Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:That this House censures the Prime Minister for failing to deny allegations that he or his office leaked information about a high security telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. In particular that:

(1)

this security breach compromises the credibility and integrity of Australia’s diplomatic relationships with key international partners; and

(2)

the Prime Minister has failed, over numerous days, to fully explain to the Australian people the details in relation to the leak and his involvement in it; and

The urgency of this motion is very clear. We have seen a Prime Minister who has been given the opportunity not once, not twice but again and again to deny that he leaked a self-serving account of a conversation between himself and the President of the United States—an account so self-serving that it presented him as a diplomatic encyclopaedia, a font of all knowledge, and the President of the United States, the chief executive of our greatest ally, as a fool. That was the impression he set out to create; and he leaked that to the Australian newspaper, which naturally gave it great importance. Then when he got the Australian newspaper, did the Prime Minister have second thoughts? No, he was pleased with the outcome because it gratified his vanity. It made him feel clever. He thought, ‘That’s good, people will know how smart I am.’ He did not care that he offended the President of the United States. He did not think that around the world prime ministers and presidents, chancellors, treasurers and officials would say, ‘You can’t talk to the Prime Minister of Australia—you can’t have a conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia unless you want to read about it on the front page.’

It was not until the White House, in an absolutely unprecedented step, went on the record in the Washington Post three days later and denied it, and the issue was taken up here. The Prime Minister did not deny that he had leaked the information but sought to deny that he alone had been aware of the existence of the G20. He tried to walk away from the libel of the President of the United States but he never denied that he was responsible for that leak. Let us consider what the Australian article said. This was not just a little bit of gossip that was picked up. It tells us:

KEVIN Rudd was entertaining guests in the loungeroom at Kirribilli House in Sydney when an aide told him George W. Bush was on the telephone.

It was 10.40pm on Friday, October 10.

The article goes on:

The Prime Minister, still clad in the suit he had worn to a business dinner in the city—

he works so hard that he had not had time to change into his black tie; he normally has dinner in formal wear, of course—

was polite and calm. “Have another drink while I take this call,”—

ever the gracious host—

Rudd told his guests as he slipped into the adjacent study.

The reporter wrote:

What followed was an extraordinary exchange in which Rudd—

the great polymath, he who knows all, told—

… the most powerful man in the world that a plan to address the global financial crisis through the G7 group of leading industrialised nations was wrong. Rudd, the former diplomat and Mandarin speaker—

Was he speaking Mandarin to the President of the United States? It is amazing what you discover when you read these articles with great care. He:

… advised Bush that the G7 plan … was out of touch with the reality of the Asia-Pacific century.

The article goes on to say:

Rudd was then stunned to hear Bush say: ‘What’s the G20?’

During the spirited 30-minute discussion that followed, Rudd continually brought Bush back to his contention that political imperatives and economic common sense demanded the involvement of China in any response to the crisis.

…            …            …

Rudd’s view on China was probably better informed than he let on to the US President.

He was modest! It goes on to say:

Just four days earlier, the fluent Mandarin speaker had discussed the global turmoil on the telephone with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are all over this. Every paragraph—every letter—is dripping with his DNA. This is his work. But we have given him every opportunity to deny it, and he has failed to do so. There has never been a more serial or more eloquent plea of guilty heard than the Prime Minister’s on this charge of leaking the conversation with the US President.

That demonstrates yet again that the Prime Minister’s claim to be a proficient diplomat is hollow. This is the Prime Minister who on his first international outing went out of his way to gratuitously offend Japan. This is the Prime Minister who fails to recognise that the people of the United States have an extraordinary respect for their head of state; for the office of the President. Even though a president may be unpopular—and George W Bush’s ratings are far from high—until he steps down from office every American will regard him as their commander in chief and as someone who demands respect.

What the Prime Minister has done in his vanity, in his naivety, in his lack of trust, in his lack of professionalism and in his betrayal of Australia’s reputation is offend not just George W Bush—not just one president—but the people of the United States. President Obama and presidents in years to come will, when being called by a Prime Minister of Australia, be told by somebody from the state department—the same department that called in our ambassador for a dressing down; the same department whose ambassador made a personal protest about this to the Prime Minister—‘Do not forget that you can’t trust those Australians; remember what Kevin Rudd did to George W Bush.’

The Prime Minister has trashed our reputation. Many of the journalists watching us today have discussed this and heard the views of the diplomatic community in this city. Right around Canberra there are diplomats unbelieving that the Prime Minister could do this and repeating this comment: ‘You can’t say anything to this man unless you want to read about it the press.’

