|
ALP News Statements
|
|
 |
|
Tony Abbott, Iraq, US Alliance, FTA
Kevin Rudd - Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Security
|
TV Interview with Mark Riley
Transcript - Sunday Sunrise, Channel Seven - 18 July 2004
E & OE
Chris Reason, Program Host: Bomber Beazley's return to Labor's frontbenches has been applauded as clever
politics aimed at pacifying the United States. But the Opposition still faces
a prickly decision on the Free Trade Agreement. Will Labor MPs be deal wreckers
or policy backflippers? To discuss that, we're joined by Shadow Foreign Minister
Kevin Rudd. Interviewing him is chief political correspondent, Mark Riley.
Mark Riley, Chief Political Correspondent: Thanks, Chris. Welcome back to the program, Kevin Rudd.
Kevin Rudd, Shadow Foreign Minister: Good to be here with you.
Mark Riley: Extraordinary headlines this morning. "Abbott - I was charged with indecent
assault 27 years ago." Does this have any impact on him politically?
Kevin Rudd: Oh, we don't think so. Look, the bottom line is we're not interested in Tony
Abbott's personal assault charges of however long ago. What we are interested
in is Tony Abbott's policy assault on Medicare and bulk-billing and collapsing
bulk-billing rates around the country. That's where the policy debates are at
in the country. We're not interested in the personal stuff one bit.
Mark Riley: Well, there is another matter there. He admits that after the final year celebrations
or during his final year celebrations at university, he bent a street sign and
was charged by police and was found guilty, no conviction recorded. What about
that? Does that have any impact?
Kevin Rudd: Look, I think if you ask the Australian people, as we head to this next election,
about the choices they face about rebuilding Medicare, rebuilding bulk-billing
and affordable higher education and doing something about HECS fees, frankly that's
what they are concerned about.
Whether Tony Abbott went a bit wild one day and did something to a street sign
or not, or whatever the truth is in relation to assault charges, frankly I don't
think the Australian people care all that much. That's a matter for Tony.
We're not interested in the personal stuff. We're interested in the policy. We're
interested in the two alternative visions for Australian's future. One which does
something about rebuilding our social infrastructure or one which is aligned to
John Howard's vision for the future, which is to continue taking the meat axe
to Medicare, bulk-billing and what we are doing in education.
Mark Riley: So I take it there's nothing from your student politics days you want to share
with us this morning?
Kevin Rudd: Not particularly, no.
Mark Riley: A serious matter, Mr Rudd. What do you make of these claims Iyad Allawi murdered
six people in cold blood just days before the handover in Iraq?
Kevin Rudd: Look, I think it is very important to be cautious about this report. At first
blush I find it unbelievable that the Prime Minister of Iraq could have done something
like this. I've got to say, though, that the journalist in question, Paul McGeough,
is a credible journalist. I think he's a Walkley Award winner. I don't think,
therefore, we can simply brush it to one side. That's why I think the responsible
course of action is for Foreign Minister Downer to clarify this matter straight
away. He should address the matter with the Iraqi Government in Baghdad, through
the Australian Embassy in Baghdad and also with our friends in the United States,
just to make sure that we've got the facts absolutely straight on this matter.
Mark Riley: When you say "address the matter", are you saying that the Government should
be demanding an investigation into this?
Kevin Rudd: Just clarify the facts. I mean, the people who are alleged to have information
on this are I think American security officers, as well as obviously the Iraqi
Government themselves. We've got an embassy in Baghdad that's full of competent
professionals. They should be in the business of clarifying the facts on this
matter. That, I think, is what the Australian people would like and I think that's
the responsible and cautious course of action before anyone rushes to judgement
on this.
Mark Riley: Alright. I'll ask you about the apparent evolution of your Iraq policy which
was troops out by Christmas and now it seems to be some troops out by Christmas
and some other troops in by Christmas. What's going on?
Kevin Rudd: Look, we’ve said right from the very beginning that we support the United Nations.
Remember right back before the war, our reason for opposing the war was that we
found the case on Iraqi WMD not sufficiently strong to warrant Australia going
to war in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. Nevertheless, the Howard
Government took the country to war.
Then since the war, we've also called for a central role for the United Nations.
In Mark's speech the other night, what he was talking about was how in practical
terms we could assist the US on the ground by providing these 20-30 non-combat
personnel, specialising in planning and logistics.
For the Iraqi Government themselves, to help build a specialist oncology hospital
in Baghdad. I think it would be very good for the Iraqi people to see something
called - if we could manage it this way - the Australian Oncology Hospital because
cancer is a big problem there, like anywhere else. Also, to assist our friends
in Iraq with building a better Customs service to do something practical about
border security with this newly emerging state. These are practical things for
us to do.
Mark Riley: What is your view on the Philippines Government’s decision to pull its troops
out in response to one of its nationals being taken hostage?
Kevin Rudd: Well, generally, I'm not in the business of commenting on the virtue or otherwise
of another government's decision. These are matters for sovereign governments
to decide. If you're asking me what our view of Australian Labor policy, as the
alternative government of Australia would be, we do not believe that we should
be in the business of negotiating with terrorists. We've had that view in the
past, we have that view now. Should we form government later in the year, that
would also be our position.
Mark Riley: So if - let's hope it doesn't happen - but if an Australian national is taken
hostage in Iraq, you would put your pulling the troops out by Christmas policy
on hold?
