the defence which was constructed, which was - John Howard, "I didn't know about any of this. "It was just the 65,000 other people who happened to know about it." Well, we come now to the Iraq nuclear question and again the same defence emerges. The question which the Australian people are concerned about is what happens now when it comes to the next great national security debate which we in this country will face, and that is to do with North Korea? Will we again be able to place complete confidence in the statements given to the nation by the Prime Minister about this as well? So, these are very important questions and we must get to the bottom of them if we are to advance properly as a nation and have confidence again in the relationship between institutions such as the intelligence agencies and the government of the day.

GREG TURNBULL: Time for a break. When we return with the panel - we contemplate a planned terrorist attack in Indonesia twice as big as the Bali blasts.

GREG TURNBULL: You're on Meet the Press with Shadow Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd. And welcome to our panel - Tom Allard, the 'Sydney Morning Herald', and Greg Sheridan, the 'Australian'. Early yesterday morning police in Indonesia swooped on nine suspected members of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah, seizing 900kg of explosive potassium chlorate and 160kg of TNT. Tom Allard.

TOM ALLARD, THE ‘SYDNEY MORNING HERALD': An alarming development, Kevin Rudd, especially given that a lot of these explosives still remain unaccounted for. Should the Australian government be telling Australians to get out of Indonesia?

KEVIN RUDD: This is a professional judgment for Mr Downer to make because he's in possession of the intelligence briefs on this and I am not. I looked at the travel advice this morning. It does say for Australians to defer non-essential travel to Indonesia. But I would ask Mr Downer just to consider this - that given in the past ASIO has warned about Australians themselves being terrorist targets in Indonesia, it would perhaps be useful for Mr Downer's travel advisory to reflect that fact itself. Because I think it is important for the Australian travelling public to know that in ASIO's assessment in the past we Australians are seen as targets in our own right, not simply as part of a broader Western amorphous mass, although in that context we are seen as a Western target as well.

TOM ALLARD: Talking about threat assessments in the past, we've had some Senate inquiries into the Bali bombings and the quality of the travel advisories in the lead-up to that. You've said that you were kind of holding your counsel at the time about making a judgment on it and whether DFAT had failed. We've heard from ONA that they told Mr Downer that Bali was a target and this wasn't mere speculation. Are you prepared to criticise DFAT directly now for being inadequate in those travel warnings?

KEVIN RUDD: I want to see the end of the parliamentary investigation of this. DFAT has not concluded its evidence yet to the Senate inquiry and I don't know who else is yet to appear before that inquiry as well. But so far what we have established - and it demonstrates the value of such inquiries - that in the 12 or 13 months between September 11 and the Bali bombings in October last year, Mr Downer was in receipt of two briefings or pieces of advice from ONA - the Office of National Assessments - saying that Bali itself was a potential terrorist target. And furthermore Mr Downer was in receipt, I think, of about five separate ASIO threat assessments identifying Australians as potential terrorist targets within Indonesia as well, from Jemaah Islamiah or al-Qa'ida. Now in that whole period of time Mr Downer's department issued, I think, about 27 separate travel warnings to Australians but what I've been unable to find in those documents is any explicit reference to Bali being referred to as being a potential terrorist target itself. And secondly, I haven't been able to identify yet a place in Mr Downer's travel warnings which says that Australians themselves in their own right were seen by ASIO as being terrorist targets. And I think that would have been useful to do.

GREG SHERIDAN, THE ‘AUSTRALIAN': Mr Rudd, on another subject, North Korea, a nation dear to your heart I know. Mr Howard is just setting off to Japan and South Korea. Should he support the United States' initiative to set up an interdiction regime of North Korean vessels trying to smuggle weapons of mass destruction material?

KEVIN RUDD: Not at this stage, Greg, until we have more information on the international maritime legal framework surrounding that. I am very hard-line on North Korea. I've visited the place twice. I've long argued that they represent a greater threat to regional and national security than Iraq ever did. But having said that we have to make sure that the measures we implement here don't make the problem worse but in fact reduce the threat from North Korea and the threat of proliferation. I want to be confident that both the national laws and the international maritime laws governing this proposal for interdiction are sound, and we're not simply inventing it as we go along.

GREG SHERIDAN: But if you were in government and you got ironclad intelligence information from the Americans that a North Korean ship had plutonium on it, was on its way to the Middle East, this plutonium would be used for nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East - are you saying that under no circumstances should you interdict that ship?

