Topics: Australia-US relationship; Ambassador Rudd; Labor changes UN position;
04:10PM AEDT
14 November 2024
Greg Jennett: So today we’ll welcome Simon Birmingham back to the program. He joins us from our Sydney studios. Simon, good to have you back on the program.
Simon Birmingham: Hello, Greg. Great to be with you.
Greg Jennett: I don’t need to requote to you what you said yesterday. You heard that. But today Peter Dutton is talking about this appointment being a mess of the Prime Minister’s making, contemplating in a rhetorical way, the sacking of Penny Wong to. Is the Coalition now trying to foment domestic political strife around Kevin Rudd’s tenure in Washington?
Simon Birmingham: No, Greg, we’re responding to the questions put to us. And indeed, in that same speech at that same National Press Club event yesterday, I also made the point that this was a risk Anthony Albanese chose to take. He chose to appoint Kevin Rudd, even though he had said that he wasn’t going to do so. He backflipped on that and appointed Kevin Rudd. He did so when Donald Trump was already a declared candidate for the US presidency and the tweets and the comments that are part of this focus, were actually in quite close proximity within 12 months of that appointment decision by Anthony Albanese being made. So, he obviously thought it was appropriate to take the risk. As I said yesterday, we’ve wished Kevin well. Peter Dutton and I have both publicly praised Kevin Rudd’s work. When it’s come to things such as the AUKUS breakthroughs around defence, export sharing and openness between the US and Australia, and the congressional achievements he’s had there, which have indeed been with both Democrats and Republicans. And that gives certain hope. But obviously there’s intense focus at present. It hasn’t just been focused in Australia, and some of it is perhaps driven by the actions that were taken within the 24 hours after President Trump’s election victory around the deleting of those tweets.
Greg Jennett: Well, can we talk about that? Because judgement is everything in these positions. Are you critical of Kevin Rudd for leaving it that late before scrubbing his social media critique? Do you say that is an exhibition of poor judgement by the ambassador?
Simon Birmingham: Greg, I think there’s perhaps a couple of factors there. Should it have been done earlier, at the time of his appointment. That certainly would have avoided some of the focus happening now or having not done it, should it have been done at all, given the action did elevate attention around it.
Greg Jennett: So what’s your view on that?
Simon Birmingham: Well, look, I think in any which way. The problem is it has elevated attention at this point in time. And now Donald Trump I’m sure, has got bigger and more important things on his mind right now. So whatever role Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong had in terms of working with Kevin Rudd around that strategy, it was clearly not a great strategy. But we shouldn’t overstate it because Donald Trump is putting an administration together. Putting his plans together to resume the presidency and take on a second term. And I’m sure he’s got bigger things on his plate than Kevin Rudd’s tweets. The test, though, and the assessment that Anthony Albanese and Kevin Rudd need to make will be over the coming weeks and months, whether they can move beyond this and ensure that Australia’s interests are put first. And that’s the only thing that matters here. It’s not about the man, it’s about the issues. And it is Australia’s advancement of the issues that is all that matters.
Greg Jennett: But personnel do become important here. And since you spoke at the Press Club yesterday, we now have confirmed by the Trump transition team that Dan Scavino, he of the hourglass meme, is going to be deputy chief of staff in the White House come January. That is a significant gatekeeper role into the White House, obviously. Does Kevin Rudd need to reassess the viability of his position if he can’t get past Dan Scavino?
Simon Birmingham: Greg, as I’ve said consistently for months now since first being asked these questions. It is for Anthony Albanese and Kevin Rudd to assess whether he can do the job effectively for Australia. Only they know what calls are being answered, what access he is having and what influence he is making. Now, if the calls aren’t being answered, if the access isn’t being had and the influence isn’t being achieved, well then there’s a problem clearly that the government needs to address.
Greg Jennett: Right, and do you think that would become apparent or is likely to become apparent fairly quickly before inauguration? Maybe, let’s say before this year is out?
