PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen, Senator Vanstone and I have called this press conference to coincide with the release of the Palmer Inquiry. The report has been released. It shows as has been widely foreshadowed that there were failures and mistakes within the Immigration Department in relation to both the Rau and Alvarez cases. The Government accepts the thrust of the recommendations and the findings of the Palmer Inquiry. We have already begun to implement its recommendations. With the report and the Ministers detailed statement, there's also been released a statement by the Secretary of my Department outlining detailed personnel changes in relation to the senior sections of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. There will be a new team at the top of the Department to implement the changes in a number of areas rendered necessary as a result of Mr Palmer's findings. Both Cornelia Rau and Mrs Alvarez are owed apologies for their treatment and on behalf of the Government I give those apologies to both of those women, who were the victims of mistakes by the Department.
I want to take this opportunity of saying one or two things about the determination of the Government to implement the changes. I have discussed the implementation programme with the Minister. The new Secretary of the Department Andrew Metcalfe is a very experienced public servant when it comes to immigration matters and the new team, the changed team that he has around him will work very hard and very expeditiously in order to implement those changes.
Administering Australia's immigration programme and all aspects of it is a difficult and challenging job and although as found by Palmer, and acknowledged by the Government, errors were made in these two cases I would not want the opportunity to go by without saying something positive about the Department's performance over a long period of time in relation to the administration of our migration programme. It's salutary to note that despite the obvious errors and mistakes that have been made here, public confidence overall in the administration of the Government's migration programme remains very strong. The public supports, in general terms, this Government's approach to immigration and its worth noting that it has been possible for the Government to significantly increase the migrant intake over past years to the benefit of this country and that must say something positive about the way in which the programme has been administered. So whilst I acknowledge, and the Department's former Secretary acknowledged that errors have been made, they should not have been made particularly in relation to these two women, in the broad scene the Department has plainly made a contribution to the increased level of public acceptance of both higher migration and the administration of the programme.
Now Senator Vanstone of course is far more deeply immersed and versed in the intricacies of this. I am very happy to try and answer any questions you want to put, but if I from time to time pass questions over to Senator Vanstone, it's not a lack of interest or engagement on my part but an acknowledgement that the Minister is far more expert and experienced than I in the intricacies of this area. But plainly there were mistakes made. There were failures. There are changes needed. They've been recommended. We accept the broad thrust of the recommendations and the findings of Mr Palmer. I want to thank him. It's another example of the great public service that he's rendered to the Commonwealth over a long period of time and as I said a moment ago, we have already begun the process of implementing these changes. We have a new team at the head of the Department. I wish them well. They have my full confidence and I know that they will work very closely indeed with the Minister in implementing the changes that are needed.
JOURNALIST:
(Inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
No I can't. I can't. I mean it is impossible to give credible guarantees on something like that. You're dealing with thousands of people and you're dealing with a myriad of different circumstances and any person in my position who gives a guarantee that you won't have a mistake in the future is misleading you.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what price do you put on the treatment of the two women who were the subject of this report?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to get into that for obvious reasons. I've expressed my view about their treatment. We have already offered ex gratia payments to both of the people concerned. Issues of compensation, which is what you are getting at I'm sure, should be dealt with and according to the normal processes that relate to such matters.
