This is the transcript of Prime Minister John Howard’s press conference on Iraq intelligence matters.
Transcript of the press conference given by the Prime Minister, John Howard, at Parliament House, Canberra.
PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen, I have called this news conference principally in respect of the statements made by both sides of politics in the United States regarding American policy on Iraq and the relevance of those to the positions taken by the two sides of politics in Australia.
But before doing so, in anticipation that you might want to ask me something about it, could I just again repeat to the gallery in Canberra what I said on the north coast of New South Wales last night, that the letter sent to me by Lieutenant Colonel Collins will be replied to in a courteous, comprehensive, detailed fashion. He’s a distinguished military officer who has given great service to Australia. He obviously has strong views about aspects of the operation of Australia’s intelligence services, and he’s entitled to a proper, considered reply from the Prime Minister, he having decided to write to him, and he will certainly receive that.
Could I make a couple of comments about the context of this issue. The first of those is that it is still, on my advice, being dealt with within the military justice system. The second observation that I would make is on my reading of it, and I had not previously seen the report that was purportedly published in full in The Bulletin this morning because that was a report internal to the military justice system and it wouldn’t in the normal course of events come to me, and I doubt in fact if it would have come to the Minister for Defence, but that may or may not be the case. It certainly hadn’t come to me. The point I’d make is that on my reading of it, it is very much an example of strongly held differing views within the intelligence community, and that is not uncommon, it happens quite frequently, rather than strongly held differing views between the intelligence community collectively on the one hand and the Government on the other hand.
The other generic point I would make is of course to emphasise, as I have already, that this Government does not lean on the intelligence services of Australia. That was attested to by the finding of the joint all party committee, the Jull Committee, established to look at the pre Iraq war intelligence.
The other matter, and the primary reason for this news conference, is for me to take the opportunity of welcoming the very strong commitment made by President Bush in relation to United States’ policy in Iraq, to welcome his reaffirmation of a commitment to a handover to a provisional Iraqi authority; his continued commitment to the holding of elections; his foreshadowing of the adoption of a new constitution in Iraq, including a Bill of Rights, which would be a first in the Arab world; his continued commitment to the goal of a free, democratic and independent Iraq. Let me say they are all goals that the Australian Government very strongly supports and I welcome the very strong, unambiguous reaffirmation of those goals by the American President.
Could I also draw attention to a very significant article penned by Senator John Kerry in The Washington Post today, which makes it very plain that so far as seeing it through is concerned, both sides of politics in America are as one. Naturally, Senator Kerry is critical of aspects of the Bush administration’s handling, but on the central issue of whether you see it through or not, Bush and Kerry stand together. Kerry had this to say in his article: “The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America or in sapping American resolve or in forcing the premature withdrawal of United States’ troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected President in November, we will persevere in that mission.”
Now they are the words, not of George Bush or John Howard, they are the words of Senator John Kerry. And their significance in our domestic political debate of course is that the Leader of the Opposition has sought to insinuate the view in his comments, that somehow or other if there were a change of President in America at the end of this year, there would be a different policy towards Iraq. There won’t be, and you now have out of the words of the alternative President of the United States, a very clear statement of that.
Now I defend utterly Mr Latham’s right as the leader of the alternative government of this country to have a totally different view on Iraq from me, or indeed from anybody else. But let him not be allowed to insinuate the view that in some way his position has some currency or respectability amongst alternative views within the United States. In defending his right, in my view, to be wrong about what is in Australia’s national interests, let me point out that he is not only at odds with the Australian Government, he’s also at odds with both sides of politics in the United States and he’s at odds with both sides of politics in the United Kingdom, including his sometime, I think now erstwhile political mentor, he has many, Tony Blair, whose position on this of course is very similar to my own and that of the United States President.
So our position remains very strongly of the view, like Senator Kerry and George Bush, we are not talking about bringing forces home by Christmas. We are talking about seeing the job completed and we are talking about seeing it through. We remain strongly committed to the evolution, according to the timetable laid down by President Bush, of a free, liberal and democratic Iraq. Those who are perpetrating murder and hostage taking and terrorist acts in Iraq at the moment are determined to deny the Iraqi people the opportunity of that democracy. And whatever views people may have had about the wisdom or otherwise of our involvement in Iraq a year ago, there can be no doubt that the cause of freedom and longer term stability in the Middle East will be better served and more likely achieved by the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq. That is my view, it’s George Bush’s view, it’s John Kerry’s view, it’s Tony Blair’s view, and it’s Michael Howard’s view. It’s not Mark Latham’s view apparently.
