Kim Beazley will not be appointed Governor-General, according to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. [Read more...]
War On Terror Is Battle Of Ideas: Cheney
Feb 23, 2007
The ‘war on terror’ is more than a contest of arms, and more than a test of will, according to the United States Vice-President, Richard Cheney.
Addressing the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue in Sydney, Cheney said the war on terror “is a battle of ideas”. He said: “We now know to a certainty that when people across the Middle East are denied all freedom, and left to the mercy of fanatical tyrants and false prophets, that is a direct strategic concern of free nations everywhere. By taking the side of moderates, reformers, and advocates for democracy; by providing an alternative to hateful ideologies; we improve the chances for a lasting peace, and we advance our own security interests.”
The Vice-President’s speech depicted the battle with terrorism as a struggle for the future of civilisation. Arguing that “the terrorists have adopted the pretense of an aggrieved party, claiming to speak for the powerless against modern imperialists”, Cheney said the terrorist ideology rejected liberal ideals whilst adopting modern and sophisticated methods. “They believe we lack the resolve and the courage for a long struggle,” Cheney said. Rejecting the concept of negotiation with “an enemy with fantasies of martyrdom”, the Vice-President said: “The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive – face the threat directly, patiently, and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed.”
Cheney singled out the former Labor leader, Kim Beazley, in his remarks to the gathering, describing him as an “old friend”.
This is the text of Vice President Cheney’s Remarks to the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, at the Shangri-La Hotel, Sydney.
Good morning, and thank you for the warm welcome, and for letting me spend some time with you today. It’s good to be here. I started out this trip in Washington on Monday, been in Tokyo since then, and stopped in Guam, as well, before arriving here late last night. It was a short night, but I’m delighted to begin the day in such fine company.
This is a wonderful country, and Sydney is one of the world’s great cities. I’ve been fortunate to visit many times over the years, and I’ve been looking forward especially to this return visit. I’m especially pleased to be able to have the opportunity to spend some time with an old friend, your Prime Minister, John Howard.
I always recall – looking down out of the hotel on Sydney Harbor this morning – the events 15 years ago when we marked the 50th anniversary of the Coral Sea Battle, and I came down as Secretary of Defense and brought an aircraft carrier battle group with me. The Independence was docked here in the harbor for some time. As I recall, we sent the various ships with the Independence, married them up with Australian vessels and then visited ports all around the continent. The sailors had a very good time. (Laughter.) They still reminisce about it.
I’m delighted to see my old friend Kim Beazley here this morning, as well, too. We shared some time together as defence secretaries in years past.
Let me thank Ambassador Robert McCallum for his introduction. As Robert noted, I did serve in the U.S. Congress from Wyoming. I was elected six times. I always like to tell the story about that last campaign, you know after you’ve served 10 years, you’re running the sixth time for office, you’ve been on television, name has been in the newspapers, you assume everybody knows who you are, but you never wanted to take a vote for granted. And my last campaign, I always remember walking down the street in a small town, wanting to shake all the hands of the folks there. I walk up to one old cowboy with a cowboy hat pulled down over his eyes, and reached out and grabbed him by the hand, said, hi, I’m Dick Cheney. I’m running for Congress. I’d like your vote.
He said, you got it; that fool we got in there now is no damn good.
I understand that here in Australia, you also have a place called Wyoming a little north of here, and I’ll bet they know how to keep their politicians humble, too.
Your country and mine are filled with people who speak plainly and honestly. And surely that’s one of the reasons we’re natural friends. When Americans think of Australia, we think of a place with a pioneering spirit much like our own. We think of a country that shares our founding commitments to liberty and to equality, and to our traditions of justice and tolerance. We think, above all, of the character of the Australian people – self-reliant, practical, and good-hearted. President Ronald Reagan stated the case very well. He said, Australia and America “see the world from similar perspectives, though no two countries could be more opposite on the ends of the globe… we were born in the same era, sprang from the same stock, and live for the same ideals. Australia and America share an affinity that reaches to our souls.”
Over time, that deep affinity has grown into a great alliance. Together we’ve confronted common dangers. We’ve given generously to the relief of suffering from famine, disease, and natural disaster. We’ve defended democratic ideals; worked for regional stability and security; and added to the prosperity for both our countries. Yet the United States and Australia do not take each other for granted.
This alliance is strong because we want it to be, and because we work at it, and because we respect each other as equals. That’s the spirit of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue – and I thank the men and women of this organization for your tremendous contributions to the good of our alliance.
In this year 2007, our two countries are enjoying wealth and prosperity on an unprecedented scale. This did not come about by chance. It results from the energy and effort of millions – and from common sense, pro-growth policies on the parts of our governments. By rewarding enterprise and encouraging risk-takers, we have turned loose the productive genius of our peoples. And they have responded with new inventions, more small businesses, and many new jobs. Americans and Australians believe in free enterprise because we have seen its good effect on our own countries, and on our own lives. And we’ve shown a watching world that the best way to ensure long-term prosperity is to preserve individual freedom.
Our two countries provide another kind of example, as well. In the words of Prime Minister Howard, we have “demonstrated to the world that values based on freedom and individual liberty in the end win acceptance. But they only win acceptance if behind the commitment is a determination . . . to defend those values, if necessary fight for them, and always to be ready to repel those who would seek to take those freedoms away.”
John Howard spoke those words on September 10th, 2001, on a visit to the city of Washington. He stuck to those words one day later – and he has stuck to them every day since. Prime Minister Howard and the nation he serves have never wavered in the war on terror. The United States appreciates it – and the whole world respects you for it.