JOURNALIST:
You've got one of the ladies who's declined to come home, or to come back to Australia until this is sorted out.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is her decision. We do not accept that that is a reasonable position to take but that is a matter for her. Could I say in relation to her, that the measures that have been offered are free medical and health care including private services if required, health related aged and transport to relevant services for as long as required in the city in which she is living, carer support for up to 24 hours a day for so long as is required, support from a Centrelink Family Liaison Officer to provide her with personalised assistance to assist her resettlement in Australia including assisting her to access her full social security entitlements and linking her to appropriate services. That assistance will be available to her for so long as it is needed. There is no intention to halt this assistance after six months. Other assistance offered to her includes a lump sum resettlement payment, free accommodation for six months close to medical and treatment facilities, financial support in Australia for a family member for six months to provide support for her resettlement and a mobile phone with a pre-paid credit of $500. While she remains in the Philippines, the Australian Embassy in Manilla is working with her to address her needs and to assist her to prepare for her return. She's been provided there with free accommodation, a living allowance, carer support, transport and medical treatment in Manilla at the Government's expense and a senior Centrelink officer is in Manilla to assist her including in relation to her care needs in Australia. Her lawyers have not indicated when she might return to Australia. That is a matter for them and for her, nor have her lawyers submitted a claim for compensation at this stage. Discussions are going on between her lawyers and the Australian Government solicitor, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, to agree a process to be followed in relation to any compensation claim. Now that is the situation. I think that is reasonable on the part of the Commonwealth, quite reasonable. And the question of where it goes from there is really a matter for her and for her lawyers.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the report is sharply critical of the contract with GSL, Global Solutions Limited, and there was also the audit report last week that was also sharply critical of that contract. What can be done to improve that contract? And reading what the report has said about it, were you shocked at some of the instances that are detailed in this report at all?
VANSTONE:
I can answer the question in relation to the contract. Both the Auditor General's Report and the Palmer Report are critical of the contract and there are clearly things that can be done. What Mr Palmer recommends is that an expert group in contracting be appointed to advise on a review of that contract. Its been in place for a year. He thinks it's appropriate to review it. I don't think it relates to being a year. He thinks its appropriate to review it because of its nature. The sorts of things he refers to in the report as needing to be looked at are exception reporting. I can't give you the page number, but for example, instead of particularly what must be done, it outlines what must not be done. Now I understand that some people have put contracts together with exception reporting in as a means of giving the flexibility that's required. But Mr Palmer's not of the view that the other regulations surrounding detention allow that flexibility to be there and therefore exception reporting doesn't give the flexibility, nor does it give a standard against which the deliverer of the service can be properly judged in relation to an outcome. So its an attempt to deliver flexibility that hasn't worked because of the environment that it's in. And they're the sorts of things, that's just one of them, that would need to be looked out.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard have you had an opportunity to read this report in full and if you have, what picture emerges for you of what Mr Palmer's found about the Department of Immigration?
PRIME MINISTER:
We accept the thrust of his findings and recommendations and we're setting about implementing them.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, one of those recommendations which you've agreed to is an independent review of the arrangements and structures in the compliance and detention division. That sounds like another review. Why not go the whole hog as Labor suggests and have a Royal Commission.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Palmer doesn't recommend a Royal Commission and we're not having one.
VANSTONE:
And in particular, if I can add in relation to that, if you get the opportunity to read the whole report, and it does take some time I accept that, you'll see that the problems referred to do relate to those two divisions, not to the rest of the Department. And as the Prime Minister highlighted, across the Department there are very, very significant achievements. He mentioned the refugee and humanitarian programme and the skilled immigration increases which are being managed extremely well. We have a world class system in those areas. So there isn't a call, a valid one in my view, for looking at the whole Department. But there are problems in that area. That's what Mr Palmer recommends and that's what we'll do.
JOURNALIST:
What's the state of play may I ask with the 200 or so other cases that were referred to Mr Palmer.
VANSTONE:
Mr Comrie is well advanced in relation to the Alvarez matter at least and he will continue to take the lead on that. That and the other cases will go under the auspices of the Ombudsman and be dealt with in that way. Mr Comrie may, he will take the lead in completing the Alvarez matter and he may have a significant involvement in the remaining matters.
JOURNALIST:
Does the Ombudsman have enough resources to cope with...
VANSTONE:
The Ombudsman will get more resources.
JOURNALIST:
What more resources?
VANSTONE:
Well that may depend on the outcome of a number of reviews that Mr Palmer's suggested. Its not a case of just picking out the money and saying 'well here, there's this amount.' We want to find out what needs to be done and we will find the money to do what needs to be done.
JOURNALIST:
Senator Vanstone given the litany of problems under your watch, do you feel at all embarrassed or responsible for some of what's happened?
