Thank you very much, Mr Buchanan, Professor Bergin, ladies and gentlemen. I was struck as I listened to the introduction by the reference that Mr Buchanan gave to the various overarching eras through which most of us have lived. So when I think of my own life and my own experience of international conditions it's fair to say that I've essentially lived through three eras - the Cold War, of course starting after World War II and conditioned very much by the containment theories articulated by George Kennen and Dean Acheson and many others, an era that lasted until those extraordinary events of the late 1980s, which still probably resonate with me as the most exhilarating images that I have witnessed. And then that relatively short and uncharted period between the end of the Cold War and September 2001, where the world grappled in many ways inadequately with trying to find a new compass to embrace the collapse of the old bipolar constants, menacing though they were, they had a predicability and they had a certain symmetry and they mandated certain responses of different countries. And then, of course, it's been really the age of terror at which came in September of 2001 and we all have different experiences of it.
I can't, of course, get out of my mind the fact that I physically met President George Bush for the first time on the 10th of September, 2001 at the White House. And as I think back over the agenda for the discussions that day there wasn't anything on it that I could honestly now, even with the most, you know, liberal interpretation and recollection the passage of time gives you, suggest that we had focused, either of us, on what was about to overcome us. So we do…and the point of all of that is that we do live in a very different world and it's a world that's going to be very different for us for a very long period of time and it's important that we all recognise that.
And can I say as somebody who tries very hard every waking hour of every day to keep in touch with what the Australian people are thinking, can I say to you that the Australian people know that they are living in a different world and through whatever combination of the efforts of people at a political and agency level gathered here in this room through whatever combination, can I say that we have been successful in contributing to their recognition of that. Obviously the power of communication of frightening images has done even more than any of our advocacy but the Australian people know the world is different and they are prepared, overwhelmingly, to accept the constraints and the disciplines and the changes but they do want a sense of proportion. And my messages out of the fact that we do live in a very different world are really two-fold that, firstly, we have to, of course, have a sense of vigilance as a nation and as a free people around the world. We also have to preserve a sense of proportion that we are less safe now and more vulnerable to attack than we were before September of 2001 and we've had some very painful reminders near to home in Bali just how vulnerable we and our diaspora, temporary though it may be, is around the world.
But we also do need to preserve a sense of proportion and I was reminded of that need quite forcibly today as I watched the television bulletins tonight and I thought for a moment that the co-sponsor of this gathering had been the American Department of Homeland Security because of the conjunction of the publicity of that aviation travel warning and the proper exchanges that took place between our agencies and the American and the proper need to have the correction made. But it all does remind us that we have to keep a sense of proportion because whether the threat is of a hijacking of an aircraft originating in Australia or the targeting of Australia through that means of terrorist attack, both of them of course, although they are different in character, very different, they are dramatically different both of them from what were our expectations before September of 2001. But I think the other sense of proportion is to remind ourselves that even in this more vulnerable world in which we live there are degrees of vulnerability amongst nations and Australia does still remain amongst the safer of the world's societies but one that, because of our values and because of our way of life, is a very different situation from what obtained before September of 2001.
You've heard today in some detail, and I won't weary you with a recapitulation of it, but Australia's response to the new realities of the world has essentially been on four fronts. We have put more resources into both defence and to the intelligence and security agencies. There has been an enhanced level of internal domestic cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States and local government. We have enacted more effective laws which have necessarily involved curtailment of some areas of individual freedom and license that previously existed but I think to a very acceptable and appropriate level and degree. And, finally and very importantly, we have built new areas of cooperation internationally, especially at the agency level. I think one of the real successes that Australia has achieved since September of 2001 has been the extent to which we have been able to build agency trust and cooperation, particularly in our own region. And I think especially and gratefully of the work of the Australian Federal Police and their counterparts in Indonesia and in other parts of our region because those particular areas of cooperation have played a major role in the apparently successful pursuit of most of those responsible for the murder of 88 Australians in Bali on the 12th of October last year.
It is important that we emphasise, realistically I say this, the value of cooperation at an agency level. It is the nature of international relations, particularly in our own region, that if you endeavour to achieve the outcome working down from the highest level of political agreement the outcome can be harder to achieve but if you attack the problem at an agency level it is remarkable how much can be achieved and how much that cooperation in turn contributes to greater political harmony and greater political outcomes.