The business of our alliance goes forward, and it begins with the fundamental duty to protect our people from danger. Having stood together in every major conflict of the last 100 years, the U.S. and Australia now stand together in the decisive struggle against terrorism.
We’ve learned many lessons since September 11th, 2001. We have learned that threats can gather across oceans and continents and find us at home. The notion that free countries can turn our backs on what happens in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other possible safe haven for terrorists is an option that we simply cannot indulge.
The evil that appeared on 9/11 has returned many times since. And we have learned that terrorist attacks – whether in New York, or London, or Madrid, or Casablanca, or Jakarta, or Bali – are not merely criminal acts by tiny bands of men. Instead, they represent a movement that is global in scope, that formed over a period of decades, and that is determined to sow chaos and destruction within civilized countries.
We have learned the nature of the enemy’s beliefs, and the extent of his ambitions. The terrorists have adopted the pretense of an aggrieved party, claiming to speak for the powerless against modern imperialists. The fact is they’re at war with practically every liberal ideal – and in their vision, everyone would be powerless except them. Their ideology rejects tolerance and denies freedom of conscience. They would condemn women to servitude, gays to death, minority religions to persecution. An ideology so violent, so hateful, can take hold only by force or intimidation, and so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants face brutalization or murder – and no person or group, not even fellow Muslims, is exempt.
And it is they, the terrorists, who have ambitions of empire. Their goal in the broader Middle East is to seize control of a country, so they have a base from which they can launch attacks against governments that refuse to meet their demands. Their ultimate aim – and one they boldly proclaim – is to establish a caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia. And it wouldn’t stop there.
Their creed is narrow and backward-looking – yet their methods are modern and sophisticated. The terrorists use the Internet to spread propaganda and to find new recruits, and they’re employing every other tool of communication and finance to carry out their plans. They have proclaimed, as well, the goal of arming themselves with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. So armed, they would attempt to impose their will by mass murder and blackmail – and no argument, no principle of moral law, and no appeal to reason or mercy could be expected to stop them.
Nor, indeed, does self-preservation even concern them. The terrorists value death in the same way you and I value life. Civilized, decent societies will never fully understand the kind of mind set that drives men to strap on bombs, or fly airplanes into buildings – all for the purpose of killing unsuspecting men, women, and children who they have never met, and who have done them no wrong. But that is the very kind of blind, prideful hatred we’re up against.
As Prime Minister Tony Blair has pointed out, these enemies believe they have two paramount strategic advantages: terror and time. They believe we lack the resolve and the courage for a long struggle. And they are absolutely convinced that with enough acts of horror, they can wear us down, force us to change our policies, and get us to abandon our interests in the world. Because free societies are open and tolerant, because we respect every life and mourn every loss, the terrorists have concluded that we are decadent in spirit, weak in character, and conquerable.
We’ve never had a fight like this, and it’s not a fight we can win using the strategies from other wars. An enemy that operates in the shadows, and views the entire world as a battlefield, is not one that can be contained or deterred. An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for peaceful negotiations. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive – face the threat directly, patiently, and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed.
The war on terror is more than a contest of arms, and more than a test of will. It is a battle of ideas. We now know to a certainty that when people across the Middle East are denied all freedom, and left to the mercy of fanatical tyrants and false prophets, that is a direct strategic concern of free nations everywhere. By taking the side of moderates, reformers, and advocates for democracy; by providing an alternative to hateful ideologies; we improve the chances for a lasting peace, and we advance our own security interests.
In the last two years, we have seen hopeful changes, as men and women showed their desire to live in freedom. And we have seen the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the people of Lebanon proclaimed their Cedar Revolution and chose new leaders. That same year, the people of Afghanistan elected a parliament. And in Iraq, citizens voted in three national elections – turning out in the millions, defying killers and car-bombers, and electing a government that serves under the most progressive constitution in the Arab world.
In 2006, freedom’s enemies struck back with new tactics and greater fury. In Lebanon, terrorists sowed regional conflict and worked to undermine that country’s government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters waged new offensives against Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, Sunni and Shia extremists engaged in an escalating sectarian struggle that continues to this day.
Free nations must face up to all of these challenges with realism, and with resolve – and we are doing so. In Iraq our goal remains a democratic nation that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them with security, and is an ally in the war on terror. But for this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. So we’re pursuing a new strategy that brings in reinforcements to help Iraqi forces secure the capital, so that nation can move forward and the political process can turn toward reconciliation.
We are determined to prevail in Iraq because we understand the consequences of failure. If our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance of the country. The violence would likely spread throughout the country, and be difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more sorrow and discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments. Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents. Such chaos and mounting danger does not have to occur. It is, however, the enemy’s objective. And for the sake of our own long-term security, we have a duty to stand in their way.
There is still a great deal of work to be done – not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror. And very fortunately, ladies and gentlemen, the nations of our coalition are defended by some of the bravest men and women our societies have ever produced. From my own experiences as Vice President, and previously as Secretary of Defense, I have only grown in admiration for the skill and the toughness of the Australian Defense Force. From engineers to SAS, from aircrew to logisticians, from infantry to armor, mechanics to medics – Australian Defense personnel are not afraid of work that is difficult, pressing, and often dangerous. And they have a right – of getting the job done right.
Later today I’m going to meet with some members of the Australian military. My purpose is simply to thank them and their comrades for extraordinary service in a time of testing. Americans know that for this country, “standing by your mate when he’s in a fight” are more than words in a song, and they signify a way of life. Having Australia’s friendship makes my country very grateful and very proud.
