PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen first of all a couple of comments about today's meeting. The retreat spent most of the day talking about trade issues. A communiqu‚ dealing with the issue of trade is being released as I speak and I hope a copy can be made available to you but it does contain a very strong endorsement of the proposition that the Hong Kong ministerial meeting should make substantial progress in the context of the DOHA trade negotiations. It specifically will note the American offer and contain an expression of hope that the European Union and other countries with high levels of agricultural protection will respond in a commensurate way to the American offer.
There was general agreement that developing countries would gain significantly from a significant relaxation of agricultural protection and that what was needed in the first instance was to have a breakthrough on the agricultural front. Now none of those remarks of mine will be news to you. You've heard me say them before but what this means is that firstly we have had the APEC Declaration and now we have the Commonwealth Declaration. The Commonwealth Declaration is more specific but in substance both of them are the same and what they are saying is that collectively those two groupings representing an enormous chunk of the world's population, bearing in mind APEC is about half and then you add in those countries in the Commonwealth that are not in APEC, it represents a very strong signal to the rest of the world and most particularly to the European Union that the time has come for significant movement on agricultural protection. Now the road will be very difficult but it has to be travelled if we are to give the developing countries a fair go.
I have said before and it is apparent to all of you that there is an Australian national interest in the changes I argue for but my strongest argument without in any way of course retreating from propounding our own nation's interests, my strongest argument in a global context is the value that changes of this kind would bring to the developing countries.
Most of today's discussion was tied up with that and it clearly is the strongest single focus and message to come out of this meeting and I welcome the fact that there has been a readiness on the part of Commonwealth Heads of Government to talk so directly about these issues.
That's all I want to say at the present time by way of introductory remarks.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister what significance will be attached to the statement given through members of the EU, also members of the Commonwealth. Do you think it will have any greater or further influence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hope it does. I hope it does and I do recognise and am very understanding of Britain's position in particular because Mr Blair speaks at these meetings not only as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom but currently as the person who holds the EU Presidency. It's well known that the British have within the European Union argued for a more flexible, more liberal approach to agricultural matters. But it is still going to be very difficult to move the EU but the Americans have made a very big offer. It is more generous than most people expected. It's not going to be around for ever and because of the constraints of trade negotiation mandates under the American system, if there is not a response within a reasonable period of time and that response is not adequate, then the real danger is that the Americans will take their offer off the table and we will be back to situation normal. Now that would be a terrible outcome having actually got the most generous offer in years from the Americans. If there is no response from the Europeans and the key is the European response, bearing in mind that one of the APEC countries is Japan and another is Korea, if the Europeans were to commensurately respond to the Americans then it would be very difficult for others with high agricultural protection not to do likewise. So this is a golden opportunity, a moment of truth, a crunch point, however you want to describe it.
JOURNALIST:
You say the Europeans but it is the French who have been particularly recalcitrant.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well how each of the European Union member states deals with each other or deal with each other is a matter for them but the EU negotiates these things as a block. I mean I haven't come here to give you a treatise on the modalities of the European Union but I am not, I think I'm making myself very plain.
JOURNALIST:
Was Uganda discussed at all and what is your opinion about the situation in Uganda and whether or not the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting should be held there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Uganda issue was not discussed in open session. It wasn't and there was no, there's been no discussion about it.
JOURNALIST:
But given what's happening there...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it's too early at this stage until the situation unfolds to start making statements about whether or not the meeting should be held there in two years time. I mean we are talking about a meeting in two years time. On the face of it it's quite unacceptable for an opposition leader to be arrested. Let me make it clear on the face of it, it looks very bad. I don't pretend to know all of the circumstances but on the face of it you don't normally have opposition leaders arrested in normal democracies.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister have you yet had the opportunity to talk further with Prime Minister Lee of Singapore and if so what conversation have you had about the impending execution of Van Nguyen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I have. I had quite a talk with him this afternoon. I told him that the feeling about the execution was intense in Australia. I said that it would continue in my opinion to grow through the week. I specifically raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and he made it very clear that Singapore would not change its position. In other words it would not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In those circumstances on all the legal advice available to the government, both internally and externally including the expert from Cambridge University to which Mr Downer referred yesterday, there is no basis on which a case before the International Court of Justice can be mounted. So I did have quite a discussion with him and he was left in no doubt as to the intensity of feeling within Australia. I did not get the indication that the Singapore government was going to change its position in any way in relation to the decision to go ahead with the execution.
JOURNALIST:
Did you actually ask ......
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
....on the question of the International Court of Justice.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I did. I asked him and he said no.
