It was the final Q&A of the year but the panel discussion last night could have continued well beyond the one-hour mark. Indonesia and the issue of spying dominated the conversation. On the day that the education minister Christopher Pyne flagged the Gonski funding arrangements, agreed to under the previous government, were to be reviewed there were other pressing questions that needed to be asked. In this format we’ll have to wait until February to ask them.
The panel members were: Indonesian journalist Yulia Supadmo, human rights barrister Julian Burnside, author Tara Moss, former US diplomat Dr Kurt Campbell, parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister Josh Frydenberg and the shadow treasurer Chris Bowen.
Frydenberg was obviously installed as the government’s representative but I was struck, once again, by the fact that none of the government ministers were present. Given recent events and developments – from the Indonesian spying revelations to the education reforms to the repeal of agreed funding for childcare workers to the ongoing discussion of the carbon tax to the operation sovereign borders – there is plenty of material to which the government could, and frankly should, talk. And yet they remain silent.
At one point Frydenberg used a telling phrase. When discussing the public’s reaction to spying he said “people out there” in such a manner that revealed a dash of disdain and certainly a different attitude. His remark implicitly indicated that us – members of the electorate – are different to people “in there”, presumably people in government. That is a rather significant attitude problem but one that the government’s behaviour to date is largely consistent with. We are merely members of the public with barely a right to know what is going on.
This is a snapshot of what was said:
Is the Indonesian government’s reaction to details Australia had spied on its top officials a chest beating exercise in preparation for the upcoming Indonesian presidential election or is it a start to a long-term decline in Australia-Indonesia relations?
Yulia Supadmo: “The presidential election is happening next year so some candidates are using this to their advantage. But whatever is happening between Australia and Indonesia is of genuine interest to lots of Indonesians. It struck a chord because Indonesia considers Australia as its closest neighbour. People know spying happens but when it surfaces like this they’re shocked.”
Dr Kurt Campbell: “The relationship between Australia and Indonesia has matured over the last decade. Both sides recognise the stakes and neither can risk the valuable relationship. SBY also has his legacy – he doesn’t want to go out with one of Indonesia’s most important relationships in tatters. I am hopeful we’ll recover and in a year the relationship will be better and stronger.”
Josh Frydenberg: “It’s a very difficult situation but the relationship is too important to let flounder. Cool heads will prevail. There is too much at stake.”
Chris Bowen: “I don’t think it’s the former and I hope it’s not the latter. I don’t think this will mark a long-term deterioration. There is an opportunity to make relationship more meaningful and that would be in Australia’s best interests. The key players in this are pro-Australian so their reaction indicates it is serious.”
Why hasn’t the Prime Minister apologised to Indonesia?
Josh Frydenberg: “It’s a very fair question. Tony Abbott is sticking to a long- standing political tradition – of both parties – by not commenting on specific intelligence matters. If you do comment on one that is accurate and then not another, then what? It’s a difficult precedent.”
Geoffrey Robertson QC has pointed out that Australia’s mobile phone-hacking of 10 top Indonesians was not only unacceptable, unethical and downright stupid, but also in breach of Australian law. The Intelligence Services Act provides only 3 legal grounds for such an invasion of privacy by the security services: it has to be in the interests of Australia’s national security, or foreign relations or economic wellbeing. The Indonesian President’s wife’s personal mobile phone was hacked! A disgraceful invasion of her human right to privacy, but even more alarming, it is illegal. When you consider that Scott Morrison is calling Asylum Seekers illegal, when there’s no Australian law he can point to that they’re in breach of, how can we, as mere members of the public, be expected to respect the law when our own Government shamelessly uses it to violate our human rights?
Julian Burnside: It’s a terrific question which I can’t improve on by answering. Dressing this up as spying when it’s phone hacking. The relationship between Australia and Indonesia is like with you mother-in-law – you just have to make it work. The interesting questions is why have we not handled this better?”
Tara Moss: “We need to accept that Indonesia couldn’t have done anything else. Imagine if Tony Abbott’s wife’s phone had been hacked? We would have been outraged and Abbott would have shown his outrage. The question is why couldn’t we handle this more smoothly?”
Josh Frydenberg: “It’s wrong to conflate the issues (of spying and operation sovereign borders). It undermines the common position. As SBY and Tony Abbott have said Indonesia and Australi are both victims of people smuggling. They have as much at stake as we do. We need to work more cooperatively with Indonesia and this makes it harder.”
