Sky News The Nation with Helen Dalley

Subjects: WikiLeaks; resignation of Mike Taylor; minority Government.

Transcript, E&OE

9 December 2010

DALLEY: Hello and welcome to The Nation. Well, this week the fall out from the massive amount of documents — secret documents — from the US Government, published by WikiLeaks has finally hit Australia with private conversations, behind the scenes, machinations, and scathing assessments by and of senior Australian ministers revealed at the same time as the founder of WikiLeaks, Australian Julian Assange, was thrown into jail in London on sexual assault charges.

What a week. What a story. And here to unthread many of the issues and wrestle with them are my guests on the program this week. And joining me is Craig Emerson, Trade Minister, John Della Bosca, former New South Wales minister, Miranda Devine, Daily Telegraph columnist, and Sophie Mirabella Shadow Innovation and Industry Minister.

Welcome.

Craig Emerson, now this story couldn't get much juicier. But then on the front pages of the newspaper today, does it make you feel uneasy that your senior colleague, Mark Arbib, has been giving inside information on the workings of the Government and the ALP to the Americans?

EMERSON: I can't imagine that Mark Arbib would be the only person in politics who had conversations with members of the American Embassy about politics. I think it's pretty unremarkable actually.

DALLEY: They seem to like him very much. That probably means they like the quality and calibre of his information. Does it worry you?

EMERSON: Maybe they think he's a charismatic individual and a very friendly guy who plays a bit of soccer, which he does. And plays a bit of touch footie, which he does. He's quite good at soccer.

I mean, I think that while it makes for good media material it's pretty unremarkable. And I'd be astonished if there was an embassy around the world that didn't seek to engage into — in discussions with members of political parties, asking them what's happening in their party and what's happening between the parties.

In fact, I think most embassies have a political consul and that would be the job of such a person. And if they weren't doing that job they'd probably get sent home.

DALLEY: All right, but now that you look back on this with this knowledge, sitting there in caucus meetings, sitting there at very high level meetings with him, do you think ‘oh maybe he was spying?'

EMERSON: No I think that's an absurd proposition that he's spying. I mean I've been involved, not heavily, in the Australia-American leadership dialogue. A big function down in Melbourne. I'm sure at some point during those discussions, over a weekend, I had a chat to American officials. That's what it's all about. Is this therefore spying that you're talking to American officials? We are actually allies you know…

DALLEY: All right.

EMERSON: …and I don't think it's of any great moment one way or the other, other than it's very good media feedstock, and so that's fine for the media.

DALLEY: All right. What about the — one of the specific pieces of information that he may have fed to the Americans that Kevin Rudd — his leadership was under threat in October 2009. Now as far as we knew from June this year 2010, October 2009 is a long way before you or any of the Australian public knew that Kevin Rudd might be for the door.

EMERSON: Ah, well I don't think it actually did convey that. But I want to be quite careful in not getting into commenting on what is asserted in a cable to be a conversation involving a member of the ministry. Because that just validates it and says all of that happened. But I will say that it did not — that is the media reports — did not indicate anything about a leadership change back in, I think you said 2009. And you know, I think, I just better leave it there because I don't think that's what the newspaper reportings said today at all.

DALLEY: Sophie Mirabella are you thoroughly enjoying this, seeing the Government's discomfort?

MIRABELLA: Well what is satisfying is for the true dysfunction of the Labor Party to be laid out in the open for everyone to see. Of course, Craig, there's a difference between talking to diplomats and actually bitching about the internal workings of your own Prime Minister's office. I speak to US diplomats, I speak to all sorts of other diplomats…

DALLEY: Oh, so we're going to see your name pop up in cables?

MIRABELLA: But…but…

EMERSON: A spy — a spy at WikiLeaks?

MIRABELLA: But the difference is — the difference is, unlike Mark Arbib I'm not going to go and bitch about my leader's office and how they operate. I'm not going to big-note myself and contradict my party's policy, because first and foremost — first and foremost — I'm Australian.

Yes, the US is a very important and very close ally. But Mark Arbib was a bloke who's used to getting his own way. He's used to throwing around his influence and his power, and he wanted to big-note himself with the Americans. That's exactly what he did in talking about really internal matters within the Labor Party and the Prime Minister's Office in contradicting policy as espoused by Kim Beazley. That's exactly what he was doing, and of course he's embarrassed.

Of course the Labor Party is embarrassed. And it's very revealing because we now know that when they said there was no leadership challenge they were doing the numbers behind the scenes.

EMERSON: That's not true. That's not what the cable said.

MIRABELLA: When they said they were all united — I didn't interrupt you Craig.

EMERSON: Well tell the truth.

MIRABELLA: Just let me — let me have — well you've refused to canvas these issues because you're too embarrassed lest you actually…

EMERSON: You're not telling the truth.

MIRABELLA: Craig…

EMERSON: I think that your viewers shouldn't listen to you not telling the truth.

MIRABELLA: Craig, don't verbal me. Have some manners for goodness sake. And if you're going to be too gutless to talk about some of this

information, the cables, a lot of Australians — and I for one — are interested in talking about them.

DALLEY: So, Sophie Mirabella, what do you think is the main thing that the cable contains that Mark Arbib did wrong?

MIRABELLA: I think the main thing that was wrong was that it shows that the Government is utterly lost and there are forces within it ripping each other apart. That it is a dysfunctional government. Nothing has changed since the time of those discussions that the cables refer to, and in fact it's just gotten worse. That is…

DALLEY: The cables aren't verbatim conversations…

MIRABELLA: No.

DALLEY: …though are they?

MIRABELLA: No.

DALLEY: They're the US diplomats — their interpretations of conversations.

MIRABELLA: And look it's a — a lot of the things released this week in the media are issues that were canvassed. Many of us said Kevin Rudd was a control freak. Many people said here's the guy who's supposed to be an expert on foreign affairs, yet he seems in very quick succession to be insulting every single other nation that he comes into contact with.

DALLEY: So you're saying there's nothing new in these cables?