Now finally ladies and gentlemen, could I also note that today is the first anniversary of the Bracks broken promise on the Scoresby Freeway, and I say again on behalf of the Federal Government that we intend to hold the Bracks Government to their commitment that it would be, as the word says, a freeway, and not a tollway. Mr Bracks misled the Australian… the Victorian people, the Australian people living in Victoria, he misled those citizens of ours when he made a commitment before the last Victorian election and we don’t intend to allow him to escape that obligation. We will maintain our commitment to that policy and I give that undertaking to the people, particularly of that part of Melbourne, our policy remains unchanged. We won’t be tearing it up. We won’t be reneging on it. Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) press conference and John Kerry also in that article in The Washington Post that if asked, they would send more troops. Would you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have indicated two things, that the commitment we have made is right and appropriate given the circumstances of this country, we have not received any further request and our position in relation to long term peacekeeping obligations remains as I outlined indeed before major military operations commenced, I outlined this very clearly to both President Bush and to Donald Rumsfeld at the beginning of last year when I was in Washington.
JOURNALIST:
Do you expect the Flood inquiry to automatically investigate the matters raised by Lieutenant Colonel Collins?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Mark, the Flood inquiry has quite expansive terms of reference. I had a quick look at them just before I came to this news conference and one of the terms of reference says the effectiveness of the intelligence community’s current oversight and accountability mechanisms as they relate to such matters is the setting of priorities, the assigning to the priorities of appropriate resources and the delivery of high quality and independent intelligence advice to the Government. Also importantly the maintenance of contestability in the provision to government of intelligence assessments and the point I’d make here, and it’s generic but it also has some resonance in relation to the concerns of Lieutenant Colonel Collins, and that is that it is quite usual for there to be very strongly held differing views within the intelligence community about assessments and this, on my reading of it, and you will all draw your own conclusions, on my reading of it is an example of strongly held different views, and I respect that and as I say I’ll be replying in a very comprehensive genuine manner to what Lieutenant Colonel Collins has said in his letter to me.
JOURNALIST:
Does Mr Flood have sufficient powers to do his job?
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe he does. Look on the question of a royal commission I don’t think there is a case on the material that’s been presented to me for a royal commission, I mean I understand why people call for royal commissions, I guess over the years I’ve probably called for the odd royal commission, and it is something that people do tend to do and I understand that and I’m not being critical of the man for having done that, but we’ve had inquiries into the intelligence communities in the past and we’ve just had a parliamentary inquiry and there was a recommendation from that parliamentary inquiry and that recommendation was a joint one from all sides of politics, it included the two people in the Labor Party who know most about intelligence matters, that’s Mr Beazley and Senator Ray, and they said let’s have an inquiry by somebody who obviously is found in Mr Flood, somebody who has experiences, form as a person, I mean nobody can say he doesn’t have credentials, he’s served both sides of politics, he used to run ONA, he used to be the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, he was our Ambassador in Jakarta so he has quite a deep background in this area and we have done exactly that and I don’t in those circumstances see any need to establish a royal commission.
JOURNALIST:
Are you expecting then Prime Minister that Mr Flood will investigate these…
PRIME MINISTER:
Mr Flood can investigate anything he likes.
JOURNALIST:
You won’t be asking him…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not going to ask him. See, when you give somebody like him expansive terms of reference, people like Mr Flood can read the newspapers, like anybody else, and I don’t think it’s for me to start tilting him in this or that direction, there may even be the odd person gathered in this courtyard this afternoon who might criticise me if I did that.
JOURNALIST:
Should he investigate this growing chorus of allegations about the politicisation of our intelligence agencies?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t accept your, Mark, your categorisation and as far as…
JOURNALIST:
… there are those allegations that have been made and seen them in several fronts in what’s been published in The Bulletin today.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well a lot of people who are critical of the Government’s policies, the policies of the government of the day often say, particularly if they’re public commentators, they often say that the intelligence services have been politicised and all I can say in reply to that is that the finding of the Jull committee based on what the intelligence services had said was not that they were being politicised, I can only repeat that something I’ve said before that the person holding probably the most sensitive intelligence position in the country at the present time, a person in whom I have enormous confidence, was once Bob Hawke’s chief of staff so I don’t think people can suggest that I’m in the business of politicising ASIO or indeed Ashton Calvert held senior positions on Mr Keating’s staff, I think given the way in which people like Ashton Calvert and Dennis Richardson and Peter Varghese and others have served both sides of politics with a great deal of commitment and integrity, I think it’s a little unkind to them, to say the least, for people to generalise in their claim that the intelligence services have been politicised. It’s a hard task running an intelligence agency because in an age of terrorism they’re under the hammer all the time and people are always trying to indicate that they’ve got it wrong or haven’t connected the dots, I mean you see what is occurring in the United States and I continue to have a very high level of confidence in our intelligence services, it doesn’t mean to say they don’t make mistakes, it doesn’t mean to say they’re perfect, it doesn’t mean to say that there aren’t vigorous disputes inside the intelligence services about particular issues.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just back on Iraq, are you happy to make the coming election, whenever it’s called, essentially a de facto referendum on Iraq, because it seems that’s what you’re doing, that’s what the Government’s doing in differing your view with that of Mr Latham’s and highlighting that…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s interesting sort of arrangement of the question isn’t it? I’m making it because I’m differing with Mr Latham…