Simon Birmingham: Well, that that, of course, is something that the government will have to test as to what contacts they are seeking. My view stated publicly is that Prime Minister Albanese should be taking the initiative of being in South America at present. And to add on to this trip. A trip north to Florida and to seek an early meeting with President Trump. The two of them haven’t met as yet, and so the opportunity for them to. Meet other world leaders, such as the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. He took the initiative when he was in the US. Around the same time as Anthony Albanese back in September to go and meet then candidate Trump. Well, candidate Trump is now president elect Trump and it would be a really powerful step for Anthony Albanese to actually take that initiative and seek that meeting at this time.
Greg Jennett: We have no indication that that is going to happen, but who knows? Things are fluid in that part of the world at the moment. The Five Eyes intelligence relationship is very important. Simon Birmingham to Australia. We have an appointment in Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence, a woman who in the past has suggested that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might have been avoided if NATO and the Biden administration had, quote “recognised Russia’s legitimate security concerns about Ukraine.” Are Tulsi Gabbard’s views on that compatible with Australia’s foreign policy position on Russia and Ukraine?
Simon Birmingham: Greg, that’s obviously not consistent with views that I’ve stated, nor I think that that I the previous coalition governments or or the current Labor government have stated. But clearly, the decision for who is taking on senior posts within a Trump administration is one firstly for the president to nominate, and then we’re subject to confirmation proceedings for the US Senate to go through those steps and processes. And ultimately, as with the president and every other member of his administration, the Australian government of the day will have to work with them, notwithstanding policy differences. You know, my stated positions in relation to free trade and tariffs are different to the policies that the Trump administration had in its first incarnation. But again, Australia was able, under the Coalition government, to get exemptions from that by arguing a strong national interest case for Australia and the benefits for the United States that’s what we need to do at every level.
Greg Jennett: Yeah, but these differences aren’t all possible to be reconciled, are they? I mean, they might be on trade tariffs, but what if they were not on Russia? Ukraine? I mean, you’re saying that Tulsi Gabbard’s views are not compatible at all with Australian foreign policy. What should Australia do about that?
Simon Birmingham: Well, Greg, that’s not precisely what I said. I said that one statement you put is not what I’ve expressed, nor Australian governments. In terms of what the Australian government of the day should do is, of course, seek to work in our national interest as strongly as possible with all members of the US administration, and that doesn’t mean that we will always agree. Of course, there will be points of disagreement from time to time, and it’s how we then work through those points of disagreement that matters.
Greg Jennett: All right. Can I take you to a report this afternoon in The Australian newspaper by Ben Packham regarding a committee vote at the UN on a resolution recognising permanent sovereignty of Palestinians in occupied territories. There are other elements to it, but that is the essence of it. Australia has made a shift in its voting pattern there, from abstentions to voting in favour. That puts it in line with the vast majority, 159 states in favour. Do you support this new voting position on that?
Simon Birmingham: Greg, in essence, no. We’re concerned that this is yet another shift in position by the Albanese Government, who prior to the last election, reassured Australia’s Jewish community and other voters that there was no difference between the major parties when it came to their positions on Israel, Palestine and those Middle East questions. And yet, since then, again and again and again, the Labor government has shown that they are dramatically changing those positions, that they’ve significantly changed it in relation to the pathway to a two-state solution. They’ve changed in relation to a number of UN votes. And in this instance, they have changed it at a time where the United States continues to vote no. And indeed, the US ambassador or spokesperson who, considered and spoke on that motion, it was very clear about the fact that, again, this is a case of a biased motion when you take the totality of it. And another instance of not only that bias, but that excessive focus that seems to occur in the UN towards matters around Israel.
Greg Jennett: Yeah, we might get further analysis on that in the days ahead. And perhaps an explanation from the government too. Simon Birmingham, we thank you once again. We’ll leave it there.
[ENDS]