PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning. Are we ready? Well perhaps I could start by reporting on my meeting with the Prime Minister of Singapore. There were a number of matters discussed. One of them obviously was the situation of Van Nguyen, the Australian citizen who's been condemned to death for heroin offences. Let me just remind you that this matter has been the subject of repeated representations by the Australian Government to the Government of Singapore. I discussed the matter at length with the Prime Minister of Singapore during a bilateral meeting earlier this year. I discussed it and pleaded for clemency directly to the President of Singapore when he visited Australia. It's been the subject to several petitions from other Ministers, it was also the subject of a formal clemency request from the Governor General to the President of Singapore. It's been the subject of, as you know, representations by the Foreign Minister as recently in the past few days to the Foreign Minister of Singapore.
I should also disclose that several weeks ago when I was in Papua New Guinea I telephoned the Prime Minister of Singapore who was then travelling in China and we had a lengthy discussion about the matter and I again asked him to reconsider the advice that had been given to the President of Singapore. He gave me no cause to believe that he was going to change his mind. I took the decision then not to disclose that conversation holding the view that if there were any faint hope of change it would be assisted by a quieter, less public handling of the issue than some people have suggested should be what the Government does.
On Tuesday, I saw Van Nguyen's mother, she came to see me in my electorate office in Sydney. Needless to say she is in a state of great anguish and I feel desperately sorry for her and I could only say to anybody who is contemplating ever taking drugs or committing drug offences in Asia rather to bear in mind, if they have no concern for their own fate, to bear in mind the terrible pain that is inflicted upon those who love them most. She was very, very distressed and I feel desperately sorry for her. She came to this country, our country rather, as a refugee from Vietnam and she's had a tragic life and to face the prospect of her son, who did in her mind what he did to help his brother, is too pitiful for words. But that is the situation. I saw the Prime Minister again this morning and I put all of these matters to him. I told him that in my view it was a very harsh outcome, that there were circumstances that mitigated in favour of the death penalty not being imposed and that that was a view held by people in Australia who normally were at most ambivalent about the death penalty and in some cases even supported it. I told him that it was certainly my view that it was a harsh penalty and I felt it's one that ought to be reconsidered. But he indicated to me, as I gather he has since publicly, that the Singaporean Government, for the reasons it has outlined, has a very strong policy on drugs, a policy incidentally save and except the application of the death penalty, is a policy that I fully understand and respect. He gave me the arguments that the quantity of heroin represented some 26,000 doses on the streets and that he believed the policy worked. I can't say anymore, it is entirely, utterly and completely a matter for the Government of Singapore. I'm saddened that this man will lose his life, not because I condone in any way what he did. I am very moved by the plight of his mother, very. But they are consequences of people who contemplate engaging in drug trafficking should bear in mind.
I just would say again to all Australians please don't break the drug laws of Asian countries, you will get no mercy. They have very tough laws, they should understand that and if they have no regard for their own position perhaps they have regard for the pain and grief it inflicts on those who are closest to them. There is nothing more the Australian Government can do. And before our meeting concluded I asked one of my senior advisers to telephone the lawyer for Mr Lasry, the lawyer for the family, so that the news of the Singaporean Government's continued stance could be transmitted to the man's mother before it was publicly made known by either the Prime Minister or by me and I hope that that has occurred and we did everything we could for that to happen. So there's really nothing more I can say in relation to that issue. The Government has done its level best to put the case and I regret very much that those entreaties have not been successful but in the end it is within the sovereignty of the Government of Singapore, not within the sovereignty of the Government of Australia, and it is the final ultimate reminder to people that when they leave the shores of Australia they are subject to the laws of other countries. And what they do in other countries will be punished and dealt with according to the laws of other countries and it has to be said again and again, and it passes my belief that young Australians can imagine otherwise.
JOURNALIST:
So there's nothing else the Australian Government...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, there is nothing else. We have done everything we can.
JOURNALIST:
So you will be making no further approaches?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is no point in my making further approaches, I have spoken to the Prime Minister of Singapore on four occasions about this and I have, we had a very lengthy discussion, he was left in no doubt as to what my feelings were and he put his view. He's no doubt spoken to you. But there are no further - I have made my representations and I have done them in the way that I have best calculated that they might have some success. And I've deliberately chosen until now not to detail all of the discussions I've had and approaches I've made because I've taken the view that it might, however faint the hope was, that it was more likely if I didn't engage in public hectoring, it was more likely that there might be a change of heart. But I didn't think that very likely, but while ever there was a faint possibility I thought that was the best approach to adopt.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you say you're saddened this man will lose his life, do you now believe it's inevitable?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think they will go ahead with the execution, yes, I'm sad to say that.