JOURNALIST:
Well it’s like Mr Downer’s speech at the Press Club yesterday…
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean I would have thought he’s, I mean he’s taken a position that at odds with mine, and I defend to the death his right to do that, and indeed to be different from everybody. And the point I was making is that he’s certainly different not only from our side of politics in Australia but from both sides of politics in both America and Britain. I’m not seeking to make the next election anything other than an opportunity for the Australian people to judge who is better able to both manage the Australian economy, provide hope and inspiration for the future, and at the same time properly defend this country and provide it with an enduring sense of national security. But they’re the issues that I would be very happy for the Australian people to make a judgement on, I’m not particularly setting out to make this or that a prime issue, but if we’re interested in cause and effect and historical accuracy it was the unilateral, and I repeat deliberately and I’ll say it slowly, the unilateral insertion of the home by the Christmas date by Mr Latham in Labor’s policy that catapulted this issue onto centre stage. I mean, it was his decision and if he wishes to take that policy he has to naturally grapple with the consequences and one of the consequences is that he is now completely out of line with not only our side of politics in Australia but also with both sides of politics in the two countries that are seen by most Australians still as our principal allies and also out of step with certainly the government opinion in Japan and indeed other countries. Now it is true that, you can name other countries that have a different view, I respect that, but it was his decision to unilaterally insert that which has, more than anything else, made this a major issue. Now I am very willing and I hope able to respond to that because I feel very strongly about this issue and I think the attempt he’s made to insinuate that in some way Kerry would be different, I mean all this talk, you know it’s all been filtered out, I’ll try and talk to Kerry when I’m in the United States, well good luck to him, I mean it’s fair enough, he can talk to anybody he likes, it’s a free country. But the subliminal message is oh well if Bush gets defeated then we’ll be dealing with the new administration that has a different point of view. Now it’s very clear from Kerry’s statement today and it’s very clear from other statements he’s made that that is not the case.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you said you’ve spoken about seeing the job completed in Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
You’ve spoken about seeing the job completed. What is your definition of seeing the job completed in relation Australian troops? They have specific tasks. Are you talking about the completion of those specific tasks or is it related to the broader political stability in Iraq? Do we have a commitment…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Karen, you can’t decouple them, they’re intertwined. But let me be more specific and I’ll be as explicit as I can. Our people in Iraq are made up of various components. Air traffic controllers – we have to train, replace the air traffic controllers for Baghdad Airport. Now when we’re satisfied that that has been done and we’re satisfied that the people who’ve been trained can do the job effectively, I think it would be fair to say that that particular job would be completed. When that will occur, I can’t tell you. If I could, I would, but I can’t because I don’t know and I don’t think the people doing the training know…
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) withdrawn then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, once they are no longer needed, I see no reason why they should stay. I mean, that was the original statement. I mean, there’s no drama about that. But the whole difference of view here is that Mr Latham has set an arbitrary deadline and what he’s saying is come what may, come hell or high water, irrespective of what the United Nations says, irrespective of what either a republican or a democratic President says or a Labor or conservative British Prime Minister or the United Nations or the Iraqi people, we are bringing our people home by Christmas. Now for a whole lot of reasons that is a terrible message to be sending and we are… he is choosing an explicitly inopportune moment in the history of our alliance with the United States and the sort of challenges that this country and the United States together face to be articulating such a recklessly random policy. Now could I go back to my episodic treatment which is answer to your question? Do you want me to return to that or do you want to go…?
JOURNALIST:
… said that their role is inextricably linked to the stability of Iraq, that therefore has to be…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it doesn’t automatically follow. What it means is that the stability and one’s assessment of the stability of the situation in Iraq does have a bearing. I mean, it has a bearing, for example, on the safety of our mission in Iraq. I mean, one of the things that our troops do is to guard our civilian representatives. Now clearly the political situation in Iraq will have some bearing on how long you have to leave people in that position – that’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. That’s why I’m saying you can’t decouple them.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you said that it’s quite usual to have different views in the intelligence community, but isn’t this incident much more serious than that because the report into it suggested that Colonel Collins is really being treated very badly by the Army, what should be done about that? And who is actually responsible for that? Where does the buck stop? Does it stop with…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Michelle…
JOURNALIST:
… General Cosgrove or the Minister or who?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, when I indicated last night that I was going to reply and I repeat it here this morning, is I am getting advice. I only got the letter a short while ago, a couple of weeks ago…
JOURNALIST:
… Senator Hill.