MIRABELLA: Well there is some new information, but what is interesting is that the Labor Party protested at the time when some media outlets talked about these issues. Certainly when the Coalition canvassed these issues they tried to gloss over them, just like Craig is now trying to…

DALLEY: All right.

MIRABELLA: …close me down. But we now know that there's another source…

EMERSON: You've been going for about four minutes straight.

DALLEY: Yes you have, you've had a good say. John Della Bosca, what's your view? Kevin Rudd certainly has really come under fire this week. Humiliating for him or more humiliating for the United States Government?

DELLA BOSCA: Well I think the whole thing's a humiliation for the United Stats Government. That's regrettable. Clearly that's the problem, I mean how did these documents get to WikiLeaks? Certainly there's a

debate about whether or not they should be publishing them, but they've got them through US — illegitimately through US channels.

So that's an embarrassment to the US Government, and I think that's a problem for the whole western world, the world at large. It doesn't come as any surprise to me that lots of people are interlocutors for the US officials in Australia. That's what they call them. I wouldn't be surprised if everybody sitting at this table has been quoted in some form or another, either directly or indirectly by American officials because America is the superpower.

There is no other super power anymore since the Cold War ended. And their job literally is to collect enormous amounts of information about the politics and the economy of their allies and their potential threats. So it doesn't come as any surprise to me that any number of Members of Parliament are subject to those — those documents so I think this…

DALLEY: All right so you think…

DELLA BOSCA: …has been damaging for Mark Arbib to a certain extent, it's been damaging for the Government. But it's something that's not fatal. I don't think there's anything big that's been done wrong by anybody.

DALLEY: All right, do you think Mark Arbib has compromised his Australian-ness? That that should come first as a Minister of the Crown of this country?

DELLA BOSCA: Well that's the allegation, but all these things in large measure are simply off the record — presumably off the record comments which have now gone on the record courtesy of the leak.

Sophie made the point ‘well these were things about the dysfunction of the Labor Party' or something about Kevin Rudd's office. Look I'm sure there would be some Liberal Party MPs, not necessarily Sophie, who 12 months ago might have been speculating with American officials that Tony Abbott had no chance of winning the election and would soon be replaced.

MIRABELLA: … that position…

DALLEY: Well they might be next week's headlines.

DELLA BOSCA: Well that's right and I think that's the kind of thing that happens. People speculate and they're wrong, sometimes they speculate and they're right.

DALLEY: Miranda Devine, what's your view about particularly the revelations that we've had about Mark Arbib and Kevin Rudd?

DEVINE: Look, I think at worst it's shown that Mark Arbib is — has been indiscrete. But none of the information that's come out is anything

that journalists haven't already written. You know, The Australian newspaper today had a whole full page just showing what they reported at the time and what these WikiLeaks are showing. So — and since…

EMERSON: ‘Aussie-leaks'.

DEVINE: Aussie-leaks.

DALLEY: So — so sorry, how is it — how is it indiscrete then? Shouldn't Australian senior Ministers have good open dialogue with American — their American counterparts?

DEVINE: Well, I think canvassing internal problems, leadership problems with Kevin Rudd's office, I think that is — seems to be indiscreet and also disloyal, you know, with a foreign power. Even if it's a nice diplomat that you're having a drink with.

Not that these things weren't already bubbling along in newspaper columns.

DALLEY: Do you think he was kow towing to the Americans too much?

DEVINE: I don't — I don't see him as being a kow tower. I mean, he's part of this Australian-American leadership dialogue and they go away together. And these people, there's a lot of frank discussion between them, and I think the reason that thing works and they have very strong relationships — are forged through that dialogue, is because there's frank discussion. But I don't really see how Mark Arbib served himself well by being disloyal, I guess, to his then leader. But I mean, he's had a track record of disloyalty to lots of leaders, so…

DALLEY: Craig Emerson, today, and the language has changed quite a bit and Kevin Rudd himself began blaming the United States rather than, you know, and it shifted from blaming perhaps WikiLeaks although Kevin Rudd didn't do that, but the United States — Malcolm Turnbull has written that the security breach just seems unbelievable, to paraphrase him. What is going on with this situation and how can you ever, as a government now, expect to have a very open and frank dialogue if you think, ‘well, you know, it's going to end leaked over the internet at some future point?'

EMERSON: Sure. I'm really going from media reports here about the situation with the United States and how all of this material ended up being passed on to WikiLeaks, but it seems that from a period where agencies weren't dealing with each other and weren't sharing information…

DALLEY: Were in silos, yes.

EMERSON: They were in silos, and this was subject of a lot of criticism after 9/11 and other events. And I think reviews were done of agencies and said, ‘well, the American intelligence system would have been better and served the nation better if there were the sharing of information'. Now they're sharing information.

DALLEY: Two million people have access to this.

EMERSON: I don't — again, I'm going from media reports about whether it's two million people.

DALLEY: Well, that's also what Kevin Rudd had said the other day.

EMERSON: Okay. And I'm not arguing against that, I'm just saying I don't have personal knowledge that it's two million people.

DALLEY: So how can you trust…

EMERSON: Obviously there are quite a few of them.

DALLEY: Can you trust that you can ever have an open conversation that will be a private conversation with an American diplomat?

EMERSON: I would certainly imagine that the Americans would be looking at this and saying ‘do we want a repeat of the — this downloading of very large amounts of information, you know, from around the world?' I think the answer would be no. And therefore that they will take measures to restrict the number of people who are able to see this. But then they've got this balancing act, because if they keep it all very close, we go back, or they go back, to the situation that led to the reviews in the first place.

DALLEY: Yes. John Della Bosca, I mean, Julia Gillard's — her language also changed. She started out by talking about illegal acts. Although I think that got mixed up and she didn't actually say it about Julian Assange, she said it about the leaking. So she could have been talking about the person who leaked it. But she's now toned that down and is talking about the embassy cables leaking as grossly irresponsible. Do you think she has pulled back because there is some support for WikiLeaks?

DELLA BOSCA: No, I think it's a dynamic story. It's a story that seems to have a very large number of twists and turns and it's changed its nature, you know, in really only 72 hours, from being a story about leaks that were inappropriate to being one where I think people are starting to see — or there — I think there is a public reaction that this is not necessarily a bad thing, that people think they have a right to know this.

