Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How has the government responded to the fraudulent use of Australian passports? Are there any ongoing risks to the integrity of Australia’s passport system and to Australia’s national security interests?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I thank the member for his question. The question was about the fraudulent use of Australian passports—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I would ask that the member withdraw that comment.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not a comment; it was a question.

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

The Leader of the House will know that that was outside the standing orders because it was an interjection. I have to decide whether it was unparliamentary. It was not helpful, but I will not seek its withdrawal. Certainly, the particular member involved and other members should learn that the tolerance that is given to them and that can be disguised as robustness can cause this chamber to disintegrate very quickly. Having had a concern raised with me about the comment, I will certainly be listening very carefully to the continuing actions by way of interjection that do not assist the chamber.

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

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! Order!

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

She is now complaining that I am asserting that she breached the confidentiality of the briefing. I am not saying that. In the face of a briefing, you went out and said that the reasons the government has made this decision are, firstly, for political considerations and, secondly, for United Nations Security Council considerations. Thirdly, you said it was an overreaction. Let me make this point to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: when she received the briefing from the national security agencies, as did the government, none of those national security agencies had in their minds when they were carefully weighting their advice to the government what she would describe as ‘political considerations’ or the United Nations Security Council.

They had in their minds, as did the government, the integrity of our passport system, the protection of our national security interest, and what you have done in your response yesterday and today has shown that you are not fit to occupy a position of trust in the national security environment.

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

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

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

That is what she has shown.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs will resume his seat and he will continue when the House is quiet. The Minister for Foreign Affairs may continue.

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

I have also seen the assertion that somehow this was the first occasion in which an Australian government has asked the Israeli embassy to remove an officer. This is not true.

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

I didn’t say that.

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

I am not saying that you said it. I have seen the assertion. The assertion was made to me on television. In 2004 when the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were cabinet ministers, the previous government on the advice of the national security agencies asked the Israeli embassy to remove an officer for national security reasons of which, for example, the member for Berowra is well aware. On that occasion there was no assertion from anyone that somehow this was done for political considerations or other motivations.

Historically in this place people have understood the framework of national security considerations within which we work. I do not like to see national security considerations become a political football, but that is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has done. That is not the context in which the Labor Party when in opposition responded when for national security considerations on the basis of national security agency advice the previous government asked the Israeli embassy to remove an officer. We did not turn that into a political football—and the examples are comparable. When governments seriously, sensibly, carefully make national security considerations they do so after carefully weighing up the advice from the national security agencies and that is what we did.

I am asked about risks. There is a substantial and significant risk to the national security interests of the Commonwealth. There is a substantial and significant risk to the integrity of our passport system. If what we have seen and if what we have considered is not enough for the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to regard appropriate action being taken, action more than an expression of concern, what is required in their view? What do we need to see to destroy the integrity of our passport system? What do we need to see to destroy our national security interest? What do we need to see to have an attack upon our sovereignty before they would act? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has shown by her response to this matter that she is not fit to occupy a position sitting around the National Security Committee of the Cabinet.