Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Coonan today relating to the disclosure of an alleged conversation between the Prime Minister and President Bush.

The leak was not only a fundamental breach of a diplomatic convention that reaches back to the time of Bismarck but also an unfortunate part of a pattern of behaviour from a Prime Minister who cannot resist making himself the centre of attention. Like a moth to a flame, he cannot resist the pulling power of celebrity, of being associated with the stars and of feeding his own self-importance and self-satisfaction. Even those on the other side have recognised this objectionable quality in Mr Rudd. Last week, none other than the former Prime Minister Paul Keating said ‘Kevin is all about acclaim’.

On its own, this sort of personal pomposity may not matter but, when it affects Australia’s international relationships, our capacity to deal with our partners around the world and the regard that other countries have for our trustworthiness in dealing with confidential material, it is a matter of enormous public importance. What do we know about this unfortunate breach of convention and diplomatic security? We know that the Prime Minister was having dinner with several people at Kirribilli House, including the editor of the Australian, Mr Chris Mitchell—whose integrity in this matter, I hasten to say, is not at issue. We know that there was a confidential phone call in Mr Rudd’s study with President Bush about a meeting of the G20. We know that only Mr Rudd and a note taker were present. And from that exchange we got an extraordinary and disparaging comment in an article in the Australian that attributed to Mr Bush a question about what the G20 is.

We also know, from a vague clarification by a spokesperson in the Prime Minister’s office, that someone very close to the Prime Minister has falsely and recklessly misrepresented a private conversation between Mr Rudd and President George Bush. This ridiculous assertion has forced senior officials in the United States to issue to the Washington Post a formal statement denying the words attributed to President Bush by someone very close to Mr Rudd. As far as we can establish, this is unprecedented. I cannot find an example in more than 50 years of our alliance with the United States when the White House has been forced to issue such a correction. From the time that this issue first emerged, Mr Rudd has been hiding behind anonymous briefings from his office and has made nonsensical statements. I will quote one of them. On 3 November 2008, he said the following about the source of individual stories:

… there are multiple conversations with multiple people from political offices and elsewhere which leads to the construction of a story.

Go figure that one! It is time that Mr Rudd came out and explained frankly to the public how he or someone close to him got this so very wrong and what he intends to do to resolve it. If he is unable or unwilling to do this, he leaves open the inference that his word, or the word of those close to him—perhaps the hapless note taker—is not to be trusted when it comes to informing the Australian public of the nature of discussions with our major ally. It also leaves open the clear inference that Mr Rudd and those close to him simply cannot be trusted with the important protocols for managing sensitive discussions with one of Australia’s key international partners and indeed our most important international ally.

I also note the silence on the details of this issue from the invisible Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Smith. Does he see himself as having any responsibilities at all in this matter, or is he happy to just stand back and watch those around Mr Rudd trash our good name and good standing in international matters? This is simply no way to conduct diplomacy with our most important ally. The Australian people deserve an explanation directly from the Prime Minister on how and why his office leaked this matter at all. It is simply not good enough to say that the United States have said officially that they did not say it. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a day when we have had a major announcement about the automotive industry in this country, on a day when we have committed billions of dollars to a manufacturing industry which is important to preserve and important across a number of states and all around our country, it is certainly a bit disappointing that the opposition is nitpicking about the details of a phone call and whether or not they were leaked. Today we have had the car industry announcement and the mid-year economic forecast. You would have thought that the opposition might take a bit of interest in how our country is faring, in the mid-year economic forecast and in the global economic situation—which is, as many people have said, a crisis in our financial industry such as we have not faced in the last 100 years. Yet we hear the opposition’s lead speaker talking about whether there was or was not a phone call and what was included in the phone call. It is clear from the instant response from all concerned that the article in the Australian was in error.

Senator Coonan, after decrying the foreign minister’s involvement in this, later asked for a statement directly from the Prime Minister’s office. After saying that she wanted a statement from the foreign minister, she then said that that would not be good enough and that she wanted one from the Prime Minister’s office. We have a very clear statement from the Prime Minister’s office. We have a very clear statement from the office of the President of the United States. US Ambassador McCallum, with his wonderful use of the English language, said in that typical American way: ‘I can simply say that it is clear that the Prime Minister accurately indicated that the article mischaracterised the conversation and mischaracterised the President’s involvement in it and that the White House has confirmed that.’ That seems pretty clear to me. The Prime Minister’s office has said that the article was inaccurate. The White House has said that the article was inaccurate. As far as I am concerned, it is a closed matter. The quote from US Ambassador McCallum is pretty clear to me.