As leading democracies, Australia and the United States feel a deep sense of responsibility for security and peace in our world. The cooperation between our governments has risen to a new level, with stronger ties of defense and counterterrorism, and much broader cooperation on intelligence and information sharing. We’re working closely on the Joint Strike Fighter and on Ballistic Missile Defense. Together with other nations, we founded the Proliferation Security Initiative, with the urgent business of keeping nuclear technology out of irresponsible hands.
To this end, the six-party process has produced agreement on specific actions that will bring us closer to a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. We go into this deal with our eyes open. In light of North Korea’s missile tests last July, its nuclear test in October, and its record of proliferation and human rights abuses, the regime in Pyongyang has much to prove. Yet this agreement represents a first hopeful step towards a better future for the North Korean people.
China has played an especially important role in the six-party process, because the Chinese understand that a nuclear North Korea would be a threat to their own security. We hope China will join us in our efforts to prevent the deployment and the proliferation of deadly technologies, whether in Asia or in the Middle East. Other actions by the Chinese government send a different message.
Last month’s anti-satellite test, and China’s continued fast-paced military buildup are less constructive and are not consistent with China’s stated goal of a “peaceful rise.” For our part, the United States and Australia have the same hopes for the future of China – that its people will enjoy greater freedom and prosperity; that its government will be a force for stability and peace in this region.
In this neighborhood of the globe, millions look to our countries to promote security, economic progress, and democratic ideals. As President Bush said when he spoke to your Parliament, America will continue a forward presence in Asia, and continue our close partnership with Australia. And we’ll help to build a better world through our strong and continuing friendship with Japan.
Earlier this week in Tokyo, Prime Minister Abe and I reaffirmed the commitment of both our nations to the trilateral security structure with Australia. I hope Prime Minister Howard feels the same way, and will underscore that commitment on his visit to Japan next month. The growing closeness among our three countries sends an unmistakable message – that we are united in the cause of peace and freedom across the region.
Success for our countries, and for our principles, depends on our willingness to act where action is required. Australia has shown that willingness throughout this area. You’ve provided military and civilian authorities to help maintain peace and stability in East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea. Your government has provided critical leadership on counterterrorism in Indonesia, the Philippines and other lands. And Australia’s contribution to security and good governance in the Pacific island countries is principled; it’s effective and it’s indispensable.
Australia has been equally effective in promoting free market values. The free-trade agreement between our countries, now in its third year, is creating jobs on both sides – and it’s a model of the kind of integration that can lift up economies across the region and beyond. Australian leadership brought about the first gathering of APEC nations nearly two decades ago. The APEC Summit returns here this year, and I know President Bush looks forward to the journey. Every step we take to promote economic development and free market ideals will add not just to our prosperity, but to the safety of the environment, and the health of our world, and to the long-term security of us all.
Vigorous, growing economies generate the technologies and the means to fight hunger and disease, and to provide better stewardship of the land and the life around us. Vigorous, growing economies offer upward mobility, and give people the hope of a better life for themselves and for their children. And everywhere those hopes are realized, men and women will turn their creative gifts to the pursuit of peace, and ideologies of resentment and violence will lose their appeal.
Ladies and gentlemen, our two countries have great objectives before us, and our alliance is as important now as it has ever been. One of America’s great historians, David McCullough, has noted that “among the most difficult and important concepts to convey in teaching or writing history is the simple fact that things never had to turn out as they did. Events past were never on a track. Nothing was foreordained any more then than now.”
Whether in Battle of Hamel in 1918, or 65 years ago in the Coral Sea, Americans and Australians were not mere witnesses to the unfolding of events. They were acting – bravely, decisively, and together – to turn events toward victory. And so much of the life we know today is a credit to the decisions and the actions of those who came before.
Our generation, here and now, is also writing history. Present events are not on a track. In the war on terror, one side will win and the other will lose. Civilization will continue its upward course, or go in a different direction.
It can be sobering to take stock of all the serious work that needs doing; to realize all the duties that fall to us in a perilous time. Yet it’s no reason to be afraid. Rather, it’s a reason to be confident. We are not hostages to fortune. Our forbears were not the sort to be intimidated, or worn down by adversaries – and neither are we. Today, as before, Australians and Americans are people of determination, of moral courage, and decency. We are strong countries that have sacrificed greatly for peace and freedom at home and on distant shores. Our purposes in this world are good and right.
So we have made our decision. Once again, we choose to face challenges squarely. And once again, we go forward – as allies, as comrades-in-arms, and, above all, as friends.
Thank you.
- Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070223.html
Workplace Changes Not Family Friendly: Beazley
Oct 10, 2005
The Federal Government’s proposed changes to industrial relations laws are not about choice but about cutting wages and reducing conditions, according to the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley.
Addressing a press conference in Canberra, Beazley derided the notion of employees negotiating with employers: “You know that an 18 year old with a few skills, sitting down with the boss, is not going to negotiate with the boss on an equal basis.”
The Labor leader also attacked the government’s use of public money to promote its proposals. “If John Howard was confident in this legislation he would not be spending $100 million worth of taxpayers’ funds – effectively an open-ended cheque – in order to mislead absolutely everybody.” [Read more...]
Howard Announces Changes To Detention Policy; Families With Children To Be Released
Jun 17, 2005
The Federal Government has announced changes to the immigration detention program, following negotiations with backbench Liberal members led by Petro Georgiou.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, speaking at a late-afternoon press conference, said mandatory detention will remain. “We will maintain our strong position on border protection, that is the excision of islands, the maintenance of offshore processing, and . . . the policy of turning boats around.” [Read more...]
