Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer to the first question in question time, concerning the dangerous interception of an Australian Seahawk helicopter by a Chinese J-10 fighter which took place on 4 May. For those not familiar with the circumstances, this Seahawk helicopter, deployed from HMAS Hobart, was patrolling international waterways and airspace in the Yellow Sea, in the enforcement of UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea—an authorised operation. What happened was: a PLA J-10 fighter dropped flares in the pathway of this helicopter, endangering the crew and forcing this crew to take evasive action.

When this incident came to light on 7 May, the Prime Minister was asked about it and he said, on a number of occasions, that Australia had raised the incident or would raise the incident at all levels with the Chinese government and, importantly, that Australia would be making the strongest representations possible. We here in the coalition support this, because endangering the lives of our service personnel is incredibly serious—especially and particularly when they are operating in, enforcing, a UN Security Council sanctioned operation in clear international waters.

When something like this happens, the playbook is pretty clear: you would call in the ambassador of the foreign country; you would expect the Prime Minister to contact his counterpart; you would expect the foreign minister and the defence minister to contact their counterparts. If you want to see an example of this, just look at how the Australian government reacted—quite appropriately, I'd add—to the tragic death of World Central Kitchen aid worker Zomi Frankcom in Israel a few weeks ago. When that incident came to light, Prime Minister Albanese spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, by phone. Penny Wong, the foreign minister, spoke to her Israeli counterpart by phone. The Israeli ambassador in Canberra was called in by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and asked to give an explanation. And the defence minister and the foreign minister wrote a joint letter to their counterparts. In fact, Australia went further and appointed a former chief of the defence staff, Mark Binskin, as a special adviser to investigate it.

Now, though there was no loss of life with this incident involving the Seahawk helicopter, that is really more by good fortune than by design. And, whereas Israel apologised, quite rightly, for the tragic killing of Zomi Frankcom, China has been unapologetic about this incident and has refused to account for its behaviour.

So, in these circumstances, you would think that Australia would be doing what the Prime Minister said—making representations at all levels and not being shy to make the strongest representation possible. But, as we heard in the response to the question from Senator Birmingham, it is not clear which Australian ministers have sought calls with their counterparts and whether any such calls have taken place.

We understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has made contact with China's ambassador, but it doesn't appear that he was called in, and I think we are also led to assume, by the answer given by Senator Wong, that in fact no contact has been made between the Australian Prime Minister and either the Premier or China's President, and no contact has been had between the foreign minister and the defence minister and their counterparts in China. And the question that that poses is: 'Have these calls been sought, or is Australia in fact not making representations at all levels and not taking this incident seriously?' or, 'Have these calls been sought and has China been refusing to take them?' in which case the Australian public deserve to know whether that is in fact the case, because this government has put an inordinate amount of emphasis on 'stabilisation of the relationship with China'.

Stabilisation in and of itself is not a bad thing, but stabilisation must be there to serve the national interest. If our national interests are being subordinated, if our punches are being pulled and if we are hesitant to raise issues at the highest level because of our concern about the balance in the relationship, then all we are doing in this relationship is giving all the leverage to the other side. That is the risk with this sort of approach from this government.

We saw this before, of course, when there was a dangerous incident at sea involving Australian naval divers who were injured by a sonic blast deployed by a nearby Chinese destroyer. Again, these naval divers were in international waters, and, at the time, the Prime Minister failed to raise the issue directly with China's president, despite being in San Francisco at the time. We need clear answers from the government about how they are protecting Australian service personnel in these dangerous times.

Question agreed to.