VANSTONE:
I feel responsible for fixing the problems. I think that's a Minister's job. I think if you read the whole report, we might have a discussion about that at a later date when you've read the whole report. But certainly I think a Minister's job, I've said this in the Senate, is to be responsible for when problems occur; getting the facts and dealing with them and getting the problems fixed.
JOURNALIST:
Am I right in understanding that through all of this, everything that's been through and the stuff that's happened to these two women, actually no one is to blame?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Nobody's saying that.
JOURNALIST:
Well then who is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well clearly if mistakes are made them somebody must have contributed to those mistakes. Of course, of course. And what has happened is that we have announced major changes in the senior leadership of the Department. I can't think in recent times of such extensive changes in the senior leadership of such a large Department.
JOURNALIST:
But was that by way of punishment for failures?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I'm not here to debate that with you. I'm here to answer your questions.
VANSTONE:
Can I just add to that because I think when you read the whole report, the picture will become clearer. It is a matter that ran over a number of months. But Mr Palmer clearly indicates in the report that there isn't one thing that he can say 'if that was done, you would have been able to identify Cornelia Rau earlier.' Can I just answer your question? He says there isn't one thing you could identify. He's critical of a number of things that he thinks weren't done or should have been done more quickly, which all of those had been done, may have, may have led to an earlier identification of her. Now as for the question of - I mean I do understand the media's always looking for sort of a person to say 'well that's where the fault is.' But this is over a series of jurisdictions and I'll give you one example. She was assessed at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and the discharge note from the psychiatric wing of that Hospital, Mr Palmer concludes, contributed to psychiatric staff at Glenside not perceiving the urgency that might otherwise have been perceived. Now what do you do? Do you say it's the people at Princess Alexandra Hospital? Mr Palmer concludes they did the best in the circumstances they had. Equally do you say to Glenside, well you should have known this was more urgent. They're entitled to say to you I had a report from the Princess Alexandra Hospital that said she didn't have a psychiatric disorder, she had behavioural problems. So there's a series of events that this woman has gone through which have interrelated to each other which may make it impossible to say well this one person or that particular group are directly responsible.
JOURNALIST:
The report also makes clear that Cornelia Rau made an allegation of sexual assault while inside Baxter. What's your understanding of what went on there and there have been claims of sexual assault inside detention centres in the past. Are you confident that these places are actually safe for women?
VANSTONE:
He does indicate that there was a complaint. He indicates that Ms Rau, or Ms Schmidt or Brockmeyer at the time declined to continue with the complaint, that is she wouldn't sign the form to do that. He's critical of the police nonetheless at not being called. Which I think goes to the issue that is of interest for a number of people both in relation to mental health and other areas in that she is not in immigration detention, she's entitled to say 'well I don't want to proceed with that.' But Mr Palmer holds the view and I think it is probably correct that if an allegation has been made and a woman then says well I don't want to proceed with it, its Immigration's responsibility to notify the police in any event. And you'll also see when you read the report that he's looked at the videotapes of a number of incidents and you will perhaps have occasion to reflect on some of the media coverage of those allegations in the early days.
JOURNALIST:
Senator can you say from this perspective of the inquiry and having read the report, can you say that what happened was not a consequence of a mindset which was introduced to the Department after the Government's border protection crackdown four years or so ago.
VANSTONE:
Yes I can.
JOURNALIST:
With what confidence can you say that?
VANSTONE:
Well look as the Prime Minister's said, I think your next question's going to be can I guarantee and I'll give you the same answer that the Prime Minister gave. These cases are not related to asylum seekers. They're compliance cases. These are people who were lawfully here. They were, they were lawfully here. So it's a different issue.
JOURNALIST:
But Minister it says it here...
VANSTONE:
Well can I just continue to answer the question. He does say that he thinks criticism can contribute to people not being open to criticism and taking that on board and to that extent it may have made a contribution.