DALLEY: So therefore did the Australian Government, in Julia Gillard, over-react in those first few days?

DELLA BOSCA: I think her comments, the first comments she made were based on the view that it was an illegal act. As I made my point when you first introduced me, an illegal act for those documents to be leaked by US officials. But clearly, as the story has changed, the Prime Minister has adjusted her rhetoric. I think that's an appropriate thing for her to do.

EMERSON: And isn't there a value in separating those matters which do directly impinge on national security, such as the disclosure of locations of sensitive sites, for example. And I'm not speaking specifically here, but if cables did that, and that those sites could therefore be a target for terrorists or so on, this is very serious stuff. And I don't think you can say we're doing this in the name of freedom and openness compared with…

DEVINE: That was nothing that wasn't already on record.

EMERSON: I'm just saying, compared with the alternative sort of material that we're discussing now, is sort of gossip and people's conversations, But I don't think anyone around this table would be saying, ‘look, just let it rip you know, there's a right to know, you know, what — where bases are,' and all that sort of thing.

DALLEY: I'd like to bring Miranda Devine in because I think you — you are arguing that, you know, virtually let it rip, let him go.

DEVINE: Well, Assange, I mean, I think Julia Gillard and the Government made a mistake initially. I don't think they thought through enough what — how they were going to handle this situation. And talking about illegal acts, and talking about cancelling his passport and so on, you know, an Australian citizen who's been — in America there are politicians saying he should be executed and Canadians are saying he should be assassinated and…

DALLEY: And how do you react to that specifically? I mean, we have heard Sarah Palin and some on the right of the Republican Party saying he should be hunted down and killed.

DEVINE: Killed like Osama bin Laden.

DALLEY: How do you feel about that, Miranda?

DEVINE: Well, it's appalling. And it's appalling that our government was so slow to go to the defence of an Australian citizen. And, you know, the person who seemingly committed this crime — Bradley Manning, who's this 22-year-old soldier — is in jail. And Julian Assange is basically — he's a publisher. And the only difference between what he does and what newspapers do every day is that there's 250,000 documents out there. And he's also been quite responsible in that he has edited or redacted bits and pieces out of it that may compromise intelligence sources.

DALLEY: Yes, he says he hasn't put any compromising information out there.

DEVINE: And no — none of his critics have actually come up with evidence that shows that he's harmed anyone or put anyone in danger. So, you know, the criticisms, I think, are really overblown. And ideas like that these targets were some sort of list for Osama bin Laden is ridiculous.

DALLEY: They were pretty small, little…

EMERSON: I don't think anyone mentioned Osama bin Laden, but I do believe — and let's be clear, the Australian government doesn't associate itself with extreme comments from Republicans or anyone else…

DALLEY: Oh sure.

EMERSON: …in the United States or in Canada but there is an issue of the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive material. I don't personally get excited one way or another, other than it is good feedstock for the media, about gossip at what Mark Arbib said or anyone else…

DALLEY: But, Craig Emerson, if any of — if Miranda's paper got hold of some of those, if my organisation, Sky News, got hold of some of those, most media organisations…

EMERSON: Would edit.

DALLEY: …would publish.

EMERSON: But I think they'd edit, surely. If it was genuinely a threat to national security.

DEVINE: But nothing has — we wouldn't edit any more than has already been edited.

EMERSON: No, I'm just — well, I think that this is, again going from media reports, this is exactly what is happening. That there are discussions about material, whether it should be released or not. Some material, we would claim, shouldn't be released. But the point is that the releasing of classified material itself is likely to be an offence.

Now, you can argue about Julian Assange…

DALLEY: Yes, but the publishing of it…

EMERSON: That's right. You can argue about that, but surely we're not condoning someone in the American security system just being able to leak whatever they want.

DALLEY: No.

EMERSON: I'm just making that distinction.

DEVINE: No, don't confuse the issue, I think…

DALLEY: Sophie Mirabella, do you think — do you agree with Miranda that, you know, this should be fairly open slather with some redaction or editing of sensitive material to not put anyone's lives in danger, as Julian Assange has said he's done?

MIRABELLA: There are two issues here and the Government is retreating from because they overreached and Julia Gillard totally misjudged and mishandled the situation. And it shows that she's really out of her depth on these sorts of issues.

Of course we're concerned, and I'm concerned about any material that would be sensitive, that would compromise our security or would put in danger the lives of those who are involved and discussed in some of these leaks.

That's a very serious concern.

DALLEY: But would you also agree you haven't seen any of that here?

MIRABELLA: I'm not aware of it. I obviously haven't forensically gone through the — 250,000, is it? — documents but we need to be very, very careful. People in positions in a national government and in a national opposition need to be very calm and look at the actual facts and deal with this in a calm and measured manner. Julia Gillard did not do that and we need to be very careful before we condemn one of our citizens without actually looking at all the bits involved.

EMERSON: So, Sophie, are you relaxed about the disclosure of all the information to date, that everything that's come out to date is fine by you?

MIRABELLA: You obviously didn't hear what I said, Craig, that…

EMERSON: I was listening intently.

MIRABELLA: …I am very concerned, as is the Opposition, that any information that compromises…

EMERSON: Yes.

MIRABELLA: …our security or the lives of other people…

EMERSON: And Helen asked you about that, and you said you're not aware of any that has been released that does compromise…

MIRABELLA: Well, I haven't gone through…

DALLEY: Well, do you think, Craig, that there is anyone who's been endangered?

EMERSON: Well, I think personally the publication of sites that are sensitive sites and could be — could be…

MIRABELLA: Which ones?

EMERSON: … of value. Well, how much time have we got? There are about 25…

MIRABELLA: No, which ones?

EMERSON: … there was a cable the other day…

DALLEY: But you can Google them, I mean, it's everyone knows there's an…

EMERSON: … that were regarded as sensitive sites. I think that itself is problematic.

MIRABELLA: Which ones? Which ones are — just name three.

EMERSON: I'm not going to name them, they're in the paper now as a result of WikiLeaks. Read the paper.