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Did you send the letter to Senator Hill?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the person who wrote the letter sent it to Senator Hill, so he said. He said he sent it to Senator Hill through the chain of command, I think it’s in the last paragraph of his letter. So I imagine that Senator Hill has got it, in fact I’m sure Senator Hill has got it because Senator Hill and I have discussed the matter, as you might expect. I’ll be replying and I’ll be replying as soon as possible and the issues that you have raised, obviously are going to be dealt with and they are issues that, you know, I’ve sought information on and I am treating the man in a courteous, respectful way. I appreciate what he’s done for the country. I appreciate that he holds strong views. He’s got a right to hold strong views. He’s got a right to disagree, if he wishes, with other aspects of the intelligence community. It’s a perfectly understandable thing. I’m not saying it happens everyday, but he has a right to do it.
JOURNALIST:
… the conclusion from that inquiry, it’s not just him asserting that. An inquiry has found he was treated…
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m… in the difficulty at the moment, Michelle, is that I’m only part advised. I mean, lawyers say on occasions they’re part heard, I’m only part advised, which means that I’m still in the process of getting advice on this issue. So I’m not going to…
JOURNALIST:
But you’ve read that report?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m not going to… well, I haven’t read the report until I saw The Bulletin.
JOURNALIST:
And you’ve read it now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I try and read my morning newspapers, Michelle, as you know.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given the…
PRIME MINISTER:
But I have a scale of priorities depending on the circumstances of the day.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given the gravity of the findings of Captain Toohey and the accusations made by Collins, aren’t perceptions important in terms of the Flood Inquiry? Doesn’t he appear as an insider rather than someone who can stand aside and look into these things in a truly independent way?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, he is clearly the person who was suggested – the sort of person who was suggested by the all party committee – and nobody… but hang on Paul, nobody said at the time that I remember that you should have a complete outsider, I don’t recall the Labor Party saying that. In fact, dare I say it again, their two most respected intelligence people said that you should have somebody…
JOURNALIST:
… the Labor Party…
PRIME MINISTER:
I know, I know, but I mean, you know, you say shouldn’t you have somebody out. I mean, I’m not sure that I agree with that. I actually believe that there’s advantage in having somebody who understands the system and knows where, colloquially speaking of course, where bodies are buried.
JOURNALIST:
Don’t the Australian public deserve a full response to the issues that are now out there in the public arena raised in the Collins letter and the Toohey report? Aren’t you selling them short by not dealing with those..? Can you commit to deal with those issues publicly?
PRIME MINISTER:
You’re jumping to conclusions. It is what three o’clock, the day after the letter’s become public. I am, as I say, part advised. So let’s not jump to… just wait, be a little bit patient, okay?
JOURNALIST:
Can you make a commitment that you will make a public response?
PRIME MINISTER:
… commitment to handling the matter in the proper manner and subject to genuine security considerations in a manner that properly informs the Australian people.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) you’ve made up your mind about the substance of the allegations that Lieutenant Colonel Collins is saying…
PRIME MINISTER:
I’ve made up my mind about one thing, and that is that Lieutenant Colonel Collins will get a proper and full response from me. He is entitled to no less.
JOURNALIST:
But you are talking more about being courteous to him than you are about…
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh no I think you’re once again sort of… angels on a, you know, pinhead. Sort of arguing the toss about this or that word.
JOURNALIST:
When did you ask for that advice? You’ve had the letter since about mid March I think.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t go into the internal processes of advice seeking Michelle.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) that they might be then tarnished by this latest controversy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think intelligence agencies are going through a rough time all around the world, and Australian intelligence agencies are no exception. I mean it’s easy when there are terrorist attacks for people to say they should have done this, they should have done that. It’s easy when intelligence assessments, which are made in good faith, may not turn out to be completely accurate, for people to attack the intelligence agencies. What is occurring here is mild in some respects to what has occurred in the United Kingdom and the United States. All of my political life I can seem to recall attacks being made on intelligence agencies. We seem as a community to have an ambivalent view about intelligence agencies, and on the one hand we want them to protect us and advise us in advance of all manner of evil doing that is about to befall us, but in times of relative calm and peace and quiet, we resent giving them the sort of authority and power that they sometimes need in order to be able to warn us in advance of all manner of evil and so forth. So I think we do sort of have an ambivalence. But look, I’ve indicated that I’m getting advice on the matters raised and when I have that I’ll be replying in a full and proper manner. And because I respect his right to have that reply, and it’s not just formal courtesy and good manners Karen, it’s also a belief that he and the Australian public should, consistent with the protection of what ought to be protected, should be fully and properly informed. Thank you very much.