So can I say very firmly and very gratefully as Prime Minister that the value that's been added to the anticipatory capacity of this country, especially in the region, as well as the pursuit capacity of our and other agencies by that cooperation has been quite invaluable. It goes without saying that in the war on terror nothing is more important than intelligence. More resources into intelligence gathering and the role of intelligence in hopefully anticipating, however generic that anticipation may be, is absolutely central. And, of course, crucial in that area is our very close intelligence relationship with the United States and the United Kingdom without, of course, in any way derogating from our developing intelligence relationships with other agencies. But that is a well-established, very mature, very reciprocally reliable and confidential relationship and something that has been of enormous value to us already and I'm sure in the years ahead will be of even greater value.
I won't be the first person at this conference to say so but intelligence, of course, is a very imprecise science and it's incredibly important that we preserve a sense of perspective about the role that intelligence can play. This morning - and I do it fairly regularly for my sins - I listened to Radio National. I heard a debate between Allan Behm and two of our friends on the table from respectively the United Kingdom and the United States debating many of the issues that are the subject of this conference. And I thought they all, in their different ways, made that point very effectively that intelligence is vital, it is crucial, it can make the difference, literally, between life and death but it must be kept in perspective and it must be understood for what it is, that it is necessarily an imprecise science.
And, of course, you'd be rather surprised if I didn't take the opportunity in this context of saying fairly briefly that in my view the lack of a sense of proportion in the media of the western world and not least in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom about the debate concerning weapons of mass destruction and attempts to obtain uranium from Niger illustrates very starkly the need to keep a sense of proportion because those who have followed that debate at a professional level very closely - and there are many in this room tonight - will know that in terms of the totality of intelligence assessments that were available at the time the significance of that particular issue was quite minuscule when put against the accumulation of other intelligence that was coming to the Government.
Could I just make two or three other disconnected but I think very relative points in this whole debate. I do agree very strongly with Mr Buchanan's analysis that we do have to tackle the sources of discontent on which terrorism feeds. I'm not certain that the proof is quite as absolute as his remarks suggested, that all terrorism is borne out of deprivation and poverty because there's a fair bit of evidence that some of the ring leaders of international terrorism have had rather more privileged upbringings and circumstances than many but I do believe that they exploit conditions of poverty and deprivation and alienation. And, of course, if I can return momentarily to Iraq, I think post the conflict in many respects the greatest dividend that has come has been the new hope for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. And just as I think many people around the world underestimated the determination of George Bush to do what the American led coalition did in Iraq, I think there are probably still too many people who underestimate his absolute determination to bring about a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. And if that settlement, difficult though it may appear to be to achieve, if that settlement can be achieved then I think as a dividend and as a contribution to removing the feeding ground for the envy, which is a constant nourishment to terrorism, I think that particular dividend will be very, very great indeed and it goes without saying that the conditions which have been established now in the minds of the American electorate, in the minds of the Administration, in the minds of other Arab states, conditions that have been established or perhaps bringing about a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would not have been possible without the success of the coalition of the willing in the military action in Iraq.
Can I finally say something about the arrangements within Australia and within our own Government for dealing with these issues. One of the things I found of enormous co-lateral interest and value in the inevitably heavy contact I had with both the British Government and the American Administration in the lead-up to and during the war in Iraq subsequently and in the general context of the war against terror has been to compare the approaches of different governments, particularly whole of government or individual agency approaches, to the treatment of intelligence and other issues and the interaction between governments and agencies.
And whilst I take on board what Mr Buchanan had to say about the level of, how shall I put it, the amount of disjunction between different agencies, it's inevitable in any democratic system, I have to say as I look at the arrangements as they exist in Australia and as they have been tested by the experience of the past year, I don't at this point see a need for any fundamental restructuring and that I think we have achieved, and perhaps it's inevitable in a country which is the size that we are, we have at a national level been able to achieve a fairly satisfactory whole of government approach and the degree of interaction between political government at the highest level in Australia and the various agencies, both security, defence and foreign affairs, through the operations of our national security committee of Cabinet, give me some reasonable assurance that we have been able, as best one can in a democratic parliamentary system, achieve a very effective whole of government approach to these issues.