DALLEY: There were some utilities. But, you know, there — so many more sites that I suppose the argument is that terrorists could go out and find. But just let me read you something that he actually wrote in his piece in The Australian yesterday. Julian Assange said the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US Congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs.

Now, that was the previous leak.

EMERSON: Sure.

DALLEY: The Pentagon stated that there was no evidence that the WikiLeaks — reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO, sort of, ditto. The list goes on.

Now, is it true that this latest cache, particularly about Australia, is really just embarrassing for senior politicians?

EMERSON: Well, whether they're embarrassed or not, I agree that there is the distinction that I made earlier. And that is, airing publicly conversations that Senator Arbib might have had, or that Kevin Rudd might have had, is in one category. Surely there's another category.

Now, I'm not saying, therefore, that anything that's in the second category is a threat to national security. I'm not saying that. But in

that category we need to be very careful. And the whole act — the whole act of releasing this information is likely to have been one that breaches the laws of the United States at least, because it's classified information.

It is actually an offence in Australia to leak a Cabinet submission. Now, the Cabinet submission could be about a matter in relation to Veterans' Affairs; it's still an offence to do that.

I'm saying that there appears to have been an offence committed. Whether that relates to the nature of the information, the very release…

DEVINE: Not the…

EMERSON: … the very… no, I'm talking about the…

DALLEY: WikiLeaks or Julian Assange…

MIRABELLA: In the US…

DEVINE: The 22 year old soldier…

EMERSON: … I'm talking about — well, I'm not going to assert that he's done it because I think — I don't know whether he's done it…

MIRABELLA: But is t… what…

EMERSON: … but that seems to be what people are saying…

MIRABELLA: Are you saying that Australia should help in enforcing US law in the US?

EMERSON: No, I'm not saying that, of course; so don't…

MIRABELLA: Right, well, then it is not…

EMERSON: … make it up as you go along…

MIRABELLA: … a legal issue. No, I'm just asking you a question. So there's no — there's no role or jurisdiction for Australia in enforcing the law that you say has been broken in the…

EMERSON: Well, I don't know where you…

DEVINE: And anyway, Assange…

EMERSON: … I don't know where you got that idea from…

DEVINE: … Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden, so it really has nothing to do, supposedly, with…

MIRABELLA: Mmm.

DEVINE: … with WikiLeaks. Although, of course, we all know it has everything to do with WikiLeaks or he wouldn't be in…

EMERSON: Oh, there's a big assertion.

DEVINE: … he wouldn't be in jail…

EMERSON: There's a big assertion from Miranda Devine.

DALLEY: Craig Emerson, do you think though that the government, your government has spent time looking for what illegal acts, what things they might be able to charge Julian Assange with if he comes back to Australia? Is that…

EMERSON: Look, I…

DALLEY: … a fair call?

EMERSON: I don't know. The truth is I don't know. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to give you an answer. ‘Yes, the Australian Government is doing that,' or ‘no, it's not'. I do know that Australian Government agencies have been seeking to ascertain whether any Australian law has been breached. That's a reasonable…

DALLEY: You were see…

EMERSON: …that would be…

DALLEY: …you were trying…

EMERSON: …that's a reasonable thing to do…

DALLEY: …or talking about cancelling his passport; that's a fairly serious thing to do to an Australian citizen.

EMERSON: Well, in fact, in relation to Mr Assange, in the United Kingdom at the moment, we are rendering him consular assistance. If he needs consular assistance as an Australian citizen, he'll get it.

DEVINE: That's a big back flip…

EMERSON: And he has been given consular assistance.

DEVINE: Mmm.

DALLEY: Sorry, Miranda?

DEVINE: It's a big back flip, yeah, from the initial reaction to Assange.

EMERSON: We — at no point did we say we would not render consular assistance…

DEVINE: No, but…

EMERSON: …to Mr Assange.

DEVINE: But you were talking about cancelling his passport one minute, and now, you are doing the right thing.

EMERSON: Well, I haven't been talking about cancelling his passport.

DALLEY: All right, we are going to take a short break, but we have lots more to talk about so do stay with us. We'll be back in a moment with The Nation.

[Commercial break]

DALLEY: Hello, and welcome back to The Nation. I have with me Craig Emerson, Trade Minister; former New South Wales minister John Della Bosca; columnist Miranda Devine; and Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Innovation Minister.

Now, we are talking about the WikiLeaks story and we haven't quite got to all the issues. But Andrew Wilkie, perhaps not surprisingly, John Della Bosca, Independent Federal MP and, of course, had been an — intelligence analyst is the word I'm looking for -; he came out today and fairly strongly criticised Julia Gillard for her handling of the affair. Saying she had basically sort of stomped all over Julian Assange's human rights and his presumption of innocence.

DELLA BOSCA: Well, I mean, given Andrew Wilkie's background, given he obviously went through, in a sort — you know, a parallel sort of experience to the one that Julian Assange is going through, it's hardly surprising.

DALLEY: At the hands of the Howard government.

DELLA BOSCA: … it's hardly surprising — yeah, at the hands of the Howard government — it's hardly surprising that he would take that view. What the consequences of that view are — I assume you are asking me because he is an Independent Member of the Parliament and critical to the government's majority — what the consequences of that, or today's alienation is, I don't know; I can only speculate.

But, look, Andrew Wilkie seems to be somebody who is otherwise fairly strongly committed to their government, so I don't think this reflects a sea-change in his attitude. But clearly, it's something that he feels very strongly about and something that, you know, he probably has a similar view to the one that Miranda and Sophie were expressing before the break that perhaps the government overreached and had to pull back.

DALLEY: And would you agree with that view?

DELLA BOSCA: No, I just think it was a complicated story and, you know, Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers are human beings, they rely on

information that they get from agencies, from the newspapers themselves, from their own instincts. You know, Julia Gillard said what she said, she's…

DALLEY: But maybe it was more about they don't like being embarrassed?

DELLA BOSCA: Well it could be that, I don't really know. I can't really read her mind. I can only say that, you know, she is now saying I think what is a sensible reaction and a sensible and appropriate response.