Beazley Replies To Federal Budget; Offers Detailed Alternative
May 12, 2005
The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has responded to the Federal Budget and offered a detailed alternative to the government’s proposed tax cuts.
- Listen to Beazley’s Speech.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This is the prepared transcript of the Budget Reply Speech, delivered to the House of Representatives by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley.
Mr Speaker, our great country is about to enter the second decade of conservative rule. History will mark 1996 to 2006 as the Liberal/National Government’s decade of deception. Year after year of lowering the ‘truth’ bar then deliberately crawling under it.
With one common theme — the Government deceives, and Australians pay. But Mr Speaker, this year we’ve learned why this Government has been so deceitful. We uncover their motive with each new economic indicator: With one of the highest foreign debt levels in the world; with a record current account deficit; with household debt rising and rising.
And with the tragedy of a Government that turns away tens of thousands of Australians from TAFE colleges whilst the Treasurer makes a virtue in his Budget speech of importing skills from overseas to make up for the difference.
Mr Speaker, sadly we’re learning the truth. They’ve squandered this chance to make Australia secure for our children and grandchildren. They have surfed a wave of prosperity but left the tough decisions to future generations. [Read more...]
Beazley Acknowledges Long Road Ahead
Jan 30, 2005
Kim Beazley has conceded he has “got a bit of work to do” to re-establish his leadership credentials and the fortunes of the ALP.
In his first major television interview since regaining the leadership last Friday, Beazley said he would aim to “sharpen the differences” with the government and to hold it accountable.
Beazley criticised the government over its relationship with the United States, arguing that Australia needed to be the ally America needed, not the ally it wanted.
The reborn Opposition Leader – Beazley held the position between 1996-2001 – appeared comfortable and confident. It has been announced that he will live in Sydney for much of the time, reducing the need for long and frequent travel from Western Australia.
In the coming week, Beazley will meet with the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, as well as other state premiers. Yesterday, he campaigned in Mark Latham’s former electorate of Werriwa.
- Listen to Beazley’s interview on Sunrise.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This is the transcript of the interview with the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, on Channel 7′s Sunday Sunrise. The interviewer was Mark Riley.
RILEY: Mr Beazley, welcome to the program.
BEAZLEY: Yeah, I’ve clearly got a bit of work to do, haven’t I?
RILEY: A little bit of work to do, a mixed response but “a nice bloke, I won’t vote for him” is a bit of a worry.
BEAZLEY: Well, look, I think what we have to prove over the course of the next three years is that we’re ready for government and that change is necessary. So as I said in my opening remarks after the ballot for Labor Party leadership we’re going to have to sharpen the differences in a few areas, in areas where I think people want a sharpened difference, you’ll see that.
RILEY: Yes, but that’s what Labor’s got to do but you as the leader, there’s a bit of baggage there. You lost in 1998, you lost in 2001, Simon Crean defeated you in the first leadership ballot, you were beaten by Mark Latham – how do you win in 2007?
BEAZLEY: I guess my answer to that is John Howard. Look at the example he set with the Liberal Party. It’s been done before in Australian politics, it can be done again.
RILEY: It’s been done, yes, but John Howard had Paul Keating, didn’t he? There’s a bit of a debate about whether John Howard won on his own or Paul Keating lost that election in ’96. Is Howard going to do that for you?
BEAZLEY: All the discussion has been about us, hasn’t it, over the course of the last couple of months because of Mark’s unfortunate situation. Like to take a bet with me what the discussion will be about 18 months from now – don’t think it will be about Kim Beazley, it will be about leadership tensions in the Liberal Party and the National Party. As sure as night follows day that is going to occur during the course of this term. That’s going to be a problem for the Liberals. There’ll be issues for them to confront. What we’ll be doing is steadily building alternative policies and holding the government accountable as a classic opposition should do and win the next election.
RILEY: I’m sure you’d enjoy seeing leadership tensions on the other side of parliament but do you expect John Howard to lead to the next election or do you expect Peter Costello to knock him off?
BEAZLEY: I expect him to lead to the next election and I expect that to create issues in the Liberal Party.
RILEY: Do you expect Peter Costello will have a go at him?
BEAZLEY: I don’t know but I don’t think he wants John Howard to be there at the next election.
RILEY: How about…well, John Howard’s got a 27-seat majority. Take the Independents into account, you’d have to win 16 seats – that is a heck of a challenge.
BEAZLEY: Let me determine, we won that many of course in 1998. There were circumstances then which aided that. I do think that the Australian people are ready for a change. They have to be able to trust the people they want to change to. We’ve got a pretty risk-adverse electorate but it’s an electorate which, on the one hand, likes to see a bit of bold thinking of those of us in political life but on the other hand, when we look at the sort of administration we’d provide, they like to see us to be pretty risk free. So you’ve got to balance those two things. That’s our challenge. I think we can succeed in doing that.
RILEY: You say they’re ready for a change, were they ready for a change in October last year?
BEAZLEY: I felt that. You know, I came back on the front bench to give Mark Latham a hand during the course of the election campaign and I think I went through something like 27 shopping centres, along with our various candidates, right around the country, and so many people came up and said, “Look, we’re really giving you some serious consideration. We really think that this show’s been in power long enough, that it’s coasting and we’d like to change to Labor.” But then when it came to the last week the risk factors came in in their minds and they said, “No, let’s not go down that road.” But 48 per cent of them did and what we’ve got to do is get that 48 per cent up to 51 per cent.
RILEY: Yeah, but you’ve got the lowest primary vote in almost a century, it’s not enough.
BEAZLEY: Well, we have to get more.
RILEY: So they came close but, what, they looked at Mark Latham and said “We just can’t do it”?