Confidence is a fragile thing. We have seen in the financial world how readily it has been shattered and how hard it is to restore. We have seen confidence undermined in the financial markets around the world. Just as with the world of finance, so with the world of politics and diplomacy. Nobody will speak to the Prime Minister of Australia now unless they want to read about it in the press. He has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to keep confidential a conversation with the most powerful world leader. Every other head of government—such as the Prime Minister of England, the President of France and the Prime Minister of Italy—will say, ‘If he is going to peddle a self-serving story about a conversation with the President of the United States to denigrate the President’s reputation and inflate his own sense of self-importance then what will he do to me?’ Around the world, Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, is marked ‘not to be trusted’. This has been a shocking betrayal of our nation’s reputation.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. The Prime Minister has failed the fundamental test of national leadership. The Prime Minister has failed the fundamental standards expected of a Prime Minister of this country. The Prime Minister, by his repeated failure to deny it, has effectively admitted that he or his office leaked a false version of a confidential telephone conversation with the President of the United States of America to the Australian media. This has much broader implications than just a breach of trust and a breach of faith with the President of the United States. This has ramifications around the world. This conversation has been reported in newspapers across the globe: in Beijing, in the United Kingdom, across the United States, in Asia and in Europe. The false account of a confidential conversation between the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States has been news around the world.

What does this say about the Prime Minister of Australia and the office of the Prime Minister of Australia? What does this say to world leaders? For as long as the Prime Minister remains in this office, what does it say to world leaders about their ability to have a conversation with the Prime Minister about matters of confidence? Can they trust him not to give a version of a confidential conversation to the Australian media—and not only a confidential version but a false version of the conversation? This has implications for Australia in terms of diplomatic circles around the world.

What we do know is that there was a dinner at Kirribilli on 10 October. We know that there was a dinner and a prescheduled call between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. What we do not know is who was listening to that telephone conversation, who was there. It was on loud speaker, so we are now told. Who was taking notes? Who was listening? Who else was at dinner at Kirribilli on that evening that could have possibly overheard a telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States? If we are to believe the Prime Minister and a staffer were present for the conversation and only they heard the conversation, then it narrows the field, does it not, to who could have told the Australian newspaper a false account of the telephone conversation?

After 10 October we heard nothing until an article that appeared in the Weekend Australian on 25 October. As the Leader of the Opposition has explained in excruciating detail, this version of the events was the Prime Minister big-noting himself. This was the Prime Minister saying that he had to inform the leader of the free world about what the G20 was; that he, the Prime Minister, was the only one in this conversation who knew what the G20 was, and that the President, who had, incidentally, just met with the G20, said to the Prime Minister, ‘What’s the G20?’ This is a version of the events that denigrated the President of the United States to build up the reputation, in the eyes of the media, of the Prime Minister of Australia. We can just imagine how the Prime Minister would have gone back into the dining room and big-noted himself—he has just had George on the phone and he had to tell George what the G20 was.

This version of the story appeared on Saturday, 25 October on the front page of the Weekend Australian. The Prime Minister can hardly say that he was not briefed on this one. It was on the front page of the Weekend Australian. Was there a public retraction and apology by the Prime Minister on the Saturday evening? No. Was there a public retraction and apology on the Sunday? No. Was there a public retraction and apology on the Monday? No. It was not until The Washington Post carried the unprecedented rejection by the White House of the Prime Minister’s version of this telephone conversation that we heard anything from the Prime Minister, and he was embarrassed into having to admit that the version of events that ended up on the front page of the Weekend Australian was not in fact true, but not once has the Prime Minister denied—having been given every opportunity yesterday in question time, having been given three opportunities in question time today—that he or his office were the source of this embarrassing diplomatic gaffe that will embarrass the Australian nation. (Time expired)

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

Mr Speaker—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will resume his seat.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Robb interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the call.

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

Mr Speaker, I am responding to a suspension. I did not hear or see the Leader of the Opposition move a censure motion.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t be a coward!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for North Sydney then left the chamber.

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

I saw and heard him move a suspension, and I am responding to the suspension. What a surprise that we might have a distraction to cover up for the plagiarism of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—not the bishop of plagiarism, the queen of plagiarism.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you have just suspended for one hour two members of the opposition. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it would assist the management of the House if you asked the Prime Minister to respond to this motion. It looks gutless—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat.

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

I am responding to the suspension, and what a surprise that we have a stunt from the Leader of the Opposition, covering up for the plagiarism of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the queen of plagiarism. I assume that when the Leader of the Opposition—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, this is a suspension motion. If the minister is responding in place of the Prime Minister he should strictly deal with the suspension motion. He should show why standing orders—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Warringah will resume his seat. I will say two things to the point of order. I will use the same latitude that I allowed the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in their approach to this motion, but it would assist if members were to sit quietly and listen to the Minister for Foreign Affairs so that I can understand and be able to appreciate the points that he is making. I cannot hear him.

