|
TONY JONES: Our top story - the growing chorus
of objections to aspects of the Government's anti-terror legislation.
The shoot-to-kill provisions have gotten all the headlines today, but
Premier's Beattie and Bracks told us last night, their objections went
well beyond that single issue and that the Prime Minister should expect
serious negotiations on a number of details in the draft legislation.
On Monday, the Opposition spokesman for homeland security, Arch Bevis,
indicated he too has reservations about many issues in the draft. So,
where does the Labor leader Kim Beazley stand? He joined us earlier
today, and we also explored his plan, laid out in the third of his
so-called "blueprint" speeches, for developing alternative fuels as
Australia rapidly depletes its crude oil deposits. The Opposition
Leader was in our Melbourne studio. Kim Beazley, thanks for joining us.
KIM BEAZLEY: Good to be with you.
TONY
JONES: What do you think is at stake with these terror laws? I mean,
Peter Beattie refers to them as draconian, and even the Prime Minister
admits they are extraordinary powers.
KIM BEAZLEY: Well, those
are both correct descriptions. They are extraordinary powers. It's a
difficult environment in which we live. There have been several points
of time over the last little while when other laws have been put in
place to deal with the threat and this is a further iteration of them.
What we have to be careful about - and I think the premiers do really
try very hard to be careful about this - is that we don't, as we go
down the process of protecting our society from terrorists, lose
essential values in our society. That we don't burn down the village,
in legislative terms, in order to save it. And it's necessary, whenever
you see these things, I think, to approach it that way.
TONY
JONES: Where, in the draft legislation that we've seen, in the detail
of it, do you think Australian values, what is generally valued in the
law in this country, is under threat?
KIM BEAZLEY: I think you
did very well last night in identifying one of those areas and those
are the provisions on shoot-to-kill. There is no reason to put that in
this legislation. Perfectly adequate powers now exist at the state
level and guidance associated with them. And I would cover these
affairs under these events as it would on the other issues that states
have to deal with. So you've picked up well on that. I think that this
legislation would be dramatically improved by being sent to, at the
Federal level - not the State level, they can make up their own mind,
but the Federal level - going to either the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Intelligence or else to a Senate sub-committee set up for
the purpose. One or the other. I think the previous terrorist laws,
which of necessity went to those - because John Howard knew he didn't
have the majority in the Senate - they were much improved by the
experience of going down the road of bipartisan analysis, and so would
this be.
TONY JONES: On the shoot-to-kill laws, the Prime Minister is today saying there's nothing new in these provisions. Is he right?
KIM
BEAZLEY: Well, I guess it is new to attach them to this particular
piece of legislation. Mistakes do have guidelines there, established
for their police forces, and those guidelines are sufficient both for
theirs and I would have thought for Federal purposes as well. They're
not specific to laws - as I understand those guidelines - they're
specific to circumstances. If a policeman has reason to fear that
deadly force might be used against them or someone in his care or
another member of the public, then the policeman, after making
appropriate sets of judgements about his circumstances, may act with
deadly force. Now that is, that's just common sense, that that sort of
power and those sorts of - that sort of authority resides in the police
force. They from time to time, very rarely, but nevertheless, from time
to time, do confront such set of circumstances. And they could confront
that arising out of the domestic or out of the pursuit of a murderer.
TONY
JONES: The Prime Minister essentially is saying, so what's the
difference then? Why is it a problem putting it into these laws?
KIM BEAZLEY: Well --
TONY
JONES: One of the committee differences clearly is that we're talking
about apprehending people on preventive detention orders.
KIM
BEAZLEY: Well, in a sense why bother? I mean, why would you bother to
do it? Why would you - you'd choose to make a point about these
particular laws. I presume, if a policeman was to arrive at somebody's
house in pursuit of a would-be terrorist or a maybe terrorist or a
person who is a ne'er do well and that person were to pull a gun on
them, and start firing, then there would be a certain response.
Irrespective of whatever reason the policeman was turning up at that
house to perform the task. It's an unnecessary complication in relation
to this law and I suspect it won't stand.
TONY JONES: We put
to the premiers, last night, the hypothetical case of a 16-year-old
brother of a terror suspect who is wanted under preventive detention
order because he might be able to give information. That person,
theoretically, runs away from plainclothes policemen. He may be
carrying a backpack, he may be on his way to school carrying a
backpack, and heads into a crowded area. Are we setting up, in this
legislation, something akin to the scenario faced by those policemen,
in London, at the time of the London bombings.