KEVIN RUDD: That's a great series of hypotheses there, Greg. Congratulations. And I'm not the foreign minister, last time I looked. But can I just say this? I'm very hard-line on this stuff. I had a good discussion with Under Secretary of State Mr Bolton when he was in Brisbane the other day on these questions. I believe that we need to tighten national laws and potentially the international maritime legal arrangements governing the potentiality for interdiction. But there's a second question about Australia's own naval resources and our capacity to engage in this, assuming the legal framework's OK. We've got to proceed cautiously, calmly and coolly through this debate and not be stampeded and I just think Mr Downer's language on this in the last week or so has bordered on the intemperate, because we're dealing with a very unpredictable regime.

TOM ALLARD: But, Kevin, you've had a lot of time to examine international law. This has been on the boil for a number of weeks now. Surely you must have come to some kind of judgment on whether these types of interdictions are legal on the high seas or whether we need to go to the UN on this one to get a more solid foundation. For example, in December the Spanish apprehended a vessel with missiles - a North Korean vessel with missiles going to Yemen - and had to let it continue on. Surely that's an indication that international law is not adequate at the stage and that should be the primary focus at the moment.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, the International Law of the Sea, which we've signed up to, back in 1994, is a complex body of law and we've got a vested interest in it as Australians to make sure it is adhered to. If it needs to be changed to govern the sorts of contingencies you just referred to with the Spanish, well, let us do so through the appropriate mechanisms of the UN. And I think in my discussions with Under Secretary Bolton from the US, he was also in my view similarly minded. Now, I just want to be cautious and measured about this. I think loose talk and fast talk by the Prime Minister, for example, the other day, speculating about the possibility of war with North Korea - albeit as a last resort - frankly I just think we're treading in dangerous ground here. We're a small country, we're in the region, let's be measured and calm about this.

GREG SHERIDAN: Mr Rudd, on another subject - Labor has supported the Government's proposed deployment to the Solomon Islands. Richard Butler says this should go through the United Nations. Doesn't Labor's support for this indicate that just like the Government you'll pick and choose when you want to go through the United Nations?

KEVIN RUDD: I'm certain you're wrong, Greg, and you know perfectly well why the two matters is completely different. In the case of the Solomon Islands you have a sovereign government which has elected to invite other states to assist it with a matter of domestic policing because they've got a domestic law and order problem which is right out of control. And as we know, in the last several days, the government of the Solomons, endorsed by the parliament of the Solomons, has made that request. So when that happens it happens entirely in a manner consistent with international law. That is separate from a doctrine of military pre-emption which says that at a given time you may seek to militarily directly intervene in another state without the consent of that other state. That's where the two matters are entirely different and I think most people are aware of that.

GREG TURNBULL: Very quickly, Kevin Rudd, we've got the track now into the Solomons. How do we get out and how long do think we'll be there?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, Greg, that is an excellent question, and the one reservation I have about this deployment to the Solomons is exactly the exit arrangements. Because it is a country of half a million people spread over many islands. The law and order problem has been ongoing for about three years now, if not more, while I've got to say Mr Downer has largely been sitting on his hands. We need to be absolutely clear about when we exit and under what conditions. Apart from the actual financial cost of this to the Australian taxpayer, there are grave dangers that we simply end up being there for a long, long time to come. We must establish long-term mechanisms such as restoring the judiciary and the police to an independent function in that country so that we can exit at an appropriate time.

GREG TURNBULL: OK, we'll exit briefly ourselves. Time for another break. When we return - we ask why Labor's lost love in the Australian Jewish community.

GREG TURNBULL: You're on Meet the Press. Kevin Rudd is off to Israel next week on what some are seeing as a peace mission of his own. Greg Sheridan.

GREG SHERIDAN: Mr Rudd, the Jewish community newspapers this week have said that Jews will change their votes away from Labor on the basis of its excessive criticism of Israel. Your colleague Tanya Plibersek called Israel a rogue state and Ariel Sharon a war criminal. Barry Cohen, a former Labor cabinet minister, wrote to Simon Crean saying he couldn't believe any Jew with any feeling for Israel would vote Labor at the current moment. And you're going to Israel. Isn't this all a sign of Labor losing touch with mainstream groups on national security and Simon Crean's leadership being a captive of the left?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, not at all, to that great string of questions, I think, if I can remember them all, Greg. But the bottom line is simply this - Labor's policy on Israel, and the Middle East in general, has not changed. Remember, back in '48, when we were in government, we voted, I think we were the first vote in the United Nations, creating the state of Israel. Part of our proud Labor foreign policy legacy. Our policy today hasn't changed. We support an independent Israel, internationally recognised, secure behind those internationally recognised boundaries and we have not budged from that policy one inch.