Kevin Rudd: Look, I just think going into hypothetical land with all of this, Mark, is very
dangerous. It's a very dangerous situation on the ground in Baghdad. I was there
at the end of last year when it was not nearly as dangerous as it is now. I've
got to say, talking hypotheticals, given that terrorist organisations monitor
the world media, I just don’t think it's a good thing to do. You've asked me what
our general policy is as far as negotiating with terrorists is concerned. I've
been as clear cut and concise as possible on that. That is, we don't believe you
should be in the business of negotiating with terrorists. As for future possible
scenarios, I just don't want to go there. I don't think it is healthy and helpful
for those on the ground there at the moment.
Mark Riley: A real scenario on the record. Rich Armitage, Assistant Secretary of State says
that Labor was right down the middle on Iraq. You saw the ambassador Tom Schieffer
in the past week. What did you tell him?
Kevin Rudd: Actually, I didn't get around to seeing Tom during the last week. I tried to
see him in Canberra on Monday, but it didn't work out for one reason or another.
Look, we'll continue dealing with the Americans on these matters in the future.
I would talk to the US Embassy on average every week or so about one thing or
another.
When I came back from China recently I telephoned the embassy to brief them on
what I had found up there, in terms of the China/Taiwan straits business. We're
in regular contact. It's part of normal business. So when I see Tom again, we'll
canvass some of those matters from the past.
But the key thing is we've got some things we want to deal with the Americans
on in the future and future challenges in our own region - China/Taiwan, the Korean
Peninsular, India/Pakistan and the rolling challenge of terrorism here in our
own region, our own neighbourhood, our own backyard. That's what we want to work
with our American friends on.
Mark Riley: When you canvass those issues of the past, will you be telling him that people
like Richard Armitage should butt out of Australian politics?
Kevin Rudd: Look, I think we've all got pretty broad shoulders on this type of stuff. What
Rich Armitage chooses to say in the future is a matter for Rich Armitage. What
we are concerned about is the future of the Australian-United States relationship.
We want to build a very good relationship with our friends in the United States,
as we've had in the past. I mean, we formed this alliance back in '41. Over 63
years, we've had a few disagreements, but they're at the margin compared with
the huge areas of agreement we've had with the Americans. That's the spirit we
want to take forward to the future because there are so many challenges emerging
here in our own region that we wish to work with our American friends on. So,
I just think it is important to put these recent disagreements on Iraq into some
context because they are the smaller part of the equation.
Mark Riley: Alright. On pre-war intelligence in Iraq. The Flood Inquiry into the Australian
Television Services report will come out within days. You've already said that
Labor is disposed towards a royal commission into the intelligence agency in Australia.
What will that achieve?
Kevin Rudd: Well, intelligence is key to the war against terrorism. On that central proposition,
the Government and the Opposition are agreed. But any objective look at the history
of the Howard Government's performance on intelligence would have to conclude
it's a history of intelligence failure. Intelligence failure on Iraq, intelligence
failure on Bali and most recently intelligence failure on Brigitte, the person
alleged to have been responsible for putting together a terrorist cell in Sydney.
These are significant failures. Therefore, we believe we've got to get this system
right. Not just in terms of some settling of historical political accounts with
the Government.
The more important thing is the future because the war against Jemaah Islamiah
is a continuing war here on our own doorstep in Islamic South-East Asia. Therefore,
when I look at Philip Flood's terms of reference and when Mark and others have
looked at them, frankly they don't go far enough. We actually need a royal commission,
full powers, to go to the entire system of our intelligence and also the relationship
between the intelligence community and the political arm of government, so that
our intelligence agencies don't get put under political pressure in the future,
as they have been in the past.
Mark Riley: Okay. I want to move you on to the free trade agreement. As a Queenslander,
is it still no sugar, no deal?
Kevin Rudd: Look, we think this whole thing is a package. What Mark has been saying and
most of us have been saying for a long time is that if it's a good deal in terms
of the overall national interest, then we'll support it. The key outstanding areas
that we are still looking at are what happens with the Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme? What happens in terms of intellectual property? What happens with quarantine?
What also happens with local content in terms of audio visual platforms? These
are still areas where we've not ironed out all of the details yet. That's why
the Senate inquiry report is important for us. We will take a judgement of the
national interest, the national economic interest, the national social interest
based on the data which that inquiry provides for us.
Mark Riley: Very high political stakes for you, though, if you were to block this?
Kevin Rudd: Oh, I don't think we're ignorant of that fact. These are major decisions for
the nation and, therefore, we believe the responsible course of action is to take
these decisions soberly. That's why Stephen Conroy, the Shadow Minister for Trade,
has been so careful in the way in which he's gone about his discussions with the
Americans in Washington, gone about his discussions with Mark Vaile, the Trade
Minister, and why we are so careful about extracting the data we need from the
relevant agencies of the Howard Government to find out the exact implications
for pharmaceuticals, for example, which for us has always been a deal breaker.
Mark Riley: Just briefly, Mr Rudd, because we are running out of time. Kim Beazley, were
you one of those colleagues that talked him into staying after the last failed
leadership challenge?
Kevin Rudd: Well, I've been a friend of Kim's for a long, long time. I've always believed
he's been a net asset to the show because he's got such a wealth of experience
and I am delighted he's back. Sure, I've encouraged him privately for a long time
to be back with us on the front bench because I just think he's such a huge asset
to Labor's interests. When we form government at the end of this year, should
the people vote for us, I've got to say it will be very good to be able to work
with Kim on how we precisely re-shape our intelligence apparatus, re-shape our
defence structure, our force structure of the Australian Defence Force, as well
as how we properly engage with the fight against terrorism here in the neighbourhood.
Mark Riley: Sorry about that, Mr Rudd. We're right out of time. Thank you for your time
this morning. Appreciate it.
Kevin Rudd: Good to be with you, Mark.
Ends.
|
|
|
|
Email
Print