KIM BEAZLEY: I
am afraid to say, Tony, I think that scenario exists anyway, now, under
the existing laws, if you get what I mean. We have a terrorist threat
to our community. And in these circumstances, people are going to be
jumpy and jittery in police forces and everywhere else. And the
possibility of accident always arises. I've always relied, or I would
rely in such circumstances, on the common sense and restraint of the
Australian police forces in much the same way as the years have gone by
I've relied on the common sense and intelligence of people like the
SAS, who find themselves on the ground in Afghanistan. They do the very
best they can and they're trained in the country to be men and women of
restraint and I'd hope that would persist.
TONY JONES: The
argument of the Law Council, in this case, is that the people being
apprehended on preventive detention orders are not about to be charged
with anything, there's not evidence to charge them or would be charged.
So they're in a different category than other people facing the threat
of legal force. That's why the Law Council is particularly worried
about this. Does that also worry the Federal Labor Party?
KIM
BEAZLEY: Well, I certainly think that that particular concern, the Law
Council ought to have an opportunity to present to the Parliament. And
they'd have that opportunity to present it to the Parliament if you had
a decent, intelligent, lengthy inquiry process by a bipartisan
committee.
TONY JONES: Have you been talking to, or will you
be talking to, the State Premiers, because it appears they believe they
have the power to amend this legislation?
KIM BEAZLEY: I've
talked to the state Premiers, at different points of time, some of them
about this - it's not collectively, some of them. I think they'll adopt
an intelligent approach to this. They have, in their various
parliaments, the powers to pass laws related to this. I doubt very much
whether the laws have to be exactly the same in every word and every
letter. And quite clearly, Mr Beattie is looking at a slightly
different supervision process to that which a number of the other
premiers are. And I'd be surprised if he wasn't in a position to be
able to do what it is that he suggests he will do in terms of the
supervision. I don't know if the laws have to be exactly the same. The
point is they have an agreement with the Prime Minister. They got the
Prime Minister to change his position in several areas of
accountability - for which they should be thanked - and I suspect
they're going to try and come out with a decent, balanced outcome.
TONY
JONES: Let's put it this way - the political reality is that you can't
change the laws yourself, in Parliament. However, using your fellow
Labor Party colleagues - who do have that power in the state branch of
the parties, the premiers - you could actually exert influence on the
legislation. Are you intending to do that?
KIM BEAZLEY: I'll
certainly have discussions with them. They do regard themselves as
having been bound, to some extent, by the conversations that they've
had with John Howard. My advice to them about dealing with John Howard
- from a long experience of observing the man - always look at the fine
print when you're dealing with taxation, legislation, industrial
relations legislation or this legislation. But they, like me, and like
John Howard, know that we have a serious problem, and it has to be
dealt with, albeit within the framework of what sustains Australian
values while we do it. Every conversation I have with them would be
informed with that consideration.
TONY JONES: It does appear,
though, that they were surprised by what they saw in the draft
legislation didn't reflect, in some cases, the discussions they had,
they say, with the Prime Minister. Were you also surprised by what you
saw, by what you've seen in the draft legislation, the detail of it?
KIM BEAZLEY: Well, I wasn't in on the conversation, so --
TONY JONES: No, but I'm talking about the draft legislation is out there, it's been put on a website.
KIM BEAZLEY: Oh yes, but I wasn't in on the original conversation between the premiers and them --
TONY JONES: No, no, I understand that --
KIM
BEAZLEY: So I don't know what they actually talked about behind the
closed doors, apart from what appeared in public, and there did seem to
be a great deal more in the legislation than was put out with the
public documents that were released after the Premier's meeting with
South - with the Premier - with the Prime Minister, as I suspect you'd
agree.
TONY JONES: Are you disturbed by some of the detail? Is it proportionate, some of that legislation, to the threat faced?
KIM
BEAZLEY: Look, I believe that our measures that we take against
terrorism have to be practical and balanced. I actually think we're
dealing with lawless people here and, therefore, laws have some values,
but they're of a limited value. Practical measures are much more
important. And I think we're in a situation where airports are not
properly defended, nor are our ports, and there are many activities
going on out there in the public now which the Government has not done
the job it ought to be doing in ensuring the community is safe. The
Government loves a discussion about law as opposed to about
practicalities. Practicalities lose money or cost money. In terms of
law, well, you could always tee off on the civil libertarians and hope
you get a wedge for political purposes.
TONY JONES: Well, I
mean, It's a good point. Are you actually worried that this could be
used as a political wedge against you if you go too hard, seeking too
many amendments on some of the aspects of these laws which you don't
like?
KIM BEAZLEY: No, I don't think so, Tony. I don't think
that would be the case. Because we take the same responsible attitude
to this, as we took to every other piece of legislation that comes
before us. We understand something has to be done, but we also
understand Australian values. And we stick close to those Australian
values and those Australian values demand balance. And balance in this
situation, demands proper judicial and independent supervision. Now
that is the bottom line.
TONY JONES: So are there a lot of
amendments that you would like to see? Are there a lot of things in the
legislation that Federal Labor doesn't like. Arch Bevis, for example,
had concerns - we spoke to him on Monday - about a lot of things?
KIM
BEAZLEY: He'll take his considerations into the Caucus, as I indeed
will mine and we'll sit down and work this through. We will, for
starters, try to get this into a better parliamentary process than
where it lies, at the moment. If we don't succeed on that, that we will
try to move amendments that suit the concerns that we have to ensure
that we have protection with balance.
TONY JONES: Alright,
let's move on to your third blueprint speech on the Australian fuel
industry. Now, set out, first of all, if you can, your argument about
how much fuel imports impact on our foreign debt.
KIM BEAZLEY:
Very substantially. They are - if you take the various elements of our
fuel imports and add them together - they constitute the biggest single
part of our import imbalance. That has its own affect on our levels of
foreign indebtedness or our capacity to export our way out of a bit of
a debt trap that we're beginning to fall into. So I look at this - the
measures that we put forward about a long-term plan to stand on our own
two feet, in terms of the transport fuels that we need - very much in
the context of a wider debate about sensible economic management in our
country and about protection of our national sovereignty.
TONY JONES: Alright. When does Australia's own supply of crude oil run out, effectively?
KIM
BEAZLEY: Well, according to various estimates, we will, within the next
decade, be in a situation where we are required to import between 50%
and 80% of our needs. There are various estimates out there on that.
That is huge. That is dependence. And we're dependent on an
international oil market which is dominated at its heart by great
instability in the Middle East and in terms of demand, the demand side
of it, enormous burgeoning demand in China and India. We cannot persist
with the situation that we can see developing before us, we've got to
try alternatives. I've suggested several alternatives. One, in
particular, I think will ultimately attract most attention. And that's
the idea of conversion of gas to liquid fuel. Currently, only one big
gas producer, that is the state of Qatar, is pursuing this. But I'm
told by people in our industry that the technologies related to that
have changed dramatically over the last couple of years and it's
feasible for us, as well.
TONY JONES: Cost effective, as well
as feasible? Because there are tremendous costs associated with doing
this and this is one of the big problems that's held people back from
doing it.
KIM BEAZLEY: Indeed. Well, the costs are coming down
and that's probably what has led Qatar down that road. In our case, we
would need to consider the taxation regime, we would need to consider
the question of onshore development of infrastructure. We would need to
develop- we would need to consider questions of R&D questions
related to it. And my speeches covered all of those various areas.
TONY
JONES: Actually, can I come to one of those areas? It's earlier in the
chain, in fact. You've set out a range of initiatives, including
flow-through share schemes for gas, oil and mineral exploration. How do
those schemes work actually?
KIM BEAZLEY: Well, that would
really work, mainly,for small explorers and producers. The big boys
engaged in this don't have need of that, because their companies are
usually generally complex enough and of sufficient size to take
advantage for their own tax purposes of all of the losses they
generate. But if you happen to be a small explorer - and this would
probably work slightly comprehensively in say, something like the gold
industry, as opposed to oil and gas where they are mainly big producers
- but you never know who might get into exploration. It means, that if
you're an investor in a small operator, and in the process of your
investment it is, of course, in its exploration phases basically a
losing proposition, the company itself may not be of sufficient size to
take full advantage of the tax opportunities of those losses. So in
these circumstances, with the ple he through to the shareholders, they
can take advantage of it, which of course is an incentive to back up a
little explorer.
TONY JONES: So shareholders able to use their losses as tax deductions is what you are saying?
KIM BEAZLEY: Yes, they can.
TONY
JONES: Have you considered the cost to the budget of something like
this if it really became popular? It could be hundreds of millions of
dollars, couldn't it?
KIM BEAZLEY: Well, if it became
unsustainable, of course you'd make adjustments. But in circumstances
where we actually need a substantial performance in terms of
alternative fuels or alternative fuel sources, it's worth
contemplation.
TONY JONES: Kim Beazley, we'll have to leave it
there. We thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to
us again tonight.
KIM BEAZLEY: Good to be chatting to you.
|