BEAZLEY: I think they looked at all of us and they said, “We’ve got things at stake here, that perhaps we’d like to think about a change but we won’t go that far.” Well we’ll remove any sentiment in their minds that we would constitute a risk, and at the same time we will put forward to them some attractive policies when the next election comes round. But in the meantime we’re going to hold this government accountable because there is so much around now that shows this government is coasting. I mean, look at the stuff in the papers today about massive tax avoidance under the GST. Look at the worst trade performance since World War II. Now, we are proud of the economy that we put in place when we were in government. I’m proud of the role I played in the Hawke and Keating governments. But this government has lived off the fat of that very hard work and now the price is coming in.
RILEY: I just want to examine those two areas, though, risk and a lack of experience you were talking about, in October last year. I guess you don’t expect yourself to be a risk to the electorate and you’re projecting yourself as a man of experience, which you are, would you have won that election?
BEAZLEY: Who can say? What I do say is this – and I give Mark due credit for this – if you look at our situation at the end of the year before last, we were going to be destroyed, absolutely destroyed politically. Now we weren’t destroyed so something went better during the course of that year…
RILEY: You lost a couple of limbs, though, didn’t you?
BEAZLEY: ..and I give him – and I give Mark due credit for that, and I have given Mark due credit for that. But that’s the elections past. What we confront now is elections future and elections future is going to be the territory, of course, that we fight and where we need those sharpened differences and we have issues.
RILEY: Alright, one more question about elections past, I promise. Do you now regret standing down in 2001?
BEAZLEY: No. I think it was right to give the Labor Party space to look around and not to cling on, accept responsibility for the defeat, let the Labor Party look around, and go and make a contribution. Now I’m back, I’m delighted to be back and I’ve promised the Labor Party a very hard fight and I’ve promised Mr Howard the fight of his life and it will be delivered.
RILEY: Alright, and one of those areas that you’ll be fighting him on is Iraq and overnight at the World Economic Forum in Davos, John Howard has defended America in the face of fairly strident attacks from European leaders over the invasion of Iraq. He said, “The criticism is unfair and irrational.” Is it?
BEAZLEY: I think that there’s a position that we need to take on Iraq now. I’ve got plenty of criticism of the Howard Government’s position on Iraq in the war, in the aftermath of the war. We were not the ally the United States needed. They desperately needed warning, they desperately needed counsel of patience and after the war they desperately needed sound advice on how the post-war administration should take place. None of that came from Australia and right now, right now, they need strong advice that whatever the outcome of this election, they must not get involved in a civil war in Iraq. They mustn’t, simple as that. We went into Iraq, in fact, not to restructure Iraq, we went into Iraq to deal with weapons of mass destruction and to deal with, what was argued, a connection between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism. They were unsoundly based rationales. And what it’s done is create circumstances where our opponents in the war with militant fundamentalism have had propaganda wins and continue to have propaganda wins. Those propaganda wins have got to be choked off and the United States freed to be able to deal with the issues in international politics it must deal with – the global struggle against militant fundamentalism, the struggle against weapons of mass destruction and dealing with issues like global poverty. If they’re bogged down in Iraq that won’t happen and the job of the Australian Prime Minister as a friend of the United States is to do all in his power to prevent the United States from getting bogged down in that way.
RILEY: Right, that’s the future. Is he right to defend the US on his actions so far?
BEAZLEY: I think that he needs to be a friend that the Americans need, not just the friend that they want. They appreciate him. They like the fact that he has stood in behind them during the course of this conflict. I don’t deny that, I don’t deny that they consider him a good friend. Time’s moving on. What the United States now needs is good counsel and that’s what they need from him.
RILEY: Well, he’s also rejected the notion that the US has isolated itself in Europe because of its approach on Iraq. What do you think about that?
BEAZLEY: The US has friends in Europe. Contemplate the circumstances after September 11 and ask some questions. The whole world responded to the US position, everywhere. Old enemies of the US – Russians, the Chinese – all came in behind the US – what looked like the US-led fight with fundamentalist terror. That has frayed over the course of the last two or three years. That is not in the US interest, that is not in our interests. They have good friends with some European countries, particularly those in eastern Europe who are grateful for the stand the Americans took during the Cold War and they have competitors in the French and the Germans, the critics. But the US, if it’s going to exercise world leadership, has got to be able to embrace the lot and…
RILEY: So not deny that that schism exists?
BEAZLEY: The schism exists, all right.
RILEY: Okay. So it’s got to work with Europe to bring that relationship back?
BEAZLEY: And after the presidential election George Bush made noises like that was what he wanted to do, and I hope he does.
RILEY: Mr Beazley, you’ve been calling on the Government to move the Australian Embassy in Baghdad into the Green Zone. We found out overnight there’s been a rocket attack on the US Embassy which is in the Green Zone. Nowhere is safe there, is it?
BEAZLEY: Nowhere is safe in Iraq, that is true. There’s no question of that. But there are places that are safer than others. The Green Zone is safer than just about anywhere else in the area where there is intense insurgency and that includes Baghdad.
RILEY: You’ve talked about what the Americans should do if Iraq looks like dissolving into civil war, should we pull our diplomats out in that circumstance, if it looks like going that way?
BEAZLEY: There is an issue with our diplomats – is whether or not they can do their job because it’s extraordinarily difficult for them to move around. But whilst ever the diplomats are there they need to be properly protected and I would say at this moment that the issue…the things that they’re dealing with, the fact they are there, is pretty important. So I would leave the diplomats there but it’s time they were in the Green Zone.