JOURNALIST:
It says here that since the speed of change in the detention environment since 2000 has led to policy procedures being developed on the run. Prime Minister you've said that the public supports your policy but couldn't this been seen in the wake of the policy these people have been left behind. Aren't they almost the price that's being paid?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that's an over-simplification. What Amanda has said is that the report shows on a full reading that some of the attitudes and practices which produced these outcomes have been there for quite some time and pre-date the Tampa, if that's what you're getting at.
JOURNALIST:
Moving on to the case of Ms Alvarez, it says here she was assessed as having incomplete quadriplegia and moving with a walking frame and yet she was deported from the country. Now how can no one be to blame for an incomplete quadriplegic being kicked out of the country and dumped in the Philippines? Surely someone has to be held culpable for that?
VANSTONE:
Well there are two things to say in relation to that. It's clear that the Alvarez Solon matter is not complete and I took the view with respect to the Rau matter that I would not comment on the possible conclusions of the report until I'd received the report and until the inquiry was in fact complete.
JOURNALIST:
(Inaudible)
VANSTONE:
I am not commenting on the Solon matter other than to say what is understood publicly and that is that there was ,as I'm advised, a medical clearance for her to travel. But all of that information has gone to Mr Comrie. It will go with him, leading that investigation to the Ombudsman and I take the same view with that that I did with respect to the Rau matter, that it's quite inappropriate to set up an inquiry and then prejudge the conclusions.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) in immigration detention policy has been the new visa for detainees. Can you tell us how many people have now obtained that visa?
VANSTONE:
Yes, I can tell you that 58 people were offered the visa. I'm giving you the full answer. 42 have accepted. I'm advised that 3 of those will be released today. Nine have sought an extension of time and that's been granted and there's a further 20 under consideration other than those for offer.
JOURNALIST:
Is Mr Qasim among those 3?
VANSTONE:
No.
JOURNALIST:
And why is that?
VANSTONE:
Mr Qasim has not yet received his security clearance.
JOURNALIST:
What's the problem then?
VANSTONE:
Well that would be a matter for ASIO to answer.
JOURNALIST:
Senator is it fair for people to regard Bill Farmer as a symbolic sacrificial lamb in this matter albeit a promoted one and why should it have been him and not you?
VANSTONE:
Well I don't think Mr Farmer is a sort of sacrificial lamb. I think he's one of out top diplomats, a very senior public servant whose skills can be used in another place. The Prime Minister has indicated that. When you've had the opportunity to look at the whole report, I think we can have a discussion at that point.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) seven years to security clear Mr Qasim?
VANSTONE:
No that's not the case. You see there was no security clearance sought for Mr Qasim because he wasn't being looked at for a visa. Mr Qasim has been assessed as not being a refugee. He's had a court case in I think 2003 which I think was a habeous corpus one, but I'm not sure of that aspect. But I distributed it to the gallery because there was some view that the Department was being unreasonable in saying he hadn't cooperated. So I thought a federal court decision that indicated that might be helpful. And so you don't get a security clearance on someone who you do not think is entitled to a visa and who you therefore are hoping to be able to exit from Australia. But as soon as you believe that you are going to offer someone a visa, then you send them for the health and security checks.
JOURNALIST:
With the problems with accountability and the contract to operate detention centres, is it still appropriate to have private companies running them?
VANSTONE:
Oh look we'll look at the whole contract. That's what's been advised that we look at the whole thing. And we'll do that. But I just ask you to go back to when the Australian Protective Service ran the detention centres, on contract, but nonetheless it was run by essentially commonwealth public servants and I don't think there is anyone that thinks it was better then. And can I just invite you, when you do get the opportunity to go through the whole report, to look at the points where; look this is not in any way to detract from the problems. They're there and there's no gloss being put on this. But Mr Palmer does make it clear that both GSL and DIMIA staff, particularly at Baxter have worked very hard and made significant improvements. Not good enough, more needs to be done, but there is not an assumption in this report at all, that the private sector can't do the job.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, did you give any consideration in light of this report to replacing the Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because I don't think the circumstances supported such a decision. I indicated last weekend that Ministers should go if they are directly responsible for significant failings, or mistakes or if their continued presence in the Government is damaging to the Government. I have full confidence in Senator Vanstone. I don't think for a moment in the circumstances of this case either of those conditions arose. Let me remind you that part of the debate on immigration has been that the Government should allow independent processes to work. We've seen that in relation to Mr Chen, where we quite rightly resisted the absurd blandishments of the Opposition and Senator Brown that we should intervene and in effect, tell the officer in Immigration that has the discretion to grant a visa we didn't do that. We allowed the process to work. So if its okay in those circumstances for the independent process to work, it is also okay where decisions have to be made under the relevant sections of the Immigration Act in relation to the detention of people for the processes to work. Now this has been a difficult issue. Nobody's running away from the fact that errors were made. And I do not think that the circumstances for a moment warranted the Minister's departure and she retains my full confidence.