As Craig's already pointed out, where the government is ensuring that Julian Assange has the appropriate consular assistance. Talk of, you know, passport cancellations and those sorts of reactions are now in the rubbish bin and we're just proceeding with I think what is a reasonably balanced attitude to it.

But I think the Opposition, if they'd been in government, would have been in the same sort of rocky situation. How do you react to what is a massive story, movable by the hour, and what does it really mean? What are some of the analytical points?

MIRABELLA: Well our Foreign Minister wouldn't have behaved like Kevin Rudd nor would…

DELLA BOSCA: I'm hardly surprised by you saying that…

DALLEY: All right, well can I just ask you Sophie Mirabella, your Shadow Foreign Minister was criticised — Julie Bishop was criticised for her reaction. Particularly about the initial — have we forgotten already — the initial cables this week about Kevin Rudd supposedly urging the United States to take force against China if everything fell apart.

Now Julie Bishop was criticised for jumping the gun. Did she?

MIRABELLA: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Kevin Rudd has made a fool of himself. I mean, this is a man who has built his career as a foreign affairs expert. Six years as a diplomat, five years as a Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and he makes these sorts of comments.

In addition to insulting a whole list of countries, the man — there's something wrong with him that he has behaved in this way. It's embarrassing. It's cringingly…

EMERSON: The resident psychiatrist.

MIRABELLA: Well, it's cringingly embarrassing. I can't explain it in any other way.

And the Labor Party of course is embarrassed. I'm sure some of them are saying to themselves well we thought we could, you know, dump him as PM, park him in there as Foreign Affairs Minister, and he's totally stuffed that up. What are we going to do with him?

How can we engage meaningfully with the rest of the world on a diplomatic level when this guy has been exposed as a vain and petty person when he is dealing with significant countries in our region and with the US?

DALLEY: All right, well after that spray, just let me read to you…

EMERSON: Sophie's — I'd like to respond to that.

DALLEY: All right, you respond.

EMERSON: Well, Sophie said our Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister rightly criticised Kevin Rudd and a Coalition Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister always would. Well what about the actual coalition Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, who said that what Kevin Rudd had to say is what he, Alexander Downer, would have had to say and it was completely unremarkable and defended Kevin Rudd?

So you know it's all in the Liberal family but we've got Julie Bishop completely at odds with Alexander Downer.

MIRABELLA: With whom?

EMERSON: With whom?

MIRABELLA: Guess what Craig, guess what…

EMERSON: Guess what, he used to be the Foreign Affairs Minister under the Coalition Government.

MIRABELLA: Mate.

DELLA BOSCA: The longest serving Foreign Minister…

MIRABELLA: [Interrupts] Mate, and Mark Latham was your former leader. They're all in the past.

DELLA BOSCA: [Interrupts] Yes, but Alexander Downer was the longest serving Foreign Minister in history.

MIRABELLA: Your leader changes her story within 24 hours. You're now trying to hold the Opposition accountable for a former Minister in a former government. Get real.

DALLEY: He was the Foreign Affairs Minister for 11 years.

DELLA BOSCA: [Interrupts] But he was — he's the longest serving Foreign Minister in Australian history.

MIRABELLA: [Interrupts] Sure, that's fine…

EMERSON: Oh yeah, he's an old has-been, completely repudiating.

DALLEY: Can I just read something to you? You trashed Kevin Rudd there. Greg Sheridan, who's quite an expert on defence and foreign affairs who writes for The Australian, actually wrote that Kevin Rudd's international successes are among the most important in our history.

Now you couldn't argue, could you Miranda, that Greg Sheridan is a great friend of Labor governments? But he goes on, ‘Kevin Rudd will go down in history as one of the most important and productive foreign policy Prime Ministers Australia has had.' On and on he goes, saying he's had significant foreign policy wins when he was Prime Minister, and that was all to be applauded.

EMERSON: What would he know?

MIRABELLA: Craig, do you want to answer the question or would you like me to answer it?

Well, he's one journalist with one point of view. Kevin Rudd's record as Prime Minister, the decisions he made in our foreign policy as Prime Minister, the decisions he's now making as Foreign Minister and all the other decisions will be on the record for people to judge.

So far people have judged him as a very fragile, glass-jawed man who has weakened our position to deal diplomatically with other nations. Look, that's one view of a journalist who…

DALLEY: He does follow these issues very strongly.

MIRABELLA: Absolutely, he does.

DALLEY: Let me read something else that he says. He goes on to say ‘Julie Bishop is not someone who can be taken seriously on foreign policy, especially national security matters.'

MIRABELLA: Well that's his point of view. I disagree. I disagree and I think a lot of Australians would prefer to have Julie Bishop representing their country than Kevin Rudd overseas. That is an opinion…

DALLEY: Miranda, how do you feel the Opposition has handled this affair, and particularly Julie Bishop's comments earlier in the week?

DEVINE: I think Greg Sheridan was overly harsh on Julie Bishop and especially, you know, new WikiLeaks that have come overnight. Not that there was really anything new in them. But his bumbling in the first six months of office, his constant travel overseas, his calling at Copenhagen — calling the Chinese rat f_ers [sic], you know, these are not the acts of a great diplomat.

And, you know, the other things that have come out in the WikiLeaks about him, that the Americans described him as — or the American Ambassador described him as bumbling — we didn't need

WikiLeaks to tell us this — but as a bumbling, self-aggrandising, you know, vain person.

And although we kind of — this has all come out since…

MIRABELLA: John's smiling there, you know it's true John…

DALLEY: But is this — Miranda, but is this…

DELLA BOSCA: It's how the Court of St James would have described Thomas Jefferson…

DEVINE: But although this has all come out…

EMERSON: What a fascinating critique, that the Prime Minister of Australia constantly travelled overseas. You conduct, you know, your international affairs from home.

DALLEY: I don't think that was the main criticism.

DEVINE: It was the bungling and self-aggrandising part of it. Which in fact has come out since he's left office but…

DALLEY: Miranda, on that aspect could I also ask you, the assessment that he was vain and a control freak and all that sort of thing did come from the former US Ambassador. There was some perhaps getting offside with the American Administration, the Bush Administration. They'd had a very good relationship with the Howard Government.