Can I finally say to you that what encourages me greatly about this gathering tonight, looking at the guest list and looking around the room, is that it does bring together people with a contribution to make from both the Government and also the private sector and that's very encouraging and it's a reminder to me and I think it's a reminder to all of us that this is a community challenge, it's a community endeavour and that all of us, in different ways, recognise, as I said at the commencement of my remarks, that the world has changed forever as a result of those events in September of 2001, that it is not going to be a campaign easily won and it will be a campaign that will require the total support of the Australian community. In our necessarily understated way I think Australians have made a pretty good start. There is a mature acceptance that we're living in a more sober, different world. They don't want hysterical overreaction. They are prepared as pragmatic people to accept reasonable inconvenience, reasonable incursions on liberty and license that they might otherwise have not have accepted. They do want a sense of proportion. They do believe that this country's values are one of the reasons why it is under attack or is a vulnerable target and they are prepared to cooperate with their government and their fellow citizens to achieve the necessary outcomes but they do want to be told what it involves and they reserve that very healthy Australian cynicism which is part of the lifeblood of our democratic way of life to question propositions that don't pass the test of the man and woman in the street. So I'm encouraged that our fellow Australians understand both the duration and the gravity of what is ahead of us. And may I say, because many of them are here tonight and I say it very deliberately that as Prime Minister I am very encouraged by the quality of the advice that I receive from our intelligence agencies and from those who are responsible for advising us. I feel for them on occasions. So much is expected when something goes wrong, so much is demanded in retrospect when something goes wrong yet in the mass of material and information that crosses the desk of an intelligence agency in western society the magnitude of the task is very daunting. And whilst we all hope that we can be spared a terrible attack in the future I think we can say that we do have men and women of great commitment to this country and of high professionalism engaged in providing us with intelligence and advice. Thank you.
[Ends]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION:
My name's Counsellor Jo Ross from the Redland Shire Council and I'm here on behalf of local government. I raised the question earlier on today… local government is a willing partner in the preparedness to respond after the event and we go a long way to achieving some very good results at that level, we are at the cold face, we are the closest to the level of government or arm of government to the people. What we want to do… it's been raised that the ALGA conference last year, Mr Prime Minister, as getting the recognition of local government in the constitution and to become equal partners at the table when we're talking about these things. We have the arms and legs to do the work for you, we want to join you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've got to plead guilty. I';ve got form on this. I was responsible, although I think actually Peter Reith was even more responsible for leading a campaign to defeat the referendum proposition on this back in 1998. It's pretty hard to change the constitution in this country. As a, you know, conservative on a lot of issues that warms me. But can I say on the subject of the seminar, subject of the conference, I'm very keen that local government do be involved. I mean, necessarily so many of the things that you can contribute on can be governed by what responses we have from the states, but if there are different ways in which at a national level we can further involve local government, I'm very keen that that happen. But I can't give you any promises about constitutional change in that area. Now if you talk to me about Senate obstruction, that might be different.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, Trevor Thomas, the Managing Editor of Australian Defence Business Review, but for tonight we won't have a media question if that's okay. Look, today during the presentations there were questions from the floor about the perception of the Government's response to the emerging threats and a lot of the responses seem to built around counter-terrorism, and we heard from Miles Jordana who talked about the emergence of a broader national security foreign affairs type policy that more wound up for some of these umbrella issues. Could you explain to us, you know, how did you see that? You've said that we don't need a department of Homeland Security and personally I agree with that, but I still believe we need to have some form of expression of a national security overarching policy that sees counter-terrorism as a subset not necessarily as a driver.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, well look, I'd thought I'd given a lot of thought to this, particularly at the end of last year after the attack in Bali, and I went through all of the administrative arrangements we have, and whilst no prime minister is foolish enough to deny his future options in relation to administrative arrangements ever, I did come to the conclusion that we didn't need major change. I'm against having a Department of Homeland Security in Australia, I don't think it is necessary. And I mean, whilst it's not a place for me to comment in any detail on administrative arrangements of other countries, I'm not certain that the Department of Homeland Security in the United States has necessarily achieved all of the objectives or will achieve all of the objectives that have been laid out. I think in our system in Australia the, if I may say so, the way in which our national security of Cabinet operates does at a whole of government level gives us a broader national security perspective than I think we've previously had because it functions rather more