JOURNALIST:
Was there any indication to you Mr Howard of when that might be?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that's a matter for them.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think this will harm Australia's relationship with Singapore?
PRIME MINISTER:
I hope not because there are a lot of very good people to people relations and it's not the fault of those people that these events have occurred and we must remember the man knowingly and openly did break the laws of Singapore. I mean nobody can be in any doubt as to the attitude of countries in this region to drug traffic and I can just say again, I just appeal again to Australians not to take the risk. If they don't care about their own future think of the impact on their mothers and their fathers and so forth.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, will there be an opportunity for Mrs Nguyen to see her son before...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, that is my understanding. Once again that is a matter for the Singaporean authorities. It is my understanding that she will of course be able to see her son again. That is my understanding.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you think that most Australians care about the fate of this young man?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know, I think a lot do. I think a lot, whilst feeling sorry that he's going to be executed, nonetheless have very little sympathy with any drug trafficking. And I can understand that. It gets mixed emotions. I don't know, I mean I can only express my own feelings and I've endeavoured to do that. I do not favour capital punishment, but I think this is a particularly bad and unfair situation. I think there are mitigating circumstances that might not apply in other cases and I therefore feel rather more strongly about it than I do in other cases. I don't think there's anything hypocritical about that, I think it's just a human reaction, I feel sorry for his mother, desperately sorry, and I feel very sorry that somebody has been so foolish. But out of this tragedy can I just again emphasise that people who knowingly break the drug laws of countries in our region do so not only at their own peril but they also do so at the peril of the peace of mind and happiness of those who are close to them.
JOURNALIST:
Are those circumstances you refer to are the fact that if kept alive he will testify in future cases? Is that what you're talking about?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he hadn't previously been a drug runner. He wasn't a serial offender and he did it for a specific purpose; completely unjustified, but nonetheless for a specific purpose of helping clear his brother's debts. And that he did cooperate and he was transiting through Singapore. Now they're the reasons. But I really can't put it, I mean there's no point in my going over it again, I don't want to sound insensitive, I don't think I have. But there's just nothing more I can say.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, are you aware of reports that a video tape has been discovered in Indonesia in which the terror suspect Noordin Top has specified Australia, named you and Alexander Downer as having led Australia into disaster, insinuated, I don't have the text, that there is a...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I'm aware of what you're talking about.
JOURNALIST:
Do you have a comment on that, and in particular on the fact that he's nominated our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as making us a target?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't find that the least bit surprising. I've said before that whatever the motivation of terrorists might be they will always opportunistically link what they do with decisions taken by Western countries and by Western leaders. Just because he said that doesn't prove that that's the real motivation, it just proves my proposition that they will always opportunistically link the two. I remind you that the first time we scored a mention was specifically in relation to our intervention in East Timor.
JOURNALIST:
But is Iraq a contributing factor in making us a threat?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can't say more than what I've said in relation to this , that we were a target long before Iraq. It will always be opportunistically claimed, whether it's true or false, that our continued involvement in Iraq is part of the reason. But whatever the true explanation is no self-respecting democracy can or will have its foreign policy determined by threats from terrorists.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what does the tape tell you about your personal security and Alexander Downer's personal security and more broadly about national security?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't talk about my own personal security. Obviously I take advice and obviously I'm always concerned about matters relating to my family rather than myself. But I don't allow concerns for personal security to impede the job I do in Australia and I won't in the future. It's not uncommon in these things for particular references to be made to leaders, it's not uncommon; it's not the first time. I don't think it should be given too great adegree of consideration and too great a weight.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you believe that Australia will become less of a terrorist target when we do eventually pull out of Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think the threat to Australia is going to change markedly over the next few years. I don't. I think we have to accept that in common with a lot of other Western countries, and also countries that wouldn't regard themselves as Western; we're going to have to live with a terrorist threat for a lot of years into the future. I think it is idle to pretend that this something where we can predict an end date, that is not the nature of the threat; it is not the nature of the enemy against which we are now pitted.
JOURNALIST:
Irrespective of whether we're in Iraq or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think - if anybody thinks that by pulling out of Iraq tomorrow we would dramatically and markedly reduce the terrorist threat they don't understand the mind of terrorists. There are some who believe, and these are things that you can't prove, there are some who believe that to withdraw in the name of reducing the level of risk might in fact increase it because it would be seen as a sign of weakness and a sign that you could actually bring about changes in government policy if you lifted the threat level high enough.