The allegations have been very clearly refuted by both offices involved in the phone call. We understand that the explicit purpose of that phone call was to talk about the role of the G20 in responding to the global financial crisis. The odd politician may have made a couple of comments, but instead of accepting that and moving on, instead of concentrating on what the phone call was about—the G20 and the financial crisis—instead of having the coalition come in here and use the forum of the Senate to address those key issues and give us their thoughts about them as one might have expected, senior people in the opposition have been talking about a trivial matter and trying to beat up something which is not only old news but has been quite clearly and finally refuted by both offices concerned.

It is extraordinary, in any case, that the opposition would want to come in here and talk about rectitude and protocols and sensitive issues with key partners, when their record on matters such as the AWB is not as pristine as they might like. We have serious issues to discuss that affect the long-term health and wellbeing of this country and its inhabitants, but the opposition’s first question today in the Senate was on a trivial matter. This is extraordinary and it shows how unprepared the opposition are for any kind of a role in this parliament.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer by Senator Evans to Senator Coonan’s question during question time today. I would firstly like to advance the proposition that Senator Hurley really is missing the point. The context of Senator Coonan’s question is to with the broader question of the government’s approach to foreign affairs and international relations and their general handling of the manner and approach that the Prime Minister is taking—which has the capacity to cloud relationships and to cause Australians and Australia some significant concern at a time of international crisis. I think that is the very important point which Senator Coonan was advancing.

We are in the middle of a global financial crisis which poses a real and present danger to the continuing development of many countries in the world. The concerns we raised, which Senator Coonan advanced in part in her questioning of the minister, were about the level of attention that the government has actually paid to the threat posed to the developing nations in our region in particular and the potential to set back the progress which has been made.

The World Bank report, which was made available at last weekend’s meeting, has delivered a particularly disturbing assessment of the global financial scene, warning that many developing nations are headed into a new danger zone. That report delivers on the very significant fears across the developed financial markets about a developing world into which so much effort has been put in recent times to look at measures and reforms by which greater economic stability can be achieved. The World Bank report is not alone though; there is also a recent report from the IMF. Let us take as an example the impact of the global financial crisis on Africa, a continent which this government says it intends to take a greater interest in—and we are waiting with interest to see where that will be played out. A senior official of the IMF has recently predicted that Africa will also be very hard hit by the financial turmoil that is being felt throughout the world. The IMF director for the Africa region, Antoinette Sayeh, has said that sub-Saharan Africa is now more vulnerable to the crisis because the food and fuel price shock has already caused higher inflation and rising current account deficits. That leaves them in a particularly vulnerable situation.

Where does that leave the rest of the world in trying to assist in the achievement of, for example, the Millennium Development Goals? I remind the chamber of the Millennium Development Goals, which are in place for achievement by 2015: the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; the achievement of universal primary education; the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women; the reduction of child mortality; improvements in maternal health; the combating of HIV-AIDS, malaria and other chronic diseases; ensuring environmental stability; and a global partnership for development. These are eight absolutely pivotal and important goals for the world, and they are particularly significant in this region. We must contemplate these challenges in the midst of the global financial crisis and at a time when a General Assembly meeting on the Millennium Development Goals was effectively lost in the myriad conversations and discussions about the global financial crisis. This is perhaps understandable but it is, nevertheless, extremely frustrating for those who are trying to support the developing world. This is about not only supporting the developing world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals but also potentially, in the context of the global financial crisis, supporting them to continue to survive.

So what are the concerns? There is concern about the capacity of the developed world to continue to support the developing world as economies contract. As participation in the economic toing and froing of the daily markets has become so much more difficult, where does that leave developing nations? There is concern about the capacity of the developing world to manage its way through this. These are issues that we discussed with AusAID at estimates. They spoke about the work that they are doing within our region. They are speaking with our neighbours—countries which face enormous challenges and are already struggling very significantly to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Even aid agencies in Australia are concerned—and they said as much last week—about whether Australians are going to continue to make donations at the level that they have been making them as they begin to feel the constraints that the global financial crisis brings upon them. So we need to examine this in the context of how seriously the government is advancing those concerns and addressing those matters.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The contribution by the opposition is very interesting. On the one hand, we can see why Senator Coonan should not be a frontbencher. On the other hand, we can see from Senator Payne’s contribution why she should be a frontbencher. I was advised that I would be taking note of answers at the end of question time today. I tried to work out how the opposition would effectively attack the government. There were a number of good questions asked by the opposition. They raised serious issues and sought serious answers—which they got from the government. But what was it they got up and talked about? They talked about a trivial matter that did not occur and has been adequately dealt with by the Australian and United States governments. As Senator Hurley said, there are a number of very significant issues confronting this nation and the world at the moment—one of which has just been well outlined by Senator Payne. But what was the opposition on about? It was some sort of witch hunt about an issue that has been adequately explained by the United States and the Australian governments.