RILEY: You would leave them there even if that circumstance arises – you were talking about – where it looks like becoming a protracted civil war, we would still have to have a diplomatic presence.
BEAZLEY: If they could not do their job then you wouldn’t. But at the moment, all the advice seems to be that they can at least do some useful things.
RILEY: John Howard in Davos overnight has also had a go at the UN again, saying it doesn’t work and that Bosnia and Kosovo proved that. He said that if you rely entirely on the international institutions, it won’t work.
BEAZLEY: Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. It worked very well in Timor and we made a very substantial contribution to their effort. Their aid programs around the globe work extremely well. They are an important forum for the development of international opinion particularly in a humanitarian direction. It is not a catch-all. You don’t abandon the foreign policy because you have the UN in place. I think the US and we ought to be proud of the UN. We played a major role in its creation. It was one of the institutions of, if you like, liberal democracy that was put in place after World War II when we were struggling. There were two alternatives. There was the liberal democratic alternative of the Bretton Woods agreement, the UN, all those international activities which respected people’s sovereignty and their democracies, and on the other hand was revolutionary socialism. And in the end, the institutions of liberal democracy won. Why spurn them now? Why humiliate them? Why not just make them better?
RILEY: I guess…. Indeed, I think there is consensus on that. But what he was saying in essence is that it was ineffective in Iraq and that’s why the US had to act
BEAZLEY: We don’t know what might have been achieved by that that…the last forceful set of inspections. If we had known…
RILEY: I think we do, don’t we? Saddam Hussein would still be there.
BEAZLEY: If we had known that there were not weapons of mass destruction there, that there was not a connection between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism, we might have thought long and hard. Do you remember what John Howard said at the time about whether or not going in after Saddam Hussein was a sufficient war aim? He said it was not – it was not – a sufficient war aim. Neither it was. The other war aims were flawed. And so was the planning for the occupation afterwards. As a result of that, the US interest around the globe, not to mention US forces in place, have been seriously damaged. I’ve always considered myself a friend of the US but I’ve never considered myself as an Australian national leader in circumstances where I deny the Australian national interest or where I do not believe that I have an obligation to my ally to be frank and fully frank with them about areas of disagreement. You don’t do them any favours by getting them into a mess.
RILEY: Were you planning a trip to the US to tell them this?
BEAZLEY: I would obviously at some point of time over the next three years go to the US. I was in the US last year. And no, I don’t go around telling people things in the US. I go around having a conversation with them. I’ve had conversations with them about these issues. Because I spent the war in Israel, or part of the war in Israel, and I got a very different perspective on what was happening to them and a very different perspective on what their future would be. And so I sought conversations with them about that.
RILEY: Alright, another war, not quite as bloody as internal Labor politics – you’ve called for unity from all in your party. But don’t you see the profound paradox, if not irony, of that? For 18 months under Simon Crean’s leadership, people who support you ran him to the ground so you could challenge twice, unsuccessfully, for the leadership, and now you expect loyalty and unity from these people?
BEAZLEY: Ah, do you think unity is a bad thing for the Labor Party?
RILEY: No, I don’t. I just don’t actually think you’re going to get it.
BEAZLEY: You think we should have a…
RILEY: And your supporters did not demonstrate it…
BEAZLEY: I think…
RILEY: ..at the time when Simon Crean was leader.
BEAZLEY: I think…
RILEY: Nor at the end of Mark Latham’s leadership.
BEAZLEY: I think what you get, the unity you get, from one set of circumstances only, and that is striving for a common purpose. We’ll get unity in the Labor Party when we are all convinced that we have an obligation to win the next election and to hold the government accountable. It’s going to be interesting these next three years because, for the first time in living memory, this government is going to have absolute legislative power. And the main game is going to switch out of this or that fiddle in the Senate into how effective the Labor Party is in proposing alternatives. And we have got issues. We’ve got issues with tax, we’ve got issues with exports, we’ve got issues with health, we’ve got issues with education. We are going to stop talking about each other and we are going to start talking about the Australian people.
RILEY: But are you sure that can happen because there’s a lot to talk about, and there’s a lot to talk about in the way your supporters dealt with the last two leaders?
BEAZLEY: We are all professionals and what is our obligation – to each other or to the Australian people? Well, our obligation to each other is to deal with the problems of the Australian people. We’re also adult and we also know that disunity is death. And we know that we have moral obligations both to the history of our party and the ordinary Australians whom the Labor Party seeks to represent. And even in our worst of times, somehow or other about half the Australian people continue to support us. That’s a challenge.
RILEY: It must have been the worst of times in October last year – 48. A couple of policy questions. Medicare Gold – dead under Beazley?
BEAZLEY: I think that our policies at the last election were fully costed and we never got the credit for that and we should have. But what the Caucus did – and I’m not talking about any actions on my part – what the Caucus did very sensibly after the last election, reviewed policy, took all the big-ticket items off and put them in…put them to one side because the Caucus is absolutely determined that whatever we put to the Australian people next time, we will be able to afford it. So the…out went not just the policies related to that, but the tax policies, everything else, but the principles were sustained. And what were the principles there? There should be one funding authority in relation to public health. There shouldn’t be waste in relations between the States and the Commonwealth.
RILEY: Free hospital care for over 75s?
BEAZLEY: There should be Commonwealth responsibility for the frail aged so they’re taken out of the acute care system. These are the principles. The actual programs that you are mentioning, all of them, not just Medicare Gold, all of them were put to one side for reconsideration at the time the next election comes around. This is just sensible. I mean, I know people try to get out there and make a big deal about that but it’s just simply commonsense.
RILEY: It was a big deal at the time. This was going to deliver Labor from the wilderness into government.