JOURNALIST:
Didn't Ministerial responsibility used to mean that if something went seriously wrong on a Minister's watch it was the Minister's responsibility?
PRIME MINISTER
Well different people have asserted different things. I've given you my view of it and the view that has I think, been more consistently adopted over time.
JOURNALIST:
In Brisbane, we've heard of today a New Zealand woman, 23 days in custody. I think she's pregnant. She has been on parole or some sort of home detention. Will she be released after 28 days as the new guidelines determine?
VANSTONE:
Well the guidelines don't say that someone should be released. The guidelines that I encouraged the Department to adopt in February were that no one should be more than 28 days in a correctional facility other than in exceptional circumstances, which might include them wanting to be there, for example because they have family and friends nearby. And after 28 days they had to be referred to Canberra in any event. In the particular woman's case she does have family and friends in Brisbane. She has a health issue that is unrelated to her pregnancy but may affect it which was more readily catered for by that placement. But none- the- less I have signed a residence determination to allow her, while her AAT appeal is being processed to live with her mother, I think it's her mother or her family. Her husband is applying for an Australian passport and the advice I've been given, I haven't spoken to the women myself, is that she may consider withdrawing her appeal, and if he gets a passport, and presumably that means leaving with him, she's a section 501, that is she is a character cancellation case.
JOURNALIST:
When did you (inaudible)
VANSTONE:
This afternoon.
JOURNALIST:
So just after the publicity?
VANSTONE:
Well I certainly know about the case before.
JOURNALIST:
I'm sorry I don't understand, does that mean she's getting out of jail or not?
VANSTONE:
She'll go and live with her mother, or family.
JOURNALIST:
Are you taking any action to try and verify the claims of Mr Chen about Chinese Government activity in this country? And have you responded to the statement by the Chinese Consulate in Sydney...
PRIME MINISTER:
The Chinese who?
JOURNALIST:
The Chinese Consulate in Sydney put out a statement the other day asking you if I think to deal properly with the matter. So are you investigating Mr Chen's claims and have you responded to that Chinese statement?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's my understanding that the Department of Foreign Affairs is responding in relation to those allegations about activities, responding in the sense of satisfying itself as to their veracity. I don't have any comment to make on it. I think in relation to the statement by the Chinese Consul. I don't think it's a good idea in cases of this kind for the Government to respond to each and every statement that is made, either on behalf of the Chinese Government or on behalf of Mr Chen. Plainly the Chinese Government was critical of the decision taken by the relevant immigration officer to give Chen a protection visa. Mr Chen has enjoyed the operation, uninfluenced by ministerial discretion, of our migration law. There has been an acknowledgement by the Chinese Ambassador, which I welcome ,that although her Government plainly disagrees with the decision taken under our law, it's not going to affect the relationship between Australia and China. This matter has worked out properly in my view. The law has applied despite what was said by many. The Government didn't bow to Chinese pressure-equally however his status was determined calmly and independently and objectively by the Immigration Department. So I would say score one to proper administration by the department.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) Chinese here, Chinese authorities?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't make so bold as to say that. I mean I have people from time to time representing Falun Gong in my own electorate who come to see me. In fact the last time I had my electorate surgery in Gladesville I had a group of people representing Falun Gong who came to talk to me about the activities of that organisation. Now I'm not going to say there isn't, but equally I'm not going to say there is.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well a lot of things are a bit of a worry Michelle, but you've got to be very careful with these things not to respond to each and every allegation and claim. Australia is a very different country from China. But we have an interest in having a good relationship with China, consistent with the maintenance of our values and the un-harassed operation of our law.
