| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Interview: Robert McClelland November 9, 2003 Reporter : Laurie Oakes  It wasn't the Tampa, but a small boat with 14 asylum seekers aboard arrived at Melville Island near Darwin this week ... and caused nearly as much consternation. The Federal Government retrospectively removed Melville and thousands of other northern islands from migration zones in a bid to prevent the asylum seekers from reaching Australia. After failing to support a Greens motion in the Senate this week, Labor has promised to overturn the government regulation by the end of the month. The government has accused the ALP of being weak on border security. The man responsible for Labor's coastal surveillance policy, Shadow Attorney-General Robert McClelland, will talk with Laurie Oakes ... Transcript JANA WENDT: It wasn’t the Tampa, but a small boat with 14 asylum-seekers aboard arrived at Melville Island near Darwin this week, and caused nearly as much consternation. The Federal Government retrospectively removed Melville and thousands of other islands from migration zones, in a bid to prevent the asylum-seekers from reaching Australia and applying for visas. After failing to support a Greens motion in the Senate this week, Labor has promised to overturn the Government regulation by the end of the month. The Government has accused the ALP of being weak on border security. Well, the man responsible for Labor’s policy on coastal surveillance, Shadow Attorney-General Robert McClelland is in our Sydney studio. And here to talk with him is Sunday’s political editor, Laurie Oakes. Good morning, Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: Morning, Jana. Mr McClelland, welcome to Sunday. SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL ROBERT MCCLELLAND: My pleasure. LAURIE OAKES: Before we talk about the asylum-seekers, what do you know about the bomb blast in Riyadh? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Not a lot at this stage, save in so far as it was substantial. It occurred in a complex housing foreigners. We don’t know the extent of any casualties. For instance, whether people were able to move out as a result of the warning yesterday. But certainly it’s of concern. LAURIE OAKES: It appears there’s going to be no let up in terrorist attacks between now and the next election. I mean, this makes it very difficult for the Labor Party to campaign on domestic issues, doesn’t it? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Terrorism certainly is an international reality, and quite clearly we’ve got to be in there on this issue as much as the Government, just from the point of view of national interest. LAURIE OAKES: Well, on the question of the 14 asylum-seekers who arrived at Melville Island, the Government’s now announced that they’re back in Indonesia. They were towed by the Navy back to Indonesian waters, and they’re now on an island called Sumakai, I think. A good result, in your view? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Well, its’ very difficult to know. Senator Vanstone wasn’t able to give any information. I note she was interviewed this morning. Basically, our view is that the response by the Government was disproportionate to the issue. I think the editorials got it right this week. I think in response to 14 Kurdish asylum-seekers, excising 4000 islands, as well as sending this massive naval vessel out there to become a tow boat was disproportionate to the issue. LAURIE OAKES: You don’t think that Australians will be pleased that these people are gone? That they didn’t land in Australia? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: I think to be frank, in the general community that would be an issue – they would say well, that’s – that’s a good outcome. But what we’ve got to look at is the future, and in particular Amanda Vanstone has effectively said by excising the islands, the target now becomes Australia’s mainland – in this case about another two hours sailing would have got them to Darwin or its vicinity. So what we say is, it’s no use saying you can’t protect your borders, as Amanda Vanstone has effectively said. We’re saying what you really need is a full-time dedicated coast guard to patrol the massive beat we have around our country. LAURIE OAKES: But she’s also said there are hundreds of vessels this side ducking between Australia’s islands on ordinary business all the time. I think she said 500 sightings a month. Now how’s – how’s a coast guard going to tackle that? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Well, quite frankly we’ve got to. I mean, these boats could be carrying drugs; they could be carrying arms. They could be at the behest of people-smugglers. Indeed, they could be carrying terrorists. To say to a boatload look, if you’re a terrorist and you want to come into the country come in to one of the small islands to the north of Australia, because we really can’t protect it, is quite frankly surrender. That’s saying look, we’ll – we’ll cop whatever comes. And that’s not good enough. We say it can be done, and it should be done, and resources should be put into an Australian coast guard. LAURIE OAKES: John Howard’s mantra at the last election was: “We decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come.” The Government’s now using those exact words again. It still resonates with Australian voters, doesn’t it? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Yeah, although what we’d say is, where’s here? I mean, they keep on trying to diminish here by – by slicing off various parts of Australia – in this case 4000 territorial islands. What we say … LAURIE OAKES: Yeah, but they’re not really slicing off. It’s only a legal technicality, isn’t it? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: From the point of view of the Migration Zone, but what it is is then a target to go to the Australian mainland. We say they all involve here, those islands are part of our territory. They warrant protecting as well. Now, surveillance through not only radar, not only boats, but also aircraft, is clearly being mismanaged under coast watch. It’s – it’s, if you like contracting services with 12 other agencies, not doing the job effectively. It’s quite frankly got to change from the point of view of national security, as well as issues such as crime, drug running and – and drugs – and drugs, and guns. LAURIE OAKES: But it still works as a wedge against Labor, doesn’t it? You’ve complained that it’s wedge politics, but it’s an effective wedge, isn’t it? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Look, the whole issue of asylum-seekers unquestionably is a sensitive issue in the community. What we’ve got to do to convince the Australian people is that we’re about a fast and fair processing system, treating people decently, but yes, sure, not enabling immigration to be determined by illegal arrivals or indeed criminals who are smuggling people in, but also ensuring that we protect our borders. This is – this is an area where we’re – we’re confident that our coast guard policy is one that is attractive to the Australian people for not only people smuggling but drug running and also gun running. LAURIE OAKES: I guess the point I’m – I’m trying to make – isn’t Labor just as vulnerable now as it was in 2001 on issues of national security and border protection? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: They’re certainly big issues, and the community, quite frankly, is going to want to be satisfied that we are competent on these – on these issues. But where I think it’s changed is that people won’t – they’ll look at the facts, if you like. They’ll look at the facts. They’ll look at the proportion of the response. The balance of the response. They won’t be simply sucked into rhetoric. So this is where the Government must justify its decision on the facts of each circumstance as opposed to, if you like, trying to inflame the issue. In other words, I think Australians will be more analytical about the approach. LAURIE OAKES: Why won’t Labor give the Government power to list and ban terrorist organisations without waiting for the UN Security Council to do it, which I think most Australians would think is a really cumbersome hopeless way to approach it? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Well, in fact in June we provided the then Attorney-General with a model for court-based proscription. What we’re concerned about is the power residing in one man, the Attorney-General, without sufficient review. I’ve got to say I believe that is a concern to a number of people on the conservative side of politics. But what we’ve said is look, a court-based model would have safeguards, but basically sit down and talk, rather than trying to beat an issue up for drama’s sake. If we’re going to have an effective response against terrorism, there must be unity in the community and playing divisive politics on these issues is precisely the wrong way to go. LAURIE OAKES: Now Mr Downer, the Foreign Minister, has similar powers to list organisations to those Mr Ruddock wants. Mr Downer uses them to freeze terrorist funds. Now, is that proving effective? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Well, this is where we say their rhetoric doesn’t match their action. To a question on notice he’s responded that two organisations have had funds frozen. One was a youth organisation – $2200. The other was a record company called Shining Path in Melbourne that found its assets had been frozen, and of course had to be remedied. And so there’s only two out of 400 that have been listed. There have been no prosecutions. No referenced to the Director of Public Prosecutions of any person financially contributing to one of these listed organisations. Again, tough in language, but not on action. LAURIE OAKES: Well, let’s look at the case of French terrorist suspect Willie Brigitte, who spent six months in Australia apparently up to no good, according to ASIO. Why is Labor calling for an inquiry? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Well, quite frankly he’s – he’s come through a gaping hole in security. Now, it’s occurred obviously as a result of a communication breakdown, and we’re not attributing responsibility either to the French or the Australian Government, quite frankly. But what we want to find out is how that communication breakdown occurred, but more importantly what needs to be done to fix it. There’s – there was reports in the media that there may have been another fellow who actually funded Brigitte, who is now in Australia. Quite clearly we want to find out whether as a result of that hole being opened, other people have come in who are equally as dangerous to the Australian people. And the Government, quite frankly, is bloody minded in not saying look, we will inquire into this serious matter. Clearly there is a serious matter. Our security forces are – are trying to rectify the consequences of contacts he’s made, training he’s provided. It’s – it’s a significant security issue for Australia. LAURIE OAKES: The Prime Minister said in London overnight that if there was a communications breakdown, it was between certain agencies in the French Government, not between Australia and France. How do you respond to that? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Again, we’ve got to find that out. Certainly, Willy Brigitte applied for a new passport when he arrived in Australia. One would have thought that the French Consul here in Australia would have cross-checked back to the French security register to ascertain he was a terrorist. But we want to find out if it did not occur why it didn’t occur. If it did occur, why the information was not passed on to Australian authorities. The fact that he was here for five months has resulted in significant damage being done to our security in Australia, and we’ve really got to find out why, and what needs to be done to fix it. And the Government seems to be saying it’s not a problem. That’s just not good enough, quite frankly. LAURIE OAKES: But Mr McClelland, didn’t ASIO give Simon Crean several briefings on this? I understand you sat in on one of them. And isn’t it true that ASIO told the Labor Party that the French security agencies did not know that Brigitte was in Australia until September. Are you saying ASIO’s lying to you? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: No, we’re not. We’re not saying that at all. He specifically said – the head of ASIO specifically said at Senate Estimates that if Australia had not been notified on the 22nd of September, that Willie Brigitte would still be in Australia going about his business. And this is precisely the point. We want to find out why, between May and September, the information wasn’t provided to Australian authorities that this fellow was on the French security database and here in Australia. LAURIE OAKES: But didn’t – didn’t ASIO tell you that French security agencies were not given the information about the passport? And isn’t it also a fact that Brigitte was not on the warning list of any other country, including the United States, which has the biggest warning list, through the CIA and the FBI, of any country in the world? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: But these – our point is this – these sort of characters, a fellow implicated in an assassination, a fellow implicated in a foiled plot to bomb the 1998 Soccer World Cup in circumstances where we are hosting the Rugby World Cup – when a person such as that is on a nation’s own security database, there should be procedures in place for that information to be communicated to other countries. Certainly other countries as we were hosting the World Cup. This comes back to the original question today. Terrorism is very much an international event. Unless there is international co-operation, frank communication, we’re not going to prevent these events occurring. What we’re saying is quite clearly on anyone’s reckoning, there has been a communications breakdown. Why did it occur? More importantly, what needs to be done to rectify it is where we’re coming from. LAURIE OAKES: One quick final issue. Has the Pauline Hanson case shown up shortcomings in the way our justice system operates, and in particular the way our legal aid system is funded and operates? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Certainly the outcome – the appeal process I think as people can say fairly, has worked. It has shown the tremendous expense of our justice system, and quite frankly the inadequacy of funding. The Government is now spending twice as much on its own lawyers for itself as it’s spending on community legal aid, and quite frankly we’ve seen that justice can be done properly, and it’s a very expensive process, and we sincerely do have to look at the resourcing of our legal aid budget in Australia. There’s no doubt about that. LAURIE OAKES: Will you be pushing for that as a result of the Hanson case? ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Yes. We’ve been pushing for it, but it demonstrates that fact. You’re doing all right in Australia if you’ve got the funds to defend yourself. In fairness to Pauline Hanson, I think she’s made this point. But if you’re on struggle street, or indeed from middle Australia, you’ve got real problems if you face an event such as this. And it’s clearly – if we want to have a justice system that’s relevant to ordinary Australia – for there to be more funding. LAURIE OAKES: Mr McClelland, we thank you. ROBERT MCCLELLAND: That’s my pleasure. LAURIE OAKES: Back to you, Jana. Transcript produced by Media Monitors target-monitor-analyse |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