JOURNALIST:
You asked him to allow the case to go before the ICJ?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I asked him whether Singapore would accept the jurisdiction. That's the relevant point and unless Singapore accepts the jurisdiction on the advice available it's clear, according to the experts from the Cambridge University, without that it's not even arguable.
JOURNALIST:
Did other Commonwealth leaders raise the issue with Prime Minister Lee that you're aware of?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I'm not. It was not raised in the meeting. Now the question of whether other people raised it is really a matter that I don't have any direct knowledge of. I think the New Zealand Prime Minister said that she had raised it with him informally and I don't disbelieve that. She's never, she wouldn't say that if it hadn't occurred..
JOURNALIST:
Do you welcome her raising that and does that build the pressure on Singapore?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look the issue is one between Australia and Singapore.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that it is going to have any residual effect after the execution date on December the 2nd or do you think it and hope it will just blow over?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's a very difficult issue. I have a responsibility as Prime Minister to continue to conduct our relations with Singapore in a constructive fashion but I also have an obligation to communicate to the government of Singapore not only my own strong personal views on this which I have now done on four or five occasions directly to the Prime Minister, but I also have an obligation to explain to the government of Singapore that there will be lingering resentment on the part of many Australians regarding this issue. Not all Australians but there will be on the part of quite a number of Australians and I have made that very clear. I owe that to him. I have done it in a very forthright, direct but appropriate manner and he's in no doubt about it. They are certainly carefully monitoring what is occurring but I am equally of the view, as I have been now for some time, that the government of Singapore is not going to change its mind. They have a very strong view about this and that view appears to be supported by the people of Singapore but I mean in the end we are dealing with a country that has a law that we may not like it, we may find it very distasteful which many Australians do but unfortunately it's a case of the jurisdiction of another country over a national of Australia when that person is in that country. I mean we have to accept this. There seems to be developing a view that the Australian government has some control over what happens and I have to say again that when Australians leave our country they come within the jurisdiction of the laws of the countries in which they may be at any given time. And this idea that the nuances and the protection of Australian law travels with Australians overseas is not right anymore than the nuances and protections of American law, or British law, or Japanese law travels with the citizens of those countries when they come to Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Some people would be hoping for a miracle. Is it your view that there won't be one?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am very saddened to say that I do not believe and I have not believed from sometime that the government of Singapore would change its mind. I have tried everything that is appropriate. I have taken the view that doing things in a calm, measured and appropriately private fashion with the Prime Minister of Singapore is more likely, has been more likely, if there were any hope of bringing about a positive response. But I, I mean I am quite saddened as I have said to some of you before, I was very deeply moved by the anguish of this man's mother and I feel very deeply for her and it must be a terrible experience to be going through. The man himself obviously is going through terrible turmoil. I hope that those around him, including the Catholic Priest who is counselling him, I hope they give him the comfort that you would hope anybody who is facing that terrible ordeal would receive. It is a very sad situation but it doesn't help anybody for me to pretend. I mean I do not have the luxury of calling for things that I know in my heart may not happen, or almost certainly won't happen. Others do have that luxury, I don't and I also have the responsibility of calibrating what I do on this with regard to the relationship between our two countries and the interests that both countries have in that relationship. It's quite a hard situation. Singapore, of course, is a close partner of Australia but they do have attitudes on these issues that I don't share. I don't think a mandatory death penalty in a situation like this is appropriate. I don't believe in the death penalty as a matter of principle, everybody knows that. I mean I don't. But a lot of Australians do, I mean it's not something on which everybody in Australia is united. I think in this particular case there are mitigating circumstances. But we've been through all of those and I know people are understandably exercised about it and it's going to be on people's minds over the next week and I dare say beyond. And if other opportunities arise, if there are other angles that can be pursued I will. But I don't believe in raising false hopes, I don't believe in saying things that I know have no substance, I don't believe in engaging in stunts in relation to this issue, I shouldn't do that and I won't do that.
JOURNALIST:
Given that more than half the member nations of the Commonwealth have the power to impose the death penalty, do you think the issue of capital punishment is one that should be addressed within the Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is no capacity within Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to address it. I mean it can be talked about, but there's no way that you're going to bring about a change in relation to those countries that have the death penalty. Many of the states of the United States have the death penalty. It's not something which is, has completely vanished and there are a lot of people in Australia who support it. I'm not one of them, but there are a lot of Australians who do support it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you mentioned Australians who travel overseas. One of those who's recently returned and who got into trouble, Michelle Leslie and her father have been quite critical of you personally and the Government's public comments in relation to her case. What's your response to those criticisms?
PRIME MINISTER:
My comments were entirely appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
Your comments about her case?