fully and effectively than previous manifestations, as I understand of those arrangements in earlier governments have certainly… I mean, my experiences by definition limited to previous coalition governments and only one of those, but my understanding is that it does operate in a formal sense and in a disciplined way more effectively. And I think that, and particularly the interaction between our senior ministers and our senior agencies heads on a very regular basis and it is a body that does meet very regularly, has given us a whole of government perspective of national security in an integrated way. I don't think in a parliamentary system you can ever have an approach that doesn't accommodate the fact that essentially decisions are made if the system is working well by ministers in either a full Cabinet or a truncated version of that which is necessarily the case with the national security committee and that those decisions are taken constantly on the advice of agencies in departmental heads. So, I think much of what I understand you to be seeking is found in the way in which that body operates and I think it has given us a whole of government consistency on these issues that perhaps would have been lacking if we had had a different approach.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, I promise not to actually ask you about when you're going to retire and I've been asked to challenge you about a number of football team scores for the weekend. My question is actually more of interest. I work for a computer science corporation which is an Australian company with a home based in the States. And it's of particular interest to us, and specifically myself, my interest stems from our relationship and our very close relationship with our American allies. Do you personally see a point or a delineation whereby our relationship with the States could actually be a detracting factor in the war against terrorism as opposed to leveraging the advantage?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no I don't, but let me explain why. Australia is a potential target because of who we are and what we stand for rather than what we've done. I don't think there's any compelling evidence that the feeding the crocodile last theory works when you're dealing with international terrorism. I think eventually it gets down to a question of being a target because of who you are and what you believe in. My view is that the terrorism of which Al Qaeda exemplifies is essentially based on a blind prejudice hostility to western civilisation and we could tear up the ANZUS Alliance and disavow our association with the United States if we were minded to. I mean, I don't think many Australians are. But even if we theoretically for answering this questions purposes were to do so, it wouldn't alter the fact that we are an open Liberal democratic society that believes in the equality of men and women and we're a society that believes essentially that people should be able to live their lives as they think fit subject to the normal constraints of the civil society. I think that's the main reason why we are a target and I think the relationship with the United States, which is valuable in all sorts of other ways, is secondary. Obviously, we are seen as a close ally, I'm very conscious of that when we took our decision in relation to Iraq. But I thought they're very good reasons and the same in relation to Afghanistan. I think in the long run the United States will be more important to Australia's future, not less. By the middle of this century the relative economic power of the United States will by greater than what it is now. The way the population of the United States is going, the economic development of the United States, put all of those things together and compare them with Europe and the only country that will over a period of time in my view that will begin to match that growth and expansion is - of the United States, of course - is China. And, of course, China is a country, as you will be aware, we have taken great pains to develop very close relationships with. I think it's why you've given me the opportunity for a commercial on our foreign policy and I think one of the distinguishing features of our foreign policy over the last few years is that notwithstanding this very close relationship we have with the United States, we've seen a real burgeoning of our relationship with China and the both of those have been achieved without detriment to each of the individual relationships and that would go on being the case because we are all essentially pragmatic people and there's value in both of those relationships, very great value. But that's the long answer but the short answer is, no, I don't.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, [inaudible] Institution of Engineers. You referred to a whole of government approach and this year you've seen some very significant infrastructure policy, position papers, Green papers come out. Two of them come to mind - the power [inaudible] of energy and market reform and also Auslink land transport reform. Now, it's quite interesting that both of those had virtually on security dimensions to it. Auslink lacked any dimension security whatsoever, power report had about half a page devoted to security issues. How do you think that we can instil a more security, whole-of-government approach to major infrastructure policy decisions?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's a fair point. You're quite right, neither of those documents sort of had a security component but I think, particularly in relation to energy policy, that was a document if I recall it accurately, if we're talking about the same thing, it was focused very much on marketing and distribution. I don't think the absence of an energy…the absence of a security segment necessarily represented a failure of the whole-of-government approach. I think the point you make about infrastructure is very valid and I think we probably do need to make further advances on that front and I think one of the great benefits of government private sector interaction on these issues will be that we can develop a lot more on the critical infrastructure front.
[Ends]