JOURNALIST:
In respect ,this to the Minister, in respect of Mr Qasim, and it's probably a technical question, but the ASIO security check on Mr Qasim, firstly how do they do an ASIO check on someone's whose background can't be verified? And is this likely to keep him out of circulation a lot longer?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's too secret to talk about.
VANSTONE:
Well I'm certainly not privy to the processes of ASIO clearances.
JOURNALIST:
Senator Vanstone the Department of Finance, or your department, or a whole lot of departments must have looked into the financial aspects of these costly bungles by the Department of Immigration. And I was just wondering if you had a figure that you could put on it for us, just a broad figure of how much you think all of this is going cost?
VANSTONE:
Well what we've said is that we'll accept the thrust of Mr Palmer's recommendations. A number of those require reviews. For example, in relation to information technology, and until that review is conducted it would be impossible to put a figure on it, it would be a folly. Equally in respect to reviewing of a contract and changes that Mr Palmer recommends in relation to Baxter, until they're looked at and costed, it's impossible to give you an assessment. I think what the community is safer with, is a commitment from the Government to implement the thrust of the recommendations-that is the money will be there to do the job. The really important thing is, getting the job done, making the changes.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) the idea of a National Identity Card that's been raised this morning as a way to fix the problem of mistaken identity?
VANSTONE:
Sorry.
JOURNALIST:
National Identity Card. The idea was raised this morning as a way to fix the problem of mistaken identity.
VANSTONE:
I'm sorry did someone raise that this morning, I haven't seen that being raised.
JOURNALIST:
Peter Beattie did.
PRIME MINISTER:
Who did?
VANSTONE:
Mr Beattie.
PRIME MINISTER:
On his regular radio appearances and commentaries on federal politics.
VANSTONE:
Can I invite you to look at the report and in particular in relation to Mr Palmer's comments in relation to finger printing? That may work if you had for example a national data base of everybody, but it's not going to work if you don't. So it's a very, very difficult issue.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) idea of a National Identity Card?
VANSTONE:
I'll have a look at what Mr Beattie had to say. I do often feel like saying to him, if you wanted to get into federal parliament mate, why didn't you stand for a federal seat?
PRIME MINISTER:
He might, I think he's flirting with the idea.
JOURNALIST:
The new head of your Department Senator Vanstone, charged with changing the culture of the department seems to be fairly well immersed in the culture of the department given that he worked for Mr Ruddock while the current regime was being put together, given that most of his career's been... he was on the people smuggling taskforce. What exactly gives you confidence that he will have a fresh cultural approach to the department?
VANSTONE:
Well I've got great confidence in Andrew Metcalfe. I don't think that experience in the area is a problem at all, quite the opposite-I think it's an asset. And don't forget in addition to that he's had other experience subsequent to that as Deputy Secretary in Prime Minister and Cabinet, which has given him, what I would describe as a richness of experience that might not be available to others. I've had a meeting with him and I have great confidence in his capacity to implement the changes that are required. He will report as I think the press release indicates with his new team and with some people that he'll be bringing as a taskforce for change management, including Andrew Tongue and some others with an implementation plan. So we're not saying today, look here's the report and we'll implement it and we're going away and we'll never see you again. We're saying we understand that it's got to be done, it's got to be done properly and quickly, we've put the people in place to do it, they will come up with an implementation plan by the end of September, that will be given to me and it will be tabled in parliament-no doubt we'll have another discussion when that happens. So this is open and transparent fixing of problems.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Palmer has spent the past six months on the task of investigating this issue. When is he going to get back to his transport security role, particularly given the events overseas?
VANSTONE:
He's concluding his task today.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister should public servants who leak embarrassing information to the media, which has got nothing to do with national security, should they be jailed?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't normally comment on things like that except to say that I support the proper operation of the law.