BEAZLEY: We’ve had many promises that we’ve put to the Australian people at election time, which, when the election is concluded, we have said it was a good argument about that. We didn’t win it, we go back to the drawing board. We’ve still got our principles. Those principles are important and they’ll underpin the next set of policies we put to the Australian people.
RILEY: Okay, those principles in mind – okay, alright, the big deal though is that if you’ve got the money, do you go ahead with it?
BEAZLEY: If you’ve got the money, you’ve got many things to think about. You’ve got to think about the burden that is being carried by Australians in the taxation system. This is a major issue.
RILEY: You’ve got the money for that. The Government’s spent $6 billion in a day in the last election.
BEAZLEY: This is the…. Indeed. The government was quite extraordinary at the last election. They criticise us for fiscal irresponsibility. They have punched, in the last election and in the previous Budget, a $66-billion hole in the Government’s fiscal stance. That’s an extraordinary thing. An extraordinary payout to the electorate to try and get themselves re-elected. But have they paid it out in the right direction? Now, I think my challenge, or one of my challenges, is not simply to say how we would spend notionally whatever amount of money is there, it’s to start to hold the government accountable for that $66 billion and how it’s operating and what it’s doing with the taxation system, what it’s doing with managing the economy. And it’s not just my responsibility, by the way – the media bears a considerable responsibility for that, as well.
RILEY: We’ll do…
BEAZLEY: You’re the fourth estate, get into them.
RILEY: Mr Beazley, thank you very much for your time this morning.
BEAZLEY: Good to be with you.
Howard In Davos For World Economic Forum; Comments on Habib, Beazley
Jan 28, 2005
The Prime Minister, John Howard, is in Davos, Switzerland, for the latest meeting of the World Economic Forum.
Speaking to journalists, Howard criticised European wheat subsidies, but was otherwise non-committal on Mamdouh Habib and the ALP leadership.
According to its website, the World Economic Forum is “an independent international organization incorporated as a Swiss not-for-profit foundation”. Its members “represent the world’s 1,000 leading companies, along with 200 smaller businesses, many from the developing world, that play a potent role in their industry or region”.
The forum aims for “a world-class corporate governance system where values are as important a basis as rules”. It argues for “entrepreneurship in the global public interest”, and believes that “economic progress without social development is not sustainable, while social development without economic progress is not feasible.”
This is the transcript of the doorstop interview given by the Prime Minister, John Howard, at the Belvedere Hotel in Davos, Switzerland.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, this is your first trip to the World Economic Forum, why have you come this year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s not my first trip to the World Economic Forum, I went to the one in New York, it’s the first one I’ve come to in Davos. I think this is an appropriate time given beginning of a new term, there are a lot of major economic issues to be discussed, I’ll take the opportunity for example of expressing my concern about the decision of the European Union to resume subsidies for the export of wheat, that’s a matter of very great concern to Australia, it seems to run completely counter to all the rhetoric we’ve had about more open trade, if this is their idea about more open trade well Australia is deeply disappointed. There’s a lot of rhetoric at the moment about helping under-developed countries, nothing would help under-developed countries more than the removal of trade subsidies and trade barriers and if the nations of Europe and North America and others that have highly protected agricultural policies wanted to really help many of the developing countries then they could do more to help them in changing their trade policies than they could through official development assistance.
JOURNALIST:
So will you be seeking some bilateral discussions with European Union officials?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will talk to anybody I can get hold of on all manner of subjects, I’m having a lot of bilateral discussions and I’m sure the opportunity of discussing that matter will come up.
JOURNALIST:
Mamdouh Habib arrived back in Australia today, will the Government be keeping a close eye on him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look Mr Ruddock is dealing with that, let him speak for the Government on that issue.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think in general though given that the possibility of charges being pressed has now receded, if it fair enough to say that the man’s innocent?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m not going to express a view on that, Mr Ruddock is handling it back in Australia.
JOURNALIST:
What do you think of the election of Kim Beazley as Opposition Leader?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it was inevitable wasn’t it? Let me congratulate Mr Beazley, like all other leaders of the opposition I won’t be taking anything for granted in dealing with the Labor Party under his leadership. His responsibility now, as mine has been in the almost 10 years that I’ve been leader of the Liberal Party, is to be accountable to the Australian people. The Australian people will want to know from him, as they do from me, what he stands for and what he intends to do. You are accountable in public life for what you believe in and what you do, not what you say.
JOURNALIST:
Ten years ago you took over the Liberal Coalition in a similar position, have you got any advice for Mr Beazley?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I’m not giving Mr Beazley any advice. That’s a matter for him. Look, he’s been made leader, I don’t treat anybody lightly, I’ve told my party not to get complacent, we have to work very hard to retain the confidence of the Australian people, you can never take anything for granted in politics and I can assure the Australian people that I do not take them for granted, I work hard in their interests and that’s the message I send to all of my colleagues.
Thank you.
Kim Beazley Returns As ALP Leader; Elected By Acclamation
Jan 28, 2005
Kim Beazley was re-elected by acclamation as leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party shortly after 9.00am today. Beazley nominated himself. There were no other contenders.
Beazley held a press conference at midday. He delivered the brief statement reproduced below and then answered questions.
- Listen to Kim Beazley’s press conference.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This is the text of the statement from the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley.
Firstly you will be pleased to know I intend to be brief.
I was elected unopposed as the Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party at our Caucus meeting this morning. I am proud and excited to be given the chance to lead Australia’s longest serving political party back into office.
I said at the time I nominated for party leadership that I was fired with ambition for my Party and my country — and so I am. We are going to be an Opposition that sharpens the differences between the government and ourselves. We believe you can have a modern, dynamic economy with compassion.