Was it sort of sour grapes over some of the things that didn't go right?

DEVINE: Well there's no doubt that McCallum was close to Bush and Rudd had been terribly rude to Bush in that phone call in which he claimed that Bush didn't know what the G20 was and so on, and told that to journalists in the room.

DALLEY: So is it just payback?

DEVINE: I don't think it's payback. Well, I mean, maybe it was, it could have been payback, and certainly now it's been hilarious to watch the current Ambassador. And Hillary Clinton sent her minions to the 7.30 Report last night to lavish Kevin Rudd with praise and…

DALLEY: As has the current US Ambassador.

DEVINE: Absolutely. They're having a bromance apparently.

DALLEY: A bromance.

EMERSON: You see again the comments of the former Ambassador carry great weight because they are critical of Kevin Rudd or reportedly critical.

The comments of the current American Ambassador are to be dismissed because they support Mr Rudd.

It's a good conversation but let's be a little bit even-handed about it.

MIRABELLA: Forgive me for being a bit cynical but no-one actually believes any of this praise for Kevin Rudd. They have to do it, it's a diplomatic thing…

EMERSON: So what are we saying about Jeffrey Bleich, you're just saying he's blind or making it up?

MIRABELLA: No, what I'm saying is people involved in this…

DALLEY: No, you just said that nobody believes what he said…

EMERSON: Nobody believes the current Ambassador?

MIRABELLA: No-one believes that Kevin Rudd is a diplomatic asset and is a good Foreign Minister for Australia. Not the Labor Party, not anyone. And the sooner the Labor Party…

EMERSON: Well, what about Jeffrey Bleich, the current US ambassador?

MIRABELLA: …the sooner the Labor Party cuts its losses…

DEVINE: But the Americans are embarrassed…

MIRABELLA: Of course they're embarrassed.

DEVINE: …so they engaged in massive damage control all over the world.

MIRABELLA: They're diplomats.

EMERSON: So no one believes the current Ambassador? Well, we've got that clear. I do actually. I believe the current Ambassador and I think his views should carry some weight.

DALLEY: But he's in love with Kevin Rudd. Having a bromance with Kevin Rudd. I'd love to…

EMERSON: Well he said that we're good mates in Australian language.

DALLEY: …move on if we can. There have been calls over the last couple of weeks really for WikiLeaks has to be closed down, Julian Assange has to be — you know we touched on that earlier that he has to be stopped somehow.

What is — what should happen in your view, Craig Emerson? What does the Australian Government think should happen? Do you want WikiLeaks to not exist?

EMERSON: Look, I don't think it matters, you know, what the Australian Government believes about further disclosures from WikiLeaks…

DALLEY: Would you support the American Government?

EMERSON: …because they're going to occur.

DALLEY: Would you support any moves to…

EMERSON: I think there's plenty in the pipeline going from media reports.

DALLEY: …to squash it?

EMERSON: I go back to where I started and that is the unauthorised disclosure of classified material is a serious matter. It may well be…

DALLEY: But that's the American's problem, it's not WikiLeaks.

EMERSON: Yeah, I know but…

DALLEY: So I asked you specifically about WikiLeaks?

EMERSON: …I'm saying I am — well, the point of the offence, if there is an offence and you'd think on the face of it there was, was the unauthorised disclosure. WikiLeaks then gets that information. I think at least they have a responsibility to vet it.

Now I think it's the subject of a reasonable debate amongst reasonable people as to whether the information that has been published today has been — to date has been properly vetted. I am anxious about the disclosure of potentially sensitive sites.

You say it's all in the paper anyway, fine…

DALLEY: All right. Well I don't want to go over that again.

EMERSON: …but I'm just saying that I don't — what's the point of us saying we want WikiLeaks banned or we don't want WikiLeaks banned. WikiLeaks is, and WikiLeaks looks like it's going to continue.

DALLEY: Yeah, John Della Bosca would you agree with that and I'll just — something that former Democrat's leader, Natasha Stott Despoja wrote during the week, she was pointing out that it's like an organic entity in a sense WikiLeaks and that it really can't be contained even if governments who are embarrassed by the leaks might want to.

That things go viral on the internet now and it's almost impossible to stop these things going global.

DELLA BOSCA: I thought Natasha might have thought it was macrobiotic rather than organic but….

EMERSON: That's too profound for me.

DELLA BOSCO: … I have a bit of a difference — I mean, Craig's a Minister and he's obviously got a government perspective on this.

I'm now a civilian and my analysis of this is this is inevitable. The technology and the changes in institutional politics around the world mean that this kind of material will end up in the public arena. And I think governments are, you know, basically trying to make water flow uphill trying to stop it.

Now it's a disturbing new world for those of us that grew up in a world of relatively controlled information and edited information because the thing about this is it's different from journalism.

Julian Assange is not the editor of a journal, he doesn't add any criticism as Craig alludes, to this idea of reduction or whatever…

EMERSON: Redaction.

DELLA BOSCA: Redaction.

DALLEY: No, but he's breaking news really in the sense of having the original documents.

DELLA BOSCA: He's breaking information.

DEVINE: He's a publisher.

DELLA BOSCA: He's publishing information in a way that's different to what we're used to, but I think he's the first of many. I suspect that this will become a trend — a new trend that we will all have to deal with and it will — it does in fact, I think, threaten some of the conventional civic ideas we have about democracy.

DALLEY: All right. We have to move on. I want to talk about — you mentioned the Government pushing water uphill so that's a good segue into Mike Taylor…

DELLA BOSCA: Not intentional.

DALLEY: …yes, Mike Taylor resigning from the Murray-Darling Water Authority this week. Miranda Devine do you think he was used as a scapegoat?

DEVINE: Yeah and he's not the first public servant to be hung, drawn and quartered, hung up to dry. I felt sorry for him because he was left to go alone, to front up to those very angry farmers and, you know, I quite admired him.

He was quite courageous standing up there but, you know, he was a kind of a public servant who just played it by the rules and he

really should have realised that what he was doing was not going to work and so he had to be the fall guy.