JOURNALIST:
I might add to that.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it's got anything to do with this, has it? I think I know what it's got to do with.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) apply because most of this has been...
VANSTONE:
And unrelated to the issue, well to obviously some substantive issue that you're talking to Il just draw your attention to the fact that when I was in Opposition I got what I think was described as the biggest leak in commonwealth history. Someone who for whatever reasons decided it was appropriate to access the Attorney General's email system and did a tremendous amount of downloads. And unlike anything I've seen from the current Opposition, I gave it back.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any stand out areas where you differ with Mr Palmer's recommendations or findings?
VANSTONE:
I've read the report a number of times. Look there are sometimes I think well I might not have used those words, but you know minor. But generally speaking, across the totality of the report, I think Mr Palmer had a very, very difficult job-far more difficult than he or perhaps I imagined at the time. I think he's done an excellent job. It's a broad ranging area, he had the skills to do it-both in the sense of experience of state and federal politics, a confidence of both of the major parties having appointed him to particular positions, and of course change management in the Australian Federal Police. And I've said before if you want to see what Mick Palmer's skills in change management are, look at the Federal Police before he got the job, and look at what he left.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) in the report don't you agree with?
VANSTONE:
Well as I said, I do agree with the - and the Government does- with the thrust of the recommendations and they will be implemented. We're talking about some minor semantics.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think you were rather hasty in February when you mounted that very strong defence of the department, and everything that had been done, and all the people at Baxter, and said everyone was just beating up on this story?
VANSTONE:
I don't know that I said everyone was beating up on this story Michelle, and I do defend the department. And in the report you will see Mr Palmer makes some very positive remarks about DIMIA and GSL officials working with integrity and trying to do an excellent job-you'll see that if you look at the report. I think if we want to talk about who said what in hast in February, it's a very long list and I'll have that conversation with you.
JOURNALIST:
Minister, are you embarrassed to be heading a department that you've admitted has failed two Australian citizens?
VANSTONE:
I'm sorry.
JOURNALIST:
Are you embarrassed to be Minister of a department that you've admitted has failed, or the reports shown it's failed two Australian citizens?
VANSTONE:
Ms Rau was not an Australian citizen, she's a permanent resident. Look nobody, nobody from the most senior person in the Immigration Department, to the Minister would wish this sort of thing to happen; nobody would want that, that's been said before. And everybody regrets it and the Government apologises for it. But I see the task having identified the problems as now fixing them.
JOURNALIST:
You sent an email around your department recently asking everyone in the department to come up with ideas for reforms. Number one are you getting lots of ideas? And number two, has that now been superseded by all of this?
VANSTONE:
No, no it hasn't been superseded. Yes, I'm getting lots of ideas, still getting them.
JOURNALIST:
What's the best one?
VANSTONE:
I haven't had a chance to categorise them in terms of 1 to over 200 I think we've got at this point. But I have had the opportunity to put them into categories of issues, and it's of interest to me that some of the ideas that come forward relate to the sorts of things that Mr Palmer suggested. For example, in the training area and the IT areas. And I've subsequently emailed the whole department again to indicate to them the process for going through that, that I expect with the Palmer report I would have a focus on that for some period, but that each of those ideas-without the names attached to who they are, will be given to the (inaudible). They had been given to Mr Farmer, and they will be given to Mr Metcalfe, and Mr Metcalfe agrees that we will go through them, they will be given to the change management taskforce because it is often the case, and you will see this in the Palmer Report, that people on the ground doing the job can give you some of the best ideas available. Listening to the people who do the job in my view is a very good idea, which is why I sent the email out. And subsequent to sending the second email explaining the process which we'll go through to deal with these-which is subject area by subject area, it's started a spurt of a new range of ideas that have come. So I think I've started an ongoing and permanent process about which I am very happy.
JOURNALIST:
Senator (inaudible) people that are going to be released today?
VANSTONE:
I don't have the names of them I'm sorry. I don't know which facilities they're in either.
