Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how Australia is working with other nations to respond to developments on the Korean Peninsula? Why is working with other nations on peace and security matters essential to Australia’s national security interests?

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

The member asked me about developments on the Korean Peninsula and the importance of that to peace and security and our national security interests and the need and importance for us to be working with other countries in that respect. Australia has been working on peace and security issues on the Korean Peninsula for 60 years. We were, of course, under a United Nations flag in the original hostilities on the Korean Peninsula, costing us 340 Australian personnel. More recently, we have been strongly supportive of United Nations sanctions so far as North Korea’s nuclear program is concerned and have worked closely with and supported members of the so-called ‘six-party talks’. Most recently—and this is the development to which the member’s question refers—we have been very closely involved in developments since the sinking of the South Korean corvette, the Cheonan. We made our expert officers available to work with the Republic of Korea and with officers from the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Canada to do an exhaustive scientific investigation of the causes of the sinking, which helped people come to the independent conclusion that the sinking was caused by actions of North Korea.

Since the publication of that report, we have been working very closely with our friends and neighbours in this respect, indicating to the Republic of Korea that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them. The Prime Minister has spoken recently to President Lee as I have in recent weeks to Foreign Minister Yu.

The Minister for Defence and I were in Japan for two-plus-two defence talks with our Japanese colleagues and had extensive consultations about this matter. We are now working very closely with United Nations Security Council members, both permanent and temporary, to see that there is an appropriate international community condemnation of this action by North Korea, which was belligerent, destabilising, contrary to international law and a violation of the armistice agreement.

Peace and security in the Korean Peninsula and in North Asia are very important to Australia. It is more than just the substantial, large and very important trading partners we have in North Asia—Japan, China and the Republic of Korea itself where engagement has been enhanced in the last couple of years not just economically but also on security, strategic and defence cooperation. We have admired the Republic of Korea’s restraint in this matter in the face of such belligerent, unlawful actions by North Korea, the DPRK.

The member asked me why, in these difficult international peace and security matters which have national security implications for Australia, it is important to work with other countries. It certainly is very important in these matters to be thoughtful and calm. It is certainly very important to carefully consider the advice one might receive from our national security agencies and not to discount that advice or throw it out the door for baseless reasons. It is very important to act in accordance with the established norms and conventions. There are ways in which we conduct ourselves while we are engaged in these difficult national security issues. It is important to understand that, when you are dealing in discussions with other parties, when you are dealing in discussions on national security issues, to keep a confidence. It is important to understand that many of these national security issues are highly confidential and it is important, therefore, to keep a confidence.

It is also important when you are engaged in discussions and negotiations with other interested parties that other parties know and understand that what you say is what you mean, and that you do not put yourself in the position when you say to other parties with whom you are having discussions, ‘You should only have confidence or rely upon the things that I write down, not the things that I say.’ You have to make sure that when you are dealing with these very sensitive national security matters that you are consistent in what you say and that you do not, for example, say something twice on the same day and then the same night say to others that it meant exactly the opposite. There are very important ways in which one needs to conduct—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which goes to relevance. The House was listening to this answer with a degree of quiet on the basis that this was a serious answer from the foreign minister about a matter of national importance to Australia. For the last 30 to 45 seconds the foreign minister has been repeating himself irrelevantly, and it is not about the question he was asked. I ask you either to bring him back to the question which we thought was serious or to ask him to sit down.

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

I think partially in his submission to me the member for Menzies acknowledged that the minister was being relevant to the question and that what was in dispute was the degree to which debate was being used. I think I have made it clear to the House my concern that we do not apply the same rules to answers as we do to questions about debate. The minister is responding to the question. The minister has the call.

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

I was outlining to the House how one needs to conduct oneself in these sensitive national security matters in one’s dealings with other nations. When that occurs, the people of Australia and the international community have to have confidence in the government of the day which is transacting those affairs. The events that we have seen this week from the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition show that there would be no confidence and no trust if they were given that onerous task. They would be a risk and there would be no confidence and no trust. Their conduct on these matters would be nothing but full of risk so far as our national security interests are concerned. There has been deafening silence from the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on these matters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is back here, at 20 to four. We are happy to make the time available to her to explain herself.