Is tapping these phones legal?
Josh Frydenberg: “[Not commenting on specific matter] I can say emphatically that Australian intelligence agencies are acting within the law.”
Yulia Supadmo: “If this is about protecting national security then what is so threatening about the President and his wife and his top ministers? That’s what we want to know.”
Dr Kurt Campbell: “Larger questions are being raised about the balance between personal safety and privacy and bigger issues of security. The pendulum may swing back towards personal security and privacy.”
Julian Burnside: “The touchstone for legitimate spying is whether you can reasonably expect to get usable intelligence. The idea that hacking SBY wife’s phone is going to generate usable intelligence strikes me as being utterly implausible and it’s offensive.”
On Tony Abbott’s handling of the spying revelations
Tara Moss: Anyone who has had anything to do with intelligence agencies knows there are secrets. The trick is to get better at handling this. Information leaks aren’t going to change. As a civilian on the panel I’ll say I feel this wasn’t handled by the PM as best as it could have been.”
Josh Frydenberg: “Tony Abbott has only been in office for 10 weeks and he’s been hit by a bus and it’s hard to manoeuvre through. It doesn’t pay for the government to try to score partisan points by attacking the Labor government. He was putting it in context for people out there to understand. Tony Abbott has adopted exactly the right tone and policy.”
Yulia Supadmo: “Indonesians just want an explanation. We know he’s new but nonetheless he is the head of government t right now. He just needed to say ‘Ok chill out, I’ll look into it’. Both leaders have been a bit dramatic. If SBY had called Tony Abbott we may not be here.”
Chris Bowen: “We’ve attempted to give the government the room it needs to get this sorted. We’re not intervening or providing running commentary on what we would do. It’s in the nation’s best interest to do that. It is tricky and it requires diplomacy and support for that diplomacy to occur.”
Given the potential damage was the ABC right to release information about the spying?
Josh Frydenberg: “Mark Scott says this information was in the public interest. My personal view is that it’s not. It’s caused immense damage and I find it hard to justify in terms of the public interest.”
Yulia Supadmo: “It’s not the leaking that resulted in the damage. It’s the spying.”
Julian Burnside: “It’s alarming that the ABC would have this information and suppress it and it’s alarming that any government would punish the ABC for publishing it.”
Chris Bowen: “The ABC is entitled to make its own decisions about public interest. I don’t think Julian Assange or Snowden are heroes to be lauded – I think they’re irresponsible – but the information is out there so media outlets are free to choose what is published. I suspect danger to human lives is the test applied.”
Dr Kurt Campbell: “If someone is at risk of harm by the release of information then that will cause an editor to take stock. But if it’s only the embarrassment of government then it’s tough luck.”
On vilification of asylum seekers
Tara Moss: “I can’t understand how we have become so extreme that we lock up children, that we separate a mother from her newborn who is in neonatal care?
Why do we do this? Why is this a matter of national security? Kids are escaping trauma. And we know this is happening. We can’t pretend it’s not happening. We know what’s happening in Syria. We have troops in Afghanistan. How did we get so extreme that we are greeting people who are seeking help with military boats? Our Immigration minister is the guardian of unaccompanied minors. I put forward idea we need an advocate whose job it is to be the guardian for those kids because at the moment their guardian and their jailer are the same person and that is not right.”
Chris Bowen: “We all now this is a terribly difficult issue and we all want Australia to have as compassionate a response as possible and save lives. On the issue of secrecy it is completely unacceptable. Being immigration minister is not the easiest job in the world but you front up and you explain yourself. You let people know what’s happening. There is absolutely no excuse for not talking to the Australian people.”
Julian Burnside: “I think we’ve become this extreme because since 2001 coalition government have called boat people illegal. Over the past year Scott Morrison has repeatedly said if these people are in the community they should report to police and they should not be near children. All of these are calculated to make us think boat people are dangerous criminals. These are not dangerous criminals. They are women and children running from persecution – once you understand that your response will be different.”
On avoiding people drowning at sea
Julian Burnside: “It’s worth bearing in mind that of course every drowning is tragic but if we push them back so they stay in Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever they’re coming from, and they get killed there they are just as dead as if they’d drowned. They drown because they take a risk trying to escape something worse. And it’s pretty arrogant of us to say we’re concerned about drownings but to say – effectively – just die somewhere more convenient.”