GREG SHERIDAN: So why this inflammatory rhetoric and the reaction of the Australian Jewish community?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, in terms of backbenchers in our Parliament, they have always been entitled to express their personal point of view, irrespective of whether we happen to agree with it or not as far as formal Labor policy is concerned. I will draw your attention to the fact that in the past we have also had, shall I say, some expansive statements by former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer about Palestinian interests in this country - a point of view which he was entitled to express as well. But as far as my upcoming visit to Israel is concerned that's been planned a couple of months ago. What I'm trying to get my head around is the detail of the roadmap to peace exercise, where that now stands, given the particular pressures being brought to bear on Abu Mazen and in particular the Palestinian Authority. This is very important, not just for the Jewish community in Australia but for also the peace and stability of the Middle East and I've got to say it is also a big element in the broader international debate about terrorism as well.

TOM ALLARD: Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr said recently that Labor just can't land a glove on the Howard Government on national security and that this is an important facet for any Labor Party that wants to win government. Why can't you do this, and is Bob Carr right?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, I haven't seen Bob's remark on that, to be quite honest. But I've got to say that national security is fundamental and any future government, or alternative government of Australia, must punch through a decisive message on national security. That's part of my job and what I'm doing at the moment. And can I just say, the very significance of the debate we had earlier in the program, Greg, about Iraq, touches this most fundamentally. You see, what the Australian people are beginning to have concerns about is whether what we see with John Howard, in fact, is the master political spin doctor. And master political spin doctor, in the interests of the Liberal party, does not necessarily equate with a sound national security policy for Australia. I go back to the point before - if Mr Howard has been loose with the truth on the question of Iraq's nuclear program what confidence will the Australian people in the future have with this Prime Minister as we embark on a very difficult period ahead on North Korea?

GREG SHERIDAN: But Mr Rudd, you voted for Kim Beazley in the leadership election in your party and part of Mr Beazley's appeal was that Simon Crean was lacking in traction and credibility on national security. Isn't that an enormous roadblock for Labor's electoral prospects?

KEVIN RUDD: Not at all. I know Simon very well and as his Shadow Foreign Minister have dealt with him extensively on national security policy matters these last 18 months. Can I just say, in terms of our decision on Hezbollah, and the banning of that terrorist organisation in Australia - very much Simon's leadership on the line as far as all that was concerned and him pushing that matter through the Parliamentary Labor Party. The ASIO powers bill - again Simon's leadership showing quite decisively where Labour stood on this important matter of ensuring that our domestic security organisations have enough power to work with, as far as the problem of terrorism is concerned. I actually don't accept that criticism at all in relation to Simon. I work with him, I think it is misplaced and I've got to say, as the agenda unfolds for the future, the questions which are going to start to emerge in the Australian public mind are not going to be about Simon on this question they will be about whether John Howard, once again, has been loose with the truth as far as important matters of national security are concerned.

GREG SHERIDAN: Mr Rudd, going back to the Solomons. We have got 1,000 troops in East Timor, we're about to send 2,000 to the Solomons, we've got troops in Iraq. Don't we need a bigger army? Would Labor puts resources into a bigger army, more resources for the defence forces?

KEVIN RUDD: I have always been pretty hard-line on this question, Greg. My view is that national security, for any country, is fundamental. I believe our armed forces have to be properly resourced, that includes the army. You're right to point out the extent to which they are being pushed and stretched in multiple directions at once. One of the factors you have got to bear in mind, by the way, in terms of navy, as far as any talk of these North Korean naval exercises on interdiction are concerned. But on your key question about resourcing - I won't be suckered into a question which says we should increase the defence budget by 'X' dollars. All I'm saying is, as Labor's Shadow Foreign Minister, I believe this is fundamental to any program for government, having a robust defence budget, a robust military force, which is properly resourced.

GREG TURNBULL: Well, Kevin Rudd, we're almost out of time, but I want to raise with you the question of David Hicks, one of the two Australians held at Guantanamo Bay. The Australian Government has pretty much left Hicks and his colleague in the breeze out there without any charge, legal representation or contact with their representation in Australia. The British Government in the last day or two has renewed its efforts to repatriate British citizens being held in Guantanamo Bay. Is it too late for the Australian Government to do what it can to get those people home to face trial in a court system in Australia as supposed to a military tribunal?

KEVIN RUDD: I don't believe it is. And it is time Mr Howard took a leaf out of the British Government's book on this question and pressed the US Administration for these Australians to be handled in a proper way. This has been our position for quite some time now and, frankly, the way in which Hicks has been handled has been appalling. I have zero sympathy for terrorism and terrorists but equally I have zero sympathy for any government which embarks upon a course of action which does not treat Australians equally before the law. And that is the fundamental principle at stake here. I think it's time Mr Howard picked up the telephone and put the question to his American counterpart direct. These folk should be dealt with through the Australian judicial system. That's always been our position. We haven't changed.

GREG TURNBULL: Kevin Rudd, thanks very much. Well, we're out of time. Thanks to our guest, Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd and our panel, Tom Allard and Greg Sheridan.