Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House of the government’s position on recent responses concerning the convention of not commenting on the detail of intelligence matters? When any breach occurs, what is the appropriate response?

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

I am asked what the response has been to the flagrant breach yesterday of a fundamental principle applying to our national security arrangements. I am also asked what should be the appropriate response in such a matter. Not surprisingly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been roundly condemned by experts in the security area for her breach yesterday. I will give just one example. Michael McKinley, from the Australian National University, was on ABC Radio National with Fran Kelly this morning and, inter alia, he said:

She has breached this longstanding etiquette or discursive law and therefore she will come in for justifiable criticism …

He went on to say:

It does raise questions as to whether or not she—

the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—

fully understands the sensitivities of the shadow portfolio, and what might happen should the Liberal Party come to government.

That is just one of a number of adverse comments so far as the deputy leader’s breach of that principle yesterday is concerned.

I am asked, importantly, what the response should be when such a breach occurs. It would have been appropriate on this occasion, in this instance, for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to acknowledge that she had made a very serious error of judgment, to indicate that there were adverse consequences which flowed from that error of judgment, to undertake never to commit that offence again and to slavishly adhere to a fundamental principle of longstanding. That would have been the appropriate response. Regrettably, it was not the response we saw on this occasion. We saw last night the Deputy Leader of the Opposition put out a three-sentence statement which is well worth reading into the record:

I did not state that Australian intelligence agencies have forged the passports of other nations during my interview with Fairfax online this afternoon.

My responses were referring to the fact that forged Australian passports have been used previously, as noted by the foreign minister today.

I have no knowledge of any Australian authority forging any passports of any nation.

I will just take the first sentence first: ‘I did not state that Australian intelligence agencies have forged the passports of other nations during my interview with Fairfax Online this afternoon.’ That does not stand up to scrutiny at all. That is not a retraction, as I have seen some people refer to it. It is a bald-faced denial flying in the face of the facts. And she did not just say it to Tim Lester on camera yesterday. She said it twice: at eight o’clock in the morning and at midday. I would have thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have had much less shame than that, than to put out such a misleading account of what she had said—to assert that black was white; to assert that yes was no.

I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that because of the fundamental seriousness of this issue he should adhere to and make a statement adhering to this principle, and the only way he can do that is to disavow the conduct of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But I think on this occasion, given the bald-faced denial running contrary to all facts, the Leader of the Opposition needs to do more. The Leader of the Opposition was asked this morning at a doorstop by a journalist:

And just finally, Julie Bishop: are you standing by her?

Abbott: Of course.

Journalist: Her comments were irresponsible, weren’t they?

Abbott: Look, um, she’s issued a statement. I think the statement makes things very clear.

Journalist: But she did say what she said. She shouldn’t have said that, should she?

Abbott: Oh, but, as she says in her statement, ah, she misunderstood the question.

First point: I did not see any misunderstanding of the question in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement. Second point: I did not see any misunderstanding of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she asserted on Melbourne radio just after eight o’clock yesterday morning and I did not see any misunderstanding of the question when she answered Tim Lester on camera—and I again encourage all members to look at the video of it. Certainly there was no misunderstanding in Tim Lester’s mind when he published his report.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s so-called denial last night was an attempt to mislead the Australian public. An attempt to fly in the face of the facts. An attempt to avoid the scrutiny that she so rightly deserves. Rather than the Leader of the Opposition joining in this act of denial, he should make her retract her misleading statement. He should make her retract her dishonestly misleading statement, and he should do that today.