PRIME MINISTER:
I made a very limited comment about the sale of her story and I asked that regard be paid to the sensitivities of Indonesia and also regard be paid to the position of other people who were facing charges in Indonesia. I did not offer any other criticism of Michelle, I did not make any other comments. But I stand by what I said. I believe that those comments were measured, balanced and appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, onto a domestic issue of industrial relations. You have problems convincing the Queensland Nationals that the package as it stands is appropriate. What assurances can you give people like Barnaby Joyce that you are prepared to make changes to allay their concerns?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Steve, our position is as I've explained it before that if any of my colleagues or the Senate committee has matters that it's concerned about and some issues have been raised, they've been raised by the Senate committee and they've been raised by some of my Senate colleagues, then I am prepared, the Government is prepared to make amendments to fine tune or better express the Government's intentions. However we don't intend to alter any of the fundamentals of the bill. Now that's been the position and what should be allowed to happen is that the process of looking at what's been put forward should be allowed to be played out and that will happen.
JOURNALIST:
Have you had a look at those amendments and are you...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not getting into to any of that sort of detail, I'm not getting into any of that kind of nuancing. I've stated the principle, that's the framework against which the Government will operate and we will handle the matter in the appropriate way over the next week or two.
JOURNALIST:
Are you confident the legislation will be...
PRIME MINISTER:
I remain optimistic that the legislation will pass.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the results of the Pittwater by-election have come, a 25 per cent swing against the Liberal Party. Why is the Liberal Party taking such a beating?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's due in my opinion to particular state factors. It's due to the reaction of people to the very stressful circumstances of John Brogden's resignation. It is not in my opinion an adverse judgment on the Liberal Party candidate, Paul Nicolaou. Paul Nicolaou was a good candidate, he, as it has turned out, became the victim of these particular circumstances. I hope that an opportunity arises for Paul in the future to serve the Liberal Party at a parliamentary level. He is a quality person but sometimes when you have by-elections against the backdrop of the particular circumstances and I would, counsel is the wrong word for me to use for the Australian Labor Party, I would caution the Labor Party against getting too euphoric. You sometimes have these unpredictable outcomes in by-elections. The Australian electorate is quite askance at by-elections, it's one of those things I've noticed over the years where attitudes have changed, particularly in Liberal seats. The Labor vote is a more tribal vote than the Liberal vote and therefore by-elections are always difficult things for our side of politics.
JOURNALIST:
Would you agree though that the backlash in Pittwater was against the Liberal Party machine as it currently is and those people representing the Liberal Party in the state parliament and what does it say about those people?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that's drawing too long a bow. I think it is evident from not only the results but also from such investigation as was able to be carried out before the by-election that there was a bit of a feeling that the local boy was missed and I think they are circumstances that were peculiar to that particular seat and those particular sets of circumstances. It should not reflect on Peter Debnam's leadership, I have a high regard for Peter and although he has an Everest to climb in order to win because of the size of the Labor majority, anybody who thinks that the Labor Government in New South Wales isn't thoroughly out of favour with a lot of people in that state doesn't understand the mood. I think there are particular circumstances here where a whole lot of attitudes and feelings and emotions have come together. I don't think you can infer anything much beyond that.
JOURNALIST:
Would you counsel the state Liberals, Prime Minister, that anyone who might be encouraged by that result to stir up trouble in then party should, and the leadership of Peter Debnam, should really pull their heads in?
PRIME MINISTER:
The state parliamentary Liberal Party has a big task ahead of it and it now has to batten down and work very hard with Peter. They chose him unanimously after John Brogden went. The idea of doing other than getting behind him fully and unconditionally and unreservedly, the idea of doing anything other than that would be quite absurd.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, if I can go back to Van Nguyen for a second...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, what's your name again?
JOURNALIST:
Sorry, James Button, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry, I apologise. Sorry, I mean I should have known, that is inexcusable.
JOURNALIST:
I can't see why, but anyway. When you put your case to the Singaporean Prime Minister, did he concede any of your arguments, was he at all personally moved by the case, did he...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he understands the strength of feeling in Australia, I'm sure of that. But we all have to understand the very strong commitment there is by him personally and by the Government of Singapore to this policy of the mandatory death penalty. They believe that it works, they believe it sets deterrent, they believe that what they have done is taken 26,000 shots of heroin off the streets of potentially Australia. Now that's their argument and whenever I've talked in general about the issue in the past, and I've had many discussions with him about it, that is their response. Now we have to understand, difficult though it is for those of us, I guess it includes most people in the travelling press party and others in this room, those of us who don't believe in the death penalty, particularly for an offence that hasn't involved the direct taking of somebody else's life and with these extenuating, what I think are extenuating circumstances, it's difficult for us to understand that but we have to understand that the Singaporean Government has a very strongly opposite view, and as has been taken by the Malaysian Government. I mean you remember, some of you, 20 years back, 19 years back when Mr Hawke was the Prime Minister and he was arguing for the commutation of the death penalty in relation to Barlow and Chambers and the Malaysian Government was absolutely uncompromising in relation to that and there was another man executed in 1993, was it, during the period of the Keating Government. Now I'm mentioning this for no other reason than to just make the point that although we find it difficult to accept because we have a view about the death penalty, and I'm being presumptuous saying we, I mean I do and a think a lot of you do, and a lot of Australians do, not all of them though, but they just have a very strong view about this and they don't, they're not as, you know they put the morality of it in the balance, they think a policy that deters people from trafficking heroin, which has the potential to take people's lives and to bring untold misery, they think a policy of the death penalty is justified in those circumstances. Now that's their view and we have to accept, we may not like it but we have to accept it in the sense that it's the strength of their feeling that we have to deal with. I mean we can't superimpose our emotion, our logic on them and somehow or other be absolutely amazed when they don't respond in the way that we have to the issue.
JOURNALIST:
When you say that Prime Minister, in this case there are mitigating circumstances, isn't it, the Australian public who oppose the death penalty, perhaps on an emotional level see the Singaporeans or the Singapore Prime Minister as cold and uncompassionate and flint-hearted. Are those Australian people who hold those views, are they wrong?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think - look I understand why people feel strongly about this, I do. I'm just trying to make the point to you, and through you to my fellow Australians, that the Singaporeans hold a very strong view in favour of the mandatory death penalty for the reason I've argued. It's not a view I hold, but I mean how many times, how many more ways can I answer the question Geof? I do not like what's happening, I wish it were otherwise and I have tried in a responsible fashion, given my other responsibilities to the people of Australia and to the relationship between our two countries. I have tried as best I can to put the strongest possible case. I do not have the luxury as Prime Minister of making demands and making assertions that I know can't be met and are irresponsible, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to get involved in stunts. But I can promise you I have tried in all the appropriate ways to persuade them to do otherwise and I regret to say that I have been unsuccessful and I am sorry about that and I feel deeply sorry, particularly for the man's mother.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, when it comes to others facing the death penalty, other nationals, I'm thinking particularly of the people convicted of the Bali bombings. Members of...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well nobody has been convicted.
JOURNALIST:
Charged with the Bali bombings, members of your Government have been quite, have been a lot less...
PRIME MINISTER:
Karen, Karen, please. I get, the Government sometimes get told to observe due process. Those people have not been convicted of anything yet and I'm not going to indulge hypothetical questions and if people facing charges in foreign countries are to be aided in the event of those charges being proved before a court then you can only credibly argue that case after convictions.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, have you made or will you make any attempt to send a personal message to Van Nguyen before his execution?
PRIME MINISTER:
The best thing that I can do for that man is to be honest with his family and to show compassion towards his family and I have done that. I saw his mother, I saw his mother without fanfare, it was not accompanied by a media contingent, and I tried as best I could as a human being to comfort her. And I hope that that was of some assistance to her. That is the best thing that I can do.
JOURNALIST:
Moments like these Prime Minister, is this one of the hardest parts of your job?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are a lot of things that are hard about the job, but you are called upon to react to very traumatic situations and I have done my best to be honest and supportive to the man's family and the first rule in a situation like this is to tell the truth, the first rule is to not to try and exploit it in any way politically, that's the second rule. And I have tried to do that and I've tried to provide support and comfort in a personal way. And I did spend some time with the lady and I hope that that's known to her son and if that is of some comfort to him well I am pleased. I don't really think I can say much more on this issue, I've done my level best and if there are other opportunities I will take advantage of them.
JOURNALIST:
If I could ask about CHOGM generally, it's often asked is CHOGM still a relevant organisation. How do you rate this particular CHOGM in terms of its increasing or...
PRIME MINISTER:
Better, better.
JOURNALIST:
Could you say why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it was a focused discussion and people were more engaged. There were fewer set piece speeches, there was more argument, spontaneous argument. And what I thought was good about it, better about it, was that most of the discussion focused on one or two issues. The problem with these meetings is when you sort of have a menu of, you do half an hour on this, half an hour on that and half an hour on something else, but there was only one game in town and that was whether we were going to make a strong statement saying to the European Union, and others, 'the Americans have put a generous offer on the table what are you going to do about it'? And we succeeded in that and I think that's good and I give it a real tick and I thank the Government of Malta for its wonderful hospitality. Beautiful island, wonderful place, plenty of Australians everywhere, what more could you ask for?
JOURNALIST:
PM, you talked up the Commonwealth Games this morning, did you promise your leaders that you'll be standing on the dais as Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Bye, bye. Mate, you can't help it can you?
[ends]