JOURNALIST:
With the National Identity Card, beyond Beattie and this ,with the terrorism and the horrible things that are happening, is it something you've completely ruled out?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I never completely rule... you never say never with something like that.
JOURNALIST:
Is it something you are more likely to...
PRIME MINISTER:
No well I think it's very wise in the wake of the tragedy in London, and things of that character not to give knee-jerk responses. Look, it's easy if you don't have to...responsibility of making a decision on it. I mean Mr Beattie pops up on every available occasion to have a bit of a run nationally, it's intriguing and it's symptomatic of his mindset. But all of these things will be looked at, I don't say never, never in relation, or even never ever in relation to things like that. But I don't think we should jump immediately to the conclusion that that is the solution. When we met the National Security Committee, we sought advice on whether there should be any changes to the law to further tightening in relation to intelligence capacity, whether there are any loopholes that should be closed, whether there are any further changes should be made and I expect to have some advice on that fairly soon. And it may well be that in the course of looking at that, responding to that remit from the National Security Committee this issue will again come onto the table. I think disturbing thing about what has happened in London is the fact that it was apparently on the evidence so far available, it was the behaviour of people not previously under the notice or surveillance of the authorities.
JOURNALIST:
Tony Blair Mr Howard has flagged tougher laws to deport people who incite hatred in Britain and to keep those people out of country in the first place. Can you give us your thought on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I'm not going - I'm simply not going to respond seriatim to every individual decision that's been taken. I do want to express my beliefs that we have to look at all of these things in the Australian context. I'm naturally interested about what is happening in Britain-intensely interested and intensely sympathetic, and I sympathise very much with the problem that Mr Blair faces, but I do want to endorse the comments he made about people not paying out on an entire community because of the behaviour of some. I would also hope though that leaders of that community understand their responsibility. I found the remarks of that Iman in Melbourne about Bin Laden as being, you know, while he has a perfect right to express those views in a democratic society, I found those views extraordinary, and to the point of being irresponsible and not really in my view doing the right thing by his own community.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister given the deterioration in international security as evidenced by events in London, in Baghdad and Afghanistan. What message will you convey to President Bush and other senior figures when you meet in Washington next week? What message will you convey about the ongoing war against terrorism? And also if I could just ask you, why shouldn't Australians feel more vulnerable now particularly given your comments last night raising the spectre if you like of suicide bombers in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my comments haven't added to people's vulnerability. I would've thought what is required of leaders at a time like this is candour?
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) increase people's perceptions of vulnerability?
PRIME MINISTER:
The most important thing I can do for the Australian people at the present time is to in a calm way explain the situation as I find it. And I find it surprising that people should criticise me for saying, as I did last night that what happened in Britain could happen in Australia, and apparently Mr Rudd thinks I shouldn't have said that in the absence of specific intelligence. There was no specific intelligence in the United Kingdom, none whatsoever. Nothing I have seen on open source or nothing I have received otherwise indicated that there was any intelligence that this attack was going to occur with any level of specificity that would have enabled it to be prevented. Now I said last night and I repeat, the likelihood of there being people who might be suicide bombers in Australia is lower than it is in the United Kingdom in my view. But we would be complacent in the extreme if we ruled that out. Now I can run around the country giving all sorts of bland guarantees and so forth. I've never sought to do that, you've got to strike a balance between giving your own best assessment, but equally not over doing it, and equally not overreacting and changing the law just for the sake of having another change. We have made a lot of changes to the law. I have asked for advice from the relevant agencies as to whether anymore changes should be made, and I image that some of things that have been raised about identification and so forth, could well be included in that-we haven't put any limit on what might come forward. But it's a difficult balance, if you don't speak your mind, if you don't say what you really feel, than you can be accused of living in an unreal environment. Many people would not have thought what happened in London happened in London because of the sophistication of the British intelligence services, and it's just a rather sombre reminder of the realities we face.
JOURNALIST:
Are we going to turn the corner anytime soon in terms against the campaign against terrorism and my earlier question, what message