JOURNALIST:
Have you got anything to say, Mr Howard, about the troops staying on next year in Iraq, even if the Japanese leave?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Japanese have not indicated that they're going to leave and I think therefore the question doesn't arise. The Japanese, on all current indications, are likely to be there at least until May of next year, although whether that's been formally announced or confirmed I'm not advised. But the indications appear to be that that's the situation. Our general position is that the time to be thinking about reducing a presence, be it American or British or Australian or any coalition presence, is when we are satisfied that the Iraqis can look after their own security. Now progress is being made on that front, and a lot more progress than is being given credit for, but it's too early to start committing ourselves to dates and times. But that's the determinant; the sole determinant is whether the Iraqis can look after their own security more adequately, not totally. I think Iraq is going to have some internal security challenges for years into the future, but many countries face internal security challenges, many countries in Europe, have over the years, had periodic attacks - the Spanish had, the Greeks had, the French have had them over the years. I mean it's all a question of degree.
JOURNALIST:
So if the Japanese engineers leave we won't necessarily?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there's no suggestion that they're going to leave before May and as to what the situation is after that well I'm not informed. But I'm not getting into those sort of hypotheticals. Our position is that we stay while there is a job that needs to be done that adds to Iraq's - significantly to Iraq's security and democratic future. But our sending the troops there in the first place was obviously tied very much to the Japanese presence.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, are you inclined to allow Liberals MPs and Senators to have a conscience vote on the issue of the abortion pill RU486?
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you for asking that, I was going to say something about it. Normally what we do in relation to these matters is to allow a free vote and my normal disposition and that of the Government is what whenever there's clearly an issue related to something like abortion than the only fair, sensible, right thing to do is to allow a free vote. Now, I'm in the process of getting all the material together and when I've got it all together and I've got all the issues in front of me I'll discuss it with my senior colleagues, obviously the Cabinet, and then we'll discuss the matter in the Party Room which is the way we handle these things. That'll probably happen about the time I get back to Australia.
JOURNALIST:
What would make you deviate from that...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well once again that's hypothetical. I'm stating the principle...
JOURNALIST:
You don't have any concerns about health.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are a whole lot of issues I want to have a look at. But I've stated the principle, but there is an issue relating to the safety of this particular drug and that's something that we do have to take into account. But I want to take it into account in a balanced way and on the face of it there appears to be, as it were, an ethical or moral neutrality between one form of termination and another and the issue and debate is whether there are more adverse effects from the use of the RU substance than is acceptable, and that seems to be the issue in debate. Now I want to get across the different views on that and I'll get all the material together and then I'll talk to my colleagues about it, as we always do, and discuss it in the Party Room and respect the fact that whenever you get into this area people have strong views and I understand that. That's an issue on which it is perfectly natural that people should have strong views. My own personal view is a quite conservative one, as you all know, but I respect there is a range of views in the community and it's always been my view that matters that people feel deeply about as an issue of conscience and ethics the Liberal Party should never try and ride roughshod over that. But equally we can't have a free vote on everything.
JOURNALIST:
Will you take further advice from the chief medical officer?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll take advice from anybody who's competent to give it.
JOURNALIST:
But given that he gave advice to the Health Minister on a very specific...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I'm not...
JOURNALIST:
Will you be asking(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not at this stage going to indicate who I take advice from except that I'm always willing to take advice from people who are competent to give it. And he's a very competent person, the chief medical officer.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, regarding...
PRIME MINISTER:
Ah, what are you doing here?
JOURNALIST:
Though I'd come to (inaudible) you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Regarding trade, do you agree with Mr Bush that Taiwan provides a good model for China's political development and one it should emulate. And the second part of the question is do you believe China should make quicker progress towards a more open democracy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm in favour of all countries having open societies and open democracies and that includes China, of course I am. But I also respect the fact that China has a different political tradition and I've never sought to ram Australian democracy down the throat of the Chinese in my discussions with them. I think we should try and focus on the things that where we can work together into the future. Generally on Taiwanese and Chinese relations I'm in favour of the temperature being kept as low as possible. It's not in Australia's interest for there to be conflict. I think there's been a great restraint exercised by both sides, and the Americans have played a major role in relation to that. But consistent with all of those statements, when it comes to the philosophy of it all, I am for democracy and I am for openness.
JOURNALIST:
Sorry Mr Howard, just to follow up on that, do you think it's appropriate for Mr Bush to...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I think Mr Bush, President Bush is perfectly entitled to make speeches on democracy and it would be strange indeed if the leader of the largest, it's not numerically the largest but certainly the leader of the most powerful democracy in the world and a country that along with Australia has been amongst the handful of nations that have been continuously democratic for the last 100 years, it would be very strange if he didn't make speeches on democracy and I'm certainly not going to criticise it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the issue of aviation - open skies was discussed with Mr Lee?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Did you give him any grounds for optimism or hope that the Australian Government will look favourably on Singapore Airlines?