Let me just read out for the record what the US ambassador said on 6 November: ‘The Prime Minister’s office has said that the article was inaccurate, the White House has said the article is inaccurate, and, as far as I am concerned, it is a closed matter.’ However, that is not the case for the opposition, nor for ‘the second floor’ up here. They all think there is some sort of conspiracy involved. Let me talk about conspiracies. Senator Coonan took a pretty interesting line when she attacked the Prime Minister’s character. She used words to the effect that the Prime Minister cannot resist the pulling power of celebrity. We know that in the last few months there has been a propensity for plagiarism to occur within the coalition. This has been highlighted by a number of people who have had to out themselves as being the original authors of articles that were purportedly written by senior opposition frontbenchers.

So where did Senator Coonan get that idea? Of course, it was published yesterday—from an article in yesterday’s Sun-Herald in Sydney by Paul Daley, a right-wing commentator. Mr Daley spent most of the article attacking Kevin Rudd’s character. He said:

Then you realise that, like any geek—

and he is referring to Prime Minister Rudd—

with the good fortune and circumstance to rub shoulders with celebrity, he’s addicted.

Senator Coonan could not even come up with an original thought to attack the Prime Minister. She had to use an article by this fellow in yesterday’s Sun-Herald in Sydney. It is very disappointing for us on this side of the chamber, and for the Australian people, to listen to the trivialising of this great House.

There are a number of crises at the moment. Senator Payne has outlined one that we should be concerned about. We have outlined here today, through Senator Carr, the car industry plan, which will save thousands of jobs and keep people in their homes. Where was the opposition on that? Where was their question on that? Where was their motion to take note of answers on that? They have forgotten it. They have lost the plot. They are not fit to govern, and they have proven that again today by trivialising the take note debate. There are, as I said, great issues at stake at the moment, on which we require cooperation from all parties in both houses of parliament. But what happens? One of the former senior ministers in the previous government gets up and asks about the silly phone call that did not occur and that has been dispatched by all those involved in it. The opposition ought to think about how they have acted. Senator Hurley has already mentioned the scandalous AWB affair. We who were here in the parliament remember the whole children overboard issue and what those opposite did with that. (Time expired).

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary performance this has been on behalf of the government in relation to the taking note debate. The best that they can say about this situation is that it is finished. In response to a question by Senator Coonan, Senator Evans said that the matter is closed. He repeated once again the point that the Prime Minister has supposedly made: that the comment was never made. This is an important issue because it points to the traducing of a fundamental and longstanding principle by which governments have conducted their international relations for several hundred years. And this is not just any relationship that we are talking about. We are not talking about Canberra’s relations with just any country in the world; we are talking about Canberra’s relations with our most important security partner. We are talking about Canberra’s relations with our most important ally anywhere in the world. The Howard government spent 11 years building intimacy, closeness, cooperation, confidence and trust in this relationship. Within less than 12 months in office, we find not just any minister but the Prime Minister involved in a scandal which undermines the importance of that relationship.

After this incident, why would any government anywhere around the world have confidence in having or trying to have a confidential relationship with anybody in Canberra. They would know that, were they to have a conversation with the Prime Minister or, for that matter, any one of his ministers, there would be every likelihood that that would be prepared to leak the contents because it served their own sleazy political purposes—that the Prime Minister or any of his ministers would be prepared to compromise the essence of an important and fundamental relationship just to serve some perceived local need that they may have.

I doubt that there is one person who joins the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a recruit who on walking through the door on day one does not know that one of the fundamental principles of international affairs, one of the key elements of governments having trust in one another, is that diplomatic communications should be private and confidential. There would not be a person in that new group of recruits who walks through the doors of the Department of the Foreign Affairs and Trade, even before they take their seat at a desk in the department, who would not know that this is an elemental part of conducting Australia’s international relations.

Last week Greg Sheridan pointed out in an article in the Australian Literature Review that the Prime Minister came to office with more experience in foreign policy and international relations than any other Prime Minister to date. We can contest the virtue of that particular argument but he is probably right—because we know that this Prime Minister has spent almost half his professional life engaged on Australia’s service in international diplomacy. He knows the protocols. He knows the conventions. He knows the essence of conducting confidential relationships with other governments. He knows the importance of maintaining the integrity of that confidentiality. He also knows that, when that confidentiality is breached and that trust is gone, it is not recovered in a hurry; it is not recovered in an instant. You have to work hard at building these relationships.

We know how hard we have to work at that relationship with Washington. We know that the relationship that has existed between Australia and the United States for over 50 years is unique in terms of intelligence, security and those fundamental things on which governments trust each other. We had that relationship with Washington. We now have a situation where, in the future, those in Washington will be asking themselves whether or not they should be having these conversations with Australia. They will not just be asking questions about whether they should be having those conversations on the telephone; they will be asking questions about whether or not they should be having those conversations with our diplomats abroad and in Canberra. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.