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

I assume that, when the Leader of the Opposition read the Weekend Australian on Saturday, 25 October, the reason it was not raised at all by the Liberal Party until 29 or 30 October, and not raised by him until after that, was that he assumed, as did I when I read the same paper, that the central tenet of the report could not possibly be correct, that the central tenet of the report—which was that the President of the United States did not know about the G20—could not possibly be correct. The whole conversation was about the G20. So I assumed the Leader of the Opposition’s failure to raise the matter publicly for days or a week or more after the publication of the report reflected the fact that, like me, he thought there was nothing in it.

What have we seen since then to bring about the high dudgeon of the opposition in question time today? We have seen the White House say, ‘The central tenet of the article is incorrect.’ We have seen the Prime Minister’s office say, ‘The central tenet of the article is incorrect.’ We have seen the Prime Minister himself say, ‘The central tenet of the article is incorrect.’ We have seen the United States ambassador say: ‘These things happen from time to time. We’ve moved on from this. It’s not a problem.’

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just say you think the Australian lied!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson!

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just say you think the Australian lied!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson is warned!

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

And it is not a problem for the Australian government’s dealings with the current Bush administration and it is certainly not a problem for dealing with the new Obama-elect administration.

The argument of the Leader of the Opposition is that this has done damage to Australia’s standing in public relations—that no leader would contact Australia with confidence. Last time I looked, President-elect Obama had a telephone conversation with the Prime Minister as one of his first 10 conversations with world leaders. Let us go to the substance of this. There are two substantive issues—firstly, whether as a matter of foreign or public policy utilising the G20 as the international financial institution to deal with this international crisis was the correct thing to do or not the correct thing to do. We are very pleased that President Bush, President Barroso and President Sarkozy effectively chose the G20. Do you know why? That was due to Australia’s very strong argument, mounted by the Prime Minister when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly. We are very pleased that that was chosen and made no secret of the fact that the Prime Minister, I as Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and the Treasurer spoke respectively to various colleagues throughout the world making precisely that point. Do you know why? It was in Australia’s national interest to make that point.

Secondly, the assertion that this erroneous report, which the White House says is wrong, the Prime Minister says is wrong, the Prime Minister’s office says is wrong and the US ambassador says is wrong and is of no consequence, has somehow damaged the framework of our relationship with the Bush administration. Let me make a couple of central points. The relationship between a government and an administration is one thing. That is not as high or as important as the relationship between nation-state and nation-state under the alliance between Australia and the United States and our very strong policy position, articulated from day one. We deal with whatever administration the United States people throw up. We do not choose. We do not choose McCain; we do not choose Obama. We deal with what the democratic process in the United States throws up. That is also unambiguously in our national interest. We have had a very good positive, constructive working relationship with the Bush administration, and that will continue until 20 January.

On the central issue in respect of which we disagreed with the Bush administration in the run-up to the election and on which we were voted in by the Australian people with support for this policy position—withdrawal of our troops from Iraq—we satisfied that commitment in constructive, positive engagement with the United States and we withdrew our troops from Iraq in a very successful and positive manner, conducted professionally and cooperatively with the United States administration. So the second tenet of the assertion, that this has somehow damaged our relationship with the Bush administration, is fallacious.

Let’s now come to what has damaged the standing of Australia in the United States and put at risk the relationship between Australia and the United States. That is the Liberal Party saying that President-elect Obama was a terrorist. That is what happened. When you were a minister in the previous government, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a minister in the previous government, when the former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, was Minister for Defence in the previous government and when the former Treasurer was a minister in the previous government, the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said that if President-elect Obama were elected as President of the United States that would be a red-letter day for terrorists. The Liberal Party actively supported the election of McCain and derogated and abused the President-elect. The Liberal Party’s assertion was that to elect Obama was to elect—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate your earlier statement that you would allow some latitude in this, but really he is ranging very widely—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know he has been warned, but I am happy to allow the minister to have his last minute in this debate.

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

This is what John Howard said:

If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.

That is what the former Prime Minister said, and the then defence minister, the former Leader of the Opposition, went out the next day and supported it—and not you as a minister, nor you as a minister nor anyone else as a minister disassociated themselves from those remarks. That was the Liberal Party’s position—that President-elect Obama was a candidate for the terrorists. Your senior senator, Senator Fifield, said on Sky in October:

I do think it’s a very serious matter when you have a presidential candidate who thinks it’s okay to hang around with people who supported and sponsored murder and terrorist bombings. I think that’s a very legitimate point.

I did not see you debunking or rebuking him.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will refer his remarks through the chair.

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

The fact that Senator McCain was the Liberal Party candidate was shown on their website. Here is a printout of the Liberal Party of Australia website the day before the election, with a link to the McCain campaign. On the day President-elect Obama was elected, it disappeared. Talk about damage to our standing! The government—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, you coward.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Warringah will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a), which is very generous on my part.