Someone had to be the fall guy because it's a disaster.

DALLEY: Craig Emerson, he has claimed essentially that the Murray-Darling Authority is ill equipped and that he, at the Authority, cannot deliver what the Government wants them to deliver. So does that put at risk your water policy for next year?

EMERSON: I don't think so but let's look at what Mr Taylor's task was. It was a task as set out under a Water Act introduced and passed through the Parliament when Malcolm Turnbull was the Environment Minister.

What Mr Taylor was doing was discharging responsibilities under the Water Act and the document that was being ventilated at those meetings and public — well, more broadly, is a guide to a draft plan as set out in the Water Act.

That guide then becomes, as a result of consultation, a draft plan. The draft plan as a result of consultation becomes a full plan of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and that full plan then goes to the Government and it can accept or not accept parts of that.

They're the processes that we've set out.

DALLEY: All right but now that he's gone…

EMERSON: Yeah.

DALLEY: …you've got to get someone else.

EMERSON: Sure.

DALLEY: There's still this very fractious process to go through. Is — does it put at risk the fact that we will have some sort of water policy? Julia Gillard's talked about 2011 as her year of action, does this put that at risk?

EMERSON: No, we'll follow the processes as set out in the Water Act. It doesn't in any way affect our commitment to restore the necessary water flows to the Murray-Darling Basin system.

We need a healthy river system and we're committed to doing that but I think one of the points of contention with Mr Taylor is he believed that the obligation under the Act was purely to deal with environmental issues.

What we've said is that the tasks under the Act is to optimise, that is get a balance, between environmental, economic and social considerations.

DALLEY: And you still think that can be achieved?

EMERSON: Yeah, I think it can. And going through those processes to the point where there's guide to a draft plan to a final plan, then goes to the Government, allows us to do that. And Tony Windsor, as an independent, is chairing a parliamentary committee that is also doing exactly that.

DALLEY: Would it be — will it be another problem for the Gillard Government, Sophie Mirabella, turning the vision and the agenda into reality?

MIRABELLA: It's going to be a huge problem. I've got a very big interest in water. Fifty per cent of the water in the Basin is sourced from my electorate. It comes from my electorate and I had Mike Taylor the other week in my electorate speaking to several dozen groups of affected parties and local government and the like and he knows this area inside out.

It is a very contentious issue regarding the interpretation of the Act. It's very important that ambiguities and different interpretations are settled before there's a final result, because it can easily be challenged either way. And what we're saying is, look, legislation, whether it's the tax law, whether it's social security law or other pieces of important legislation, particularly reform legislation, often need to be amended, need to be tested, and we need to look at the Water Act to see if there needs to be clarification of these ambiguities.

The legal advice that the MDBA had, and that the Minister has, all the legal advice received that appears to be contradictory needs to be publicly released. We need to see that. And if there are contradictory, conflicting interpretations of important provisions, that needs to be resolved, because the Government can go on their merry way, but it leaves itself open to serious challenges in the High Court.

I also have very serious concerns whether they'll actually be able to get to that end process by the next election. If I was a betting woman, I'd put a lot of money on the fact that it won't be there ready to implement at the next election.

DALLEY: John Della Bosca, do you think perhaps the water policy does need to be changed and do you think it'll get there for the — by the next election?

DELLA BOSCA: You are asking absolutely the wrong guy. I was a complete heretic on the Howard water reform proposals. I thought they were completely wrong headed, and I think aspects of them are being continued that will cause problems. I don't think for the same reasons as Sophie. But I've long been of the view that on-farm

incentives, much more investment infrastructure, is the way to get a better result with water reform.

That was my view when John Howard was Prime Minister and I was opposing his reforms. Unfortunately, I had a Premier who ended up agreeing with him. But look, I think getting the Murray-Darling Basin right is absolutely critical and we need a bipartisan approach. And I think we have got a Water Act now which the Gillard Government is implementing, which was actually passed essentially by the Howard Government.

I think both sides of politics have to get together and do some hard thinking about making that Act, or making the action of that Act, a reality. As I said, I think some of the underlying assumptions in that Act I've never supported and always thought were wrong.

DEVINE: It was a poison chalice from Malcolm Turnbull's Government.

MIRABELLA: But I totally agree with you about on off-farm irrigation works to save water. The previous Government set aside $5.8 billion for this work and only $437 million has been spent. Now, a serious saving of water can be achieved. But this Government has not been interested in investing in on and off-farm irrigation works.

They've really allocated all their energy and funding towards water buyback and you're right, that is an area that they should have picked up the mantel from the Howard Government and worked on. The money's there. I assume it's still there waiting to be…

DELLA BOSCA: The difference of opinion was the money was never actually there. The Howard…

MIRABELLA: [Interrupts] Well it is.

DELLA BOSCA: …Government legislation is…

MIRABELLA: [Interruption] Well, you're wrong John. In 2007 there was $5.8 billion set aside and only $437 million has so far been…

EMERSON: [Interrupts] And the point is we'd need to do both and we are doing both. We need water buybacks. My information is that not one drop of water was bought back by the previous Coalition Government after its grand plan. You do need to do infrastructure works. We are working on that. There is funding for that. But it — the point of contention is whether it's only about maximising — getting the environmental impacts right. Or whether there're economic and social. Now the coalition…

MIRABELLA: [Interrupts] So why aren't we trying to solve the ambiguity?

EMERSON: Well, I'll tell you how we sought to do that. We tabled the Solicitor General's advice into Parliament. But who said that the plan needs

to optimise economic social and environmental outcomes? Well Julia Gillard did. But also Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce and Senator Birmingham on 11 August, before the election. And they said two weeks after the election they would implement in full the draft plan and it would be implemented in full two weeks after they're elected to Government.

So let's not have all this phoney stuff about ‘oh, Labor hasn't consulted enough'. We're going through the consultation process. But Tony Abbot said there will be no consultation. We are going to implement the draft plan two weeks after we're elected.

DALLEY: All right. We are going to have a very short break. Do stay with us on The Nation. We've got more to discuss when we come back.

