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

I did not hear the interjection, so it is of no moment to me. The question was about the fraudulent use of Australian passports, the risks to the integrity of the Australian passport system and the risks to Australia’s national interest, as my statement to the House yesterday refers. The government is in no doubt that Israel was responsible for the fraud involving Australian passports connected with the assassination in Dubai of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. While Israel is and was a firm friend of Australia, this action was not the act of a friend, and I have made that point consistently. Regrettably, this was not the first time that Israel has misused Australian passports. That occurred previously. As a consequence of that breach, an understanding was reached between Australian and Israeli agencies that this would not be repeated. So what has occurred is in express and direct breach of an understanding reached between Australian and Israeli agencies during the period of the previous government.

The government’s decision and judgment in this matter have been based at all times on national security considerations and, importantly, on the advice of relevant national security agencies—the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, ASIS and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Both the government’s consideration and those agencies’ considerations have involved very careful, exhaustive investigations and assessments, careful consideration and the weighting of the importance to Australia’s national security of the integrity of our passport system. No government can guarantee that any passport system is foolproof but, equally, no government can stand idly by and turn a blind eye when anyone, including a foreign government, another country, fraudulently abuses the integrity of our passport system and abuses our trust and our confidence.

The advice that was given to me and to the National Security Committee of the Cabinet yesterday was in substance the same advice given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for foreign affairs. She received a briefing yesterday. It is the second briefing that she has received on this matter; she received a briefing from agencies when the matter first came to public attention.

I was surprised in March when the Leader of the Opposition in response to a newspaper interview, before the completion of the AFP inquiry and before, as I understand it, any briefing he had, made the public comment that he did not believe the government should take any action in this matter. I thought that was unwise. In these matters I think that you are always best off carefully considering, acting on advice, weighting that advice, and weighing up the heavy responsibility and often difficult judgments about national security considerations.

If I was surprised by the Leader of the Opposition, I must say that I was shocked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s response yesterday—absolutely shocked. As I said, yesterday before I got to my feet in the parliament she had received a briefing from relevant security agencies—the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, ASIS and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and the substance of the briefing was exactly the same as the substance of the briefing which the government itself received.

I am asked about risks to these matters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that the government’s decision was wrong because it was based on political considerations, that it was done for United Nations Security Council purposes, that there is no evidence or proof that Israel was responsible for these matters, and that the government’s decision in asking Israel to remove one of its officials from the embassy was an ‘overreaction’.

I choose my words carefully. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes a point about evidence. She is aware as a result of the briefing that she received yesterday that, while the decision was not based on evidence of a kind which could lead to law enforcement action before a criminal court, it was a decision based on a considered judgment shared by relevant Australian security agencies. It was also a decision which, she well knows, included reasons and information which, for reasons of national security, I could not share with the Australian public, but which were shared with her by our security agencies. That is why I was absolutely shocked when she conducted herself in the manner in which she did. The decision and the judgment which the Australian government have made have at all times taken into account the national security considerations of the Commonwealth.

See this speech in context