Question to the Prime Minister - United States of America

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning, the Prime Minister snapped at a journalist, saying he had given '5,324 answers' as to why he has failed to secure a meeting with the President of the United States. Can the Prime Minister table these 5,324 answers, and could the Prime Minister explain to the Australian public whether his decision to recognise the State of Palestine means he is more likely to get a meeting with President Trump or less likely to get a meeting with President Trump?

 

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:07): 'I support the Palestinian bid for statehood in part because it will give heart to the ordinary people of the West Bank and Gaza. There is a flurry of diplomatic activity in the region designed to make sure the statehood bid stalls. I do not know whether those measures will succeed or fail, but I do know that, whatever the fate of the bid, we in the international community must stand in solidarity with those seeking the non-violent path to a secure Israel and an independent Palestine. After two generations of strife and war, are we going to admit to our children that their parents could not even find a path to peace or, worse still, that we did not even try?' They're not my words; they're the words of your leader.

The fact is that we take international policy seriously, and the fact that the Manager of Opposition Business asks such a flippant question