Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why has the government followed the convention of not commenting on the detail of intelligence matters? Are there any risks to not following this well established approach?

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

I thank the member for his question.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs will resume his seat. The question has been asked. It was in order and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has the call to respond to the question.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a very important question which goes right to the heart of matters which go to the protection of our national security interest. Of course it has been a fundamental principle of successive governments that governments do not comment on intelligence matters. They particularly do not comment or speculate on operational matters. This has been the case for many years, for all of the very obvious national security reasons. One does not comment; one does not speculate.

That has been a principle that successive prime ministers and foreign ministers have adhered to. The Prime Minister made a perfect statement of the principle last night. His predecessor, John Howard, was very careful to respect this principle. On 24 February 2004, he said:

I follow the longstanding practice of my predecessors, both Labor and Liberal, of not commenting on intelligence and security matters—a very sound principle.

A very sound principle, indeed. My predecessor Alexander Downer said, at about the same time, 27 February:

… I’ll never walk away from this point—no responsible cabinet minister in our country, present or former, is going to get into the game of talking publicly about the operational side of our intelligence agencies.

So there are very clear risks to Australia’s national security when this fundamental principle, enjoined by successive governments over a long period of time, is breached—a very severe risk.

Yesterday, regrettably we saw a very serious breach of this principle. In an interview on Melbourne Talk Radio at about 10 minutes past eight, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a very clear statement. She said:

It would not be the first time that another country forged passports for a particular operation, and I would include in that Australia.

Later that day, at about 12.30, she sat down with Tim Lester from Fairfax Online and recorded an interview on camera which went to air while we were all here, about 3.05 or 3.10 yesterday afternoon. In that interview she asserted for the second time that Australian intelligence agencies forged passports. For the second time in one day she broke a fundamental principle of neither commenting on nor speculating about operational matters so far as intelligence and security are concerned. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:

It would be naive to think that Israel is the only country in the world that has used forged passports, including Australian passports, for security operations.

TIM LESTER: What, we do?

JULIE BISHOP: Yes.

If the written word is not enough, I urge members to watch the video. This was not a throwaway remark; this was not inadvertence; this was the deliberate and deliberative knowing answer to a journalist, with the knowing smile that she was about to deliver something which was secret, something which was exclusive. I urge all members to watch the video to see the calculation with which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition broke for the second time in one day a fundamental principle.

I have been critical of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition all week for her inadequate and inappropriate response to the fraudulent abuse of Australian passports, for her failure to stand up for the abuse of our sovereignty, for the abuse of our national security and for the abuse of the Australian travelling public. I will not regale you with that. This is qualitatively different. This is twice in one day the deliberate and deliberative breaching of a fundamental principle of national security so far as this country is concerned.

I said earlier this week that she is not a fit and proper person to sit around the National Security Committee of the Cabinet. She is not a fit and proper person to discharge that role. But this is so serious a matter that there is now an obligation on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to state clearly and unequivocally that this is a fundamental principle to which he adheres and which he would carry out as his predecessors have done. There is only one way he can show his adherence to that principle. He must indicate publicly that the conduct of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday in twice disavowing this fundamental principle was completely unacceptable. This is so serious a matter that the Leader of the Opposition must acknowledge that her conduct was unacceptable, that she was in serious breach of a fundamental principle and, as a consequence, she has put our national security interests at risk.