JOURNALIST:
I said that the matter continued to be the subject of study. I said there was a range of views in the Parliament and also within the Government. I also expressed the view to him, which I've expressed publicly before, that, although it's a matter for commercial decision between the two companies, I would like one day to see Qantas and Singapore Airlines come together, but that's a matter for them. I think it would make a great deal of sense. They are two great airlines; they operate in the same part of the world. Qantas is a very efficient, capable operator but it's a challenging economic environment. But that is a matter in the end for the people who run those companies, I'm not interested in some kind of, I don't see myself as a grand corporate designer.
JOURNALIST:
So (inaudible) the Australian Government would lift the cap on foreign...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't sort of - well that's going from the specific to the general rather than the other way around.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, when you say come together, I'm sorry do you mean cooperate more closely or merge?
PRIME MINISTER:
And whatever that might ultimately entail, including the word you just used, yes. It's a view I've expressed before, I've expressed that view before. And I've expressed the view to Qantas.
JOURNALIST:
What was Mr Lee's response? Did Mr Lee think it was a good idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he said, like I acknowledge, it's a matter for the two companies. At this stage they don't seem disposed to do it. Well that's fair enough; I'm not sort of making a federal case out of it.
JOURNALIST:
Just returning to terror, even though there's been no increase in the level of alert, but we have seen all the arrests and everything else, is the shadow of terror falling darker and darker on Australia as times passes?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they're the words that are best left to the rhetoricians in other fields than mine. I try and deal with specifics, but I try to use my own language. My own language is that this country, our country, could be subject to a terrorist attack, of that there is little doubt. We will do our level best to stop it happening and it's a challenge that is going to be with us for years into the future. That's the best way that I can put it. But I don't, having said that, I don't want to use language that is needlessly melodramatic but we shouldn't kid ourselves and I would imagine that the events of the past few weeks in Australia have served as a reminder that we shouldn't. Two more questions.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, just on avian flu, was there any discussion of likely numbers of possible victims?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we didn't get into that. I think what we both agreed was that it was tremendously important that we cooperated and if there were an outbreak no country should try and disguise the problem, there should be total transparency. There should be immediate requests for help and we see APEC as quite a forum. Australia in particular has worked very closely with the United States and you will see coming out of this meeting evidence of that cooperation.
JOURNALIST:
PM, just on trade, are you concerned that countries like Japan and Korea, that traditionally have been heavily protected, (inaudible) number of economies, that they will try and stymie attempts by other APEC economies, including Australia, to send a very forceful message to the EU out of this summit? They will water down the language in the final communiqu‚?
PRIME MINISTER:
I expect that both Japan and Korea will be constructive.
JOURNALIST:
You're not concerned that they'll try and...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think they will be constructive.
JOURNALIST:
Would you like to see the EU specifically named in a final communiqu‚?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I want to see a statement out of this meeting that sends the strongest possible signal to the rest of the world. And I'm not in the business of trying to scapegoat individual countries or groups of countries; I want to see a good outcome from Doha. The Americans have gone a long way and they deserve credit and it was apparent to me when President Bush made his speech to the General Assembly in September that the Americans had decided to move. There's a limited amount of time available because domestic political circumstances in the United States, including the time limit on the trade negotiating authority given by Congress to the President, will run out what- some time into 2007. So there is a limited amount of time and whatever language is needed to send the strongest possible message that this meeting can send should be employed. Now that doesn't mean we automatically have to name this or that country. Now this is the very last one.
JOURNALIST:
...make or break for Doha?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm never a make or break man, except when that language is justified. But I think it's getting quite serious if the Hong Kong ministerial meeting does not yield significant progress then it's going to be very hard to recover the momentum next year.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Lex Lasry...
PRIME MINISTER:
You are an unruly lot. O'Leary will go crook at me later.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Lasry has just announced in Australia...
PRIME MINISTER:
Who has?
JOURNALIST:
Lex Lasry, the lawyer for van Nguyen, has just announced in Australia that Van Nguyen will be executed on December the 2nd. What's your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I want to get separate advice on that before I give a reaction. I mean it's obviously a naming of the date would not be inconsistent with what I've been told, but it's not for me to confirm at this stage, that's a matter for me to get advice on.
JOURNALIST:
Was there no indication from the Singapore Prime Minister about the date?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there'd been discussions going on, but that particular date was not mentioned. But I knew, I've known all along that that was a possibility.
Thank you.
[ends]