I was a very proud member of Labor governments, which put in place the reforms which underpinned our prosperity. And I know this: we cannot maintain this prosperity with the trade deficit we have, with the collapse of investment in innovation and infrastructure as well as industry bottlenecks due to skills shortages. We have sharp differences also with this Government on the issue of sustainable development, exemplified by this Government’s refusal to adopt the Kyoto Protocol.
Around the kitchen table, every parent knows their children’s future depends on the quality of the education and training they get. And everybody wants a first class health system. The electorate knows full well our attitudes to education and health. They know we are on their side and I want to assure you that we will continue the fight. We will also sharpen the differences on national security. That’s a debate I won’t shirk.
These are not small issues. These are really big issues. These are the issues which determine the prosperity of our country. In many ways, in the century we face, the survival of our country. They are areas which require big policy responses. Big plans, but plans that are carefully laid, and a Labor Government that acts decisively. That’s what I plan us to be.
We face three central tasks. The first is to reunite and reinvigorate our Party. I am going to do something unusual for an Opposition leader. I am going to announce my Shadow Ministry at my first press conference. Everybody stays in place.
Our second task is to hold this government accountable. The whole political world changes on July the 1 st. The government has absolute legislative power. Accountability will no longer depend on the minor parties in the Senate, but how effectively the Labor Party holds the government accountable.
Our third task is to provide an alternative government. Don’t expect a raft of new policies today. We have three years to develop this effective alternative but those policies will reflect the sharp differences to which I refer.
I promised my Party this morning three years of hard work, clear focus and absolute commitment to the task of putting the Labor Party back into government.
I am going to give John Howard the fight of his life and then win the next election.
Liberals Quick To Ridicule Beazley
Jan 28, 2005
The Liberal Party has been quick to react to the re-election of Kim Beazley as Labor leader.
Following Beazley’s re-election press conference, the Liberal Party circulated a statement, attributed to Gough Whitlam by Phillip Adams, to subscribers to the party’s email newsletter.
The remark has Whitlam referring to Beazley’s extensive experience in government and asking: “Tell me one thing he did in any of them!”
The email is headed:
What does Gough Whitlam really think about Kim Beazley’s performance?
The email quotes from Adams’ article in The Australian on January 25, 2005:
“Reviewing his career, Gough Whitlam reminded me that Kim’s now the ALP’s most experienced front-bencher – rattling off the portfolios and the dates he held them. Staring down at me, he used a moment’s silence to emphasise the point. ‘Tell me one thing he did in any of them!’”
The full text of Adams’ article is available here. In it, he describes Beazley “as the ALP’s counterpart to Al Gore” and asserts that the resurrected leader will be a captive of factional bosses who won’t be able to throw off his small-target strategy from the past.
Beazley was a minister for all of the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments. He held the following portfolios:
- Minister for Aviation from 11.3.83 to 13.12.84
- Special Minister of State from 14.7.83 to 21.1.84
- Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence from 11.3.83 to 13.12.84
- Minister for Defence from 13.12.84 to 4.4.90
- Vice-President of the Executive Council from 15.2.88 to 1.2.91
- Minister for Transport and Communications from 4.4.90 to 9.12.91
- Minister for Finance from 9.12.91 to 27.12.91
- Minister for Employment, Education and Training from 27.12.91 to 23.12.93
- Minister for Finance from 23.12.93 to 11.3.96
- Deputy Prime Minister from 20.6.95 to 11.3.96
Latham Quits As Labor Leader And Resigns From Parliament
Jan 18, 2005
3.00pm
Mark Latham has resigned as ALP leader and from his Werriwa electorate. At a short press conference this afternoon, the Opposition Leader said he is putting his health and his family first.
The announcement suggests Latham’s pancreatitis is serious and may have more ominous implications.
A by-election for Werriwa will now be held sometime in the next three months.
Latham was leader for 1 year, 1 month and 16 days, the shortest tenure of any Labor leader in the party’s 114-year history.
Deputy Leader Jenny Macklin is due to hold a press conference within the hour. Former leader Kim Beazley will speak to the media at 4pm.
It is not known whether there will be any other candidate for the position apart from Beazley. The interventions of state Labor premiers Carr and Beattie in the past 24 hours have been in Beazley’s favour.
Whilst the names of Stephen Smith, Julia Gillard and Lindsay Tanner have been raised as possible candidates, the only viable alternative to Beazley would appear to be Kevin Rudd. Latham supporters such as Simon Crean can be expected to oppose Beazley’s return, but whether Rudd can attract their support is a different matter. Gillard, a member of the Left faction, is unlikely to run, although the party would do well to replace the pedestrian Macklin with Gillard.
The NSW Treasurer, Michael Egan, also announced his resignation from Parliament today, allowing the NSW ALP Right the luxury of finding candidates for two safe seats. The timing of the two announcements is surely not coincidental.
Latham Experiment Over
Jan 18, 2.50pm – The Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, has just announced his resignation at a press conference in Ingleburn, NSW. He cited poor health as the reason for his resignation, but did not take questions at the hastily convenced conference.
A statement from former leader Kim Beazley is expected later this afternoon. The Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, is in Indonesia and it is not clear whether the ballot for a replacement leader will be contested.
Jan 18 – 2.47pm
LATHAM RESIGNS….Developing…
Jan 18 – 2.45pm – LATHAM PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE. LIVE BROADCAST ON SKY NEWS. LATHAM RESIGNATION EXPECTED. BEAZLEY STATEMENT DUE LATER TODAY.
