Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I made the point yesterday that the government is not proposing—as the shadow minister for foreign affairs in her interjection asks me to do—to list the 10 countries where this will be introduced until such time as the processes have occurred. There are very obvious and sensible reasons, which go to immigration processes and national security, why that should be the case. I see that the shadow minister said in a press release that we should name them because ‘the longer this speculation continues, the greater the potential for offence among some of our key diplomatic and trading partners’. I made it clear yesterday: no-one should assume which countries might be on or off the list, and no-one should assume that there will be, either already occurring or in the future, diplomatic efforts to make sure that nation-states understand precisely what we are doing and the reasons for it.

As the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has made clear, there are a range of factors as to why a particular country might be chosen in the first stage. One obviously goes to national security, another goes to minimisation of risk and the other obviously goes to where the collection centres that the British hold might be available for use. So people should not assume one way or the other or think that they know more than they do. There are risks associated with the approach adopted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the opposition on this matter. There are risks associated in naming those countries before the processes are ready and available, and the government is not proposing to accept or take those risks.

I take at face value the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She just happens to be wrong on this point and does not appreciate the fundamental risks involved. I was much more disappointed yesterday with reckless and irresponsible comments from the other side which sought to make the point that there was no risk here that needed to be confronted. The statements by Senator Birmingham could only be described as reckless and irresponsible. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has not disavowed them. I have to say that I was very disappointed this morning when I saw the Leader of the Opposition essentially say that the white paper on the international threat from terrorism was a distraction and had been overstated. I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition should say that. When he was asked, at his doorstop, what the basis was for saying that, he referred to a newspaper report. He referred to his daily newspaper clips.

There are very grave risks involved in national security areas in relying upon newspaper clippings rather than the professional and expert advice that we get from the intelligence community and our security officials. There are very grave risks in relying on newspaper reports. The Leader of the Opposition has been offered a briefing on this by officials, including the Director-General of ASIO. My very strong advice to the Leader of the Opposition is that he might want to take that up and rely upon objective, detailed expert advice rather than his newspaper clips.

See this speech in context