Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

We gave the Prime Minister every opportunity to say that it was wrong. It may have been that he got caught up in the flurry of the interview. It may have been that he did not hear it clearly. It may have been that he did not understand it clearly. I understand that these things can happen, but the Prime Minister was given not once, not twice but on three separate occasions in this place today an opportunity to say, ‘I got that wrong; I didn’t mean that.’ For him to pass up each of those opportunities says much about the partisan way this Prime Minister now views the relationship with our great American ally.

Let us be absolutely clear about what is at stake here. This is not just an attack on a single US senator but an attack upon an entire political party. Here is where Australia’s national interest kicks in: the Democratic Party currently controls the majority in the United States House, controls the majority in the United States Senate and, within a year or so, may control the White House itself. In this parliament today, this country’s Prime Minister has reaffirmed that he describes this party as the terrorists’ party of choice. This is a serious matter.

Prime Minister, can you imagine if I stood up in this parliament as the alternative Prime Minister and said to the people of Australia that the terrorists would be advantaged if the Republicans were to return to the White House at the next presidential election? Ponder for a moment how that would be regarded. How would it be seized on by those opposite? Can you imagine the reaction from those opposite if I stood at this dispatch box or appeared on national television and said that the Republicans, if they won, would cause an eruption of joy on the part of al-Qaeda and on the part of terrorists?

This is a grave mistake and I fear that it reflects a deep view on the part of the Prime Minister about those within the US political system with whom he may not share a view. Prime Minister, you have said much in recent times about your experience for this job. Would an experienced Prime Minister have said something like this? Would an experienced Prime Minister have said something as irresponsible as this? Would an experienced Prime Minister have said something as reckless as this? I would say, Prime Minister, that these remarks reflect that, on these questions, you are prepared to allow partisan considerations to enter into the debate about this country’s long-term national security interests. It goes to the core question of what an experienced person should and should not do if charged with the high office of Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

This is not an idle debating point; this is now a matter for active debate right around the world. On CNN and in the US domestic body politic, Democratic congressmen and Republican congressmen are making public remarks and reacting against this Prime Minister’s statement. It is not a mild, indirect, academic debating point whether this is of consequence. To stand in this parliament and say that the alternative presidential party of the United States of America is somehow within the thrall of terrorists is where this argument ultimately goes. Prime Minister, this, like your remarks last week, was a grave error of judgement.

See this speech in context