[Commercial break]

DALLEY: Welcome back to The Nation, and my guests tonight are Craig Emerson, Trade Minister; John Della Bosca, former New South Wales Minister; Miranda Devine, columnist with The Daily Telegraph; and Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Innovation and Industry Minister.

Now, in our short time left, I wanted to talk briefly about the alleged comments that have been reported by Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry. He was at a gathering of former big-wigs of the Treasury. He said it's been his department, apparently, that his department is at the beck and call of the Greens and Independents, Craig Emerson, and that they were run ragged by the costing demands.

Now, they were private comments, but it was hearsay passed on. Is minority government weighing too heavily on Treasury?

EMERSON: Oh, well, I think they've got big, broad shoulders, and obviously I think they have worked very hard this year, and I think they work hard every year. And I think the complications, and I don't say that in a negative way, of minority government mean that extra tasks on top of those that are ordinarily given to Treasury by government are there.

And I'm glad that they have been involved in some of these costing exercises, including of the Coalition, which revealed an $11 billion black hole in their pre-election commitment. But I think he's actually referring more to the Greens, or reportedly, and to Independents.

Well if that work needs to be done, I guess it's got to be done. And the Treasury and finance costings or proposals are very important, because they're the only ones…

DALLEY: [Interrupts] All right, is it…

EMERSON: …that count, in the budget sense.

DALLEY: Do those comments echo with what you've heard out of Treasury?

EMERSON: I haven't heard any such comments out of Treasury like that. And, look, I think that the arrangements that we have are working pretty well. The Independents have voted both ways. We've heard that Andrew Wilkie is not happy with the government's position on WikiLeaks.

These sorts of things are going to happen. Bob Katter won't be happy with some things. The same thing with Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, and Adam Bandt as well. But that's what the people have decided, and let's respect the democracy.

DALLEY: Bob Brown has turned it into a call for more resources for Treasury, saying they clearly do need some more resources because they're asked by the Greens very…

EMERSON: [Interrupts] Treasury will never disagree with that…

DALLEY: …very good questions.

EMERSON: …nor will any agency. Well no agency will do that, but we're committed — you know, we'll disagree with the…

DALLEY: [Interrupts] Okay.

EMERSON: …suggestion that it needs more resources, and that it works hard. I think they do work hard. But we're going to get that budget back into surplus in 2012-13, and so we're going to be very prudent in terms of extra expenditure.

DALLEY: You were laughing there, Sophie.

MIRABELLA: Oh, look, I'm laughing because Craig's gone on with a lot of poly-speak. The reality is there's a minority government, and in order to get back into government the Labor Party sold its soul to the Greens. They may well be in government, but the Greens are in control.

DELLA BOSCA: There's the slogan.

MIRABELLA: And I feel sorry for Ken Henry. Here are professional public servants, very important to the process of government, and they are at the beck and call of the Greens.

DALLEY: All right…

MIRABELLA: It's a very sad state of affairs. That's the current situation, that the Labor Party…

DELLA BOSCA: Shocking thing, that democracy.

MIRABELLA: …has allowed the Greens into this privileged position, because they were going to do anything, cut any deal, and we don't know what the secret deal is behind closed doors, to be able to form…

DALLEY: [Interrupts] Okay, I want to…

MIRABELLA: … government.

DALLEY: I want to sort of just wrap up the discussion, and I know we could have another half hour on this, but Julia Gillard has promised that 2011 will be the year of action, that a lot of the agenda will actually happen in 2011. Really briefly, like 20 seconds each, Miranda Devine, do you think she can pull it off?

DEVINE: No, for the exact reason that we were just talking about. You know, a minority government, she's at the beck and call of the Greens, of Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, and Bob Katter, and, you know, Adam Bandt, and it's just — it's devilishly difficult.

And she's a very good negotiator, so she's sort of managing to massage them, but to have to go and have cups of tea with the people every week.

DELLA BOSCA: Wouldn't that be horrible?

DALLEY: I think we need more than 20 seconds. John Della Bosca, can she deliver?

DELLA BOSCA: Sounds like the Queen's job rather than the Prime Minister's job. Yes, I think she can. I think the obvious navigational points for her and the whole government are to pick things for their agenda which are big, national priorities that have, you know, a social dimension.

I mean, clearly the NBN — Sophie will probably dismiss this, but it was what won the government the election and sustained them through the Independents negotiations, and retrieved their credibility. Well not retrieved their credibility, but their stamp of authority on the parliament at the end of the year.

It's because it had a big link to prosperity in a way, I think. In my case I'll just put an ad in for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's the kind of thing that's a quality agenda that should get bipartisan support. Other things like that…

DALLEY: [Interrupts] Okay, that's more than 20 seconds. Sorry, John.

DELLA BOSCA: Okay, but I think national agenda.

DALLEY: Sophie, can she deliver?

MIRABELLA: If she couldn't deliver when the government had a majority, she's not going to be able to deliver now. It's the fact that the Labor Party, as she said, lost its way. It hasn't found its way. It hasn't found its soul. It's still breaking promises. It's still borrowing $100 million a day. The problems that led to the decapitation of Kevin Rudd have not been resolved.

DALLEY: All right. I've got to cut you off, I'm sorry. Craig, can she deliver?

EMERSON: Fifty two pieces of legislation have gone through the parliament since this government was returned. Many of those with the support of the Independents because of the Opposition, of a totally opportunistic Opposition Leader, Tony Abbot, who wants to be defined as…

DALLEY: [Interrupts] So next year can Julia Gillard do it?

EMERSON: …'I am not Labor' — well if we can get 52 pieces of legislation through the Parliament in the short period between the formation of the government and the last parliamentary sitting, we'll be able to get more, and even more important legislation through Parliament next year.

DEVINE: [Interrupts] Are you saying you've done well this year…

DALLEY: All right. No, I'm sorry, I do — we do have to cut you off. I'm so sorry.

DELLA BOSCA: Over your dead bodies.

DALLEY: We have had a great discussion. Thank you all for joining us on The Nation, Craig Emerson, John Della Bosca, Miranda Devine and Sophie Mirabella. And that's it from us. See you next week.

END

Media enquiries