PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen, I have called this news conference to inform you that I have been asked by the Cole commission of inquiry to provide a statement and I will do so by the requested time, which is 4pm tomorrow afternoon, and if asked I will naturally be happy to appear. I've said all along that I would, as would my Ministers. I've said all along that this is an utterly transparent process which is not protecting the Government, but which is designed to get to the truth of this matter and I am more than happy to comply with the request made by the commission. Naturally, it would not be proper for me to canvass in advance, now that I have been invited to provide a statement, canvass in advance what might be in that statement. I will, however, say this, that I stand by everything that I have so far said about the role and the conduct of the Government. I do not believe on the information known to me, and I don't use that expression in any way designed to give me ground to move later on, I do not believe, on the information known to me that any of my Ministers have been guilty of dereliction of duty and I am very, very happy to provide the statement and, if asked, to appear. Thank you.
JOURNALIST:
Would you have a comment about the UN...
PRIME MINISTER:
I think in the circumstances until I have completely settled the statement, there may be something in that because my recall is that that issue was canvassed in certain cables and that perhaps I'd better refrain from comment on that at this stage.
JOURNALIST:
Do you agree though Prime Minister that under Resolution 661, your Government had a responsibility to keep tabs on the actions of AWB?
PRIME MINISTER:
My understanding, let me say this Jim, I don't accept the interpretation placed on the Government's obligations by the lady in question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you said the other day after your Ministers were asked to provide statements you expected them to be called. Do you now expect to be called?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for the commission but I am quite happy to go.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister did the Commissioner ask you to cover any specific area?
PRIME MINISTER:
He did, yes, and he sent me a letter, but I don't think in deference to the commission I should disclose his letter, that's really a matter for the secretary and for the commission. He sent me a letter saying, you know, would you consider providing a statement and I am very happy to provide a statement. He asked me to provide it by four o'clock tomorrow afternoon, I am happy to do that, but I don't really think I should get into the weeds of what is going to be in the statement. I do share the view that was expressed on the Sunday programme by Mr Downer, it's a properly based view, it's a view based, in Mr Downer's case, on proper advice from our counsel, that it's just not appropriate if the Commissioner's asked you to provide a statement about certain matters, having received that request, it's not appropriate for me to, as it were, give my statement a dry run in the media. Much and all as I would like to oblige you Mr Harvey, I don't think it would be proper for me to do that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how do you see the Government's obligations under 661?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think this is quite the moment for me to get into the detail of that. There will be a time, and I have said things about that in the past, and it will be apparent from my not resiling one word from what I've said in the past, what my general view is. But I do not think, consistent with what I feel are my obligations, now that I've been asked to provide a statement, to go into that detail.
JOURNALIST:
So you accept the post box defence do you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Jim, good try.
JOURNALIST:
Does the fact that Commissioner Cole has asked you to provide this statement indicate that he is not satisfied with the Government's denials that it didn't know about the kickbacks?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, I would not presume to try and interpret what is in the Commissioner's mind. I remain of the view that he is an excellent lawyer, he will bring a very fine intellect to all of this and I am confident that he will get to the bottom of the matter. But I am certainly not going to presume to interpret what is in his mind and nor should you.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the approach from Commissioner Cole goes to particular matters that have been raised...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I refer you to the answer I gave Mr Harvey.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how does it feel to be the first Prime Minister since Bob Hawke to be likely to appear before a judicial inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I don't feel it particularly one way or another. I mean life's a rich tapestry and you just do things. It came very early in Mr Hawke's Prime Ministership didn't it? He lasted a long time after that appearance, didn't he?
JOURNALIST:
Do you expect when you first instituted this...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Did you expect this outcome?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not surprised.
JOURNALIST:
So you always thought you might be called?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not surprised. I mean I can't put it, you never know. But I said all along that I would not be reluctant to appear, that I was ready to appear as were my Ministers. And it's entirely a matter for Mr Cole. We'll put in the statement. If I get called, I will go and I will answer questions under oath and they will be truthful answers.
JOURNALIST:
Are you nervous about...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not nervous.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on the West Papuan issue has any further consideration been given to a review of the way asylum claims are processed?
PRIME MINISTER:
I said on Friday that we're looking at a whole range of issues in relation to that matter. People shouldn't assume that we've reached any conclusions, but this is a difficult issue for Australia. On the one hand we intend to meet our international obligations, on the other hand it is causing difficulty in the relationship with Indonesia. But we have to work our way through these things. Indonesia must respect our processes as I encourage Australians to respect Indonesian processes. But I can't tell you today what the result of this review is going to be. We're looking at it later this week and when we're in a position to do so we'll have something more to say about it.
JOURNALIST:
The Foreign Minister did say that you can't overturn a refugee decision once it's taken. Is he right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends entirely on the circumstances. I don't want to get into a sort of seminar on the international law. We have obligations. We also have a legitimate interest in our bilateral relationship with Indonesia and in all of these areas you have to try and balance things and we are endeavouring to achieve the right balance. The Foreign Minister and his counterpart in Indonesia had a very productive discussion on Saturday evening, Australian time, and they have had a number of discussions and the matter is being dealt with in a professional, diplomatic fashion. And we're working through it, but I don't minimise the difficulty. But equally I remain confident that it is not going to leave any lasting contamination of the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. But it's the sort of relationship that will, from time to time, go through difficulties like this because Indonesia and Australia, although thrown together by history and geography, both, are very different countries. Our societies are different, our sizes are different, our practices are different and although Indonesia has recently and magnificently embraced democracy, it is a different country from Australia. And we have to expect that from time to time we will have these challenges and we should have enough patience and resilience to work our way through them and to find solutions and not embrace the language of panic and crisis every time there is a difficulty.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, quite clearly, you favour at least the idea of a national interest test. The Foreign Minister says this would be very difficult. Are you still in favour of national interest test?
PRIME MINISTER:
Jim, you are being a little premature in trying to typecast my approach and that of Mr Downer's. Why don't you wait and see what the Government's approach is? I know it's more exciting to have a Downer view and a Howard view and a somebody else view, but let's just wait. We're going to look at it calmly and methodically in our normal fashion and then we'll let you know what the Government has decided.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Mr Downer, you just said that there's not a state of panic and crisis but Mr Downer did suggest it was a crisis. Is there not a difference of opinion on the status of the concerns?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me put it this way, I did not get the impression seeing Mr Downer interviewed that he was actually describing a crisis.
JOURNALIST:
And in, just to clarify, are you talking about a review only in relation to Papuan claims for asylum and a national interest test or a change in relation to...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the review...
JOURNALIST:
...asylum claims across the board?
PRIME MINISTER:
The review has been triggered by this issue. But if there were any changes decided upon then they would have implications beyond one particular group. And that's one of the factors we have to take into account. We have not decided on anything, but I was asked on Friday, 'are we looking at it?' We are looking at it, so I said we were. I mean it's as uncomplicated as that. I haven't made up my mind yet what we're going to do, nor has the Government, but we'll talk about it this week and if we do decide on any changes then we will let you all know as soon as humanly possible.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the refugee convention, as it stands, is a bit outdated? Do you think it needs...
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a view that others have expressed. I don't want to offer a view at the moment because it will inevitably feed into the assessment of what I've said about this issue, won't it?
JOURNALIST:
On the Cole inquiry sir, are there any matters of national security or cabinet confidentiality or privilege that you won't be able to canvass in the inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look Mark, I'm not going to get into that. I mean I have been asked to provide a statement. I'm providing the statement, I will do the right thing.
JOURNALIST:
Would you expect that statement to be made public or will it...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a matter for the commission. It is entirely a matter for the commission. I mean I don't mind what it decides. I will provide the statement and then it's for the commission to decide what happens with that statement. I have every confidence in both the professionalism and the intelligence, as well as the integrity of the Commissioner.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister has the coincidence of the Cole commission and Papua complicated the Government's response to dealing with the Papua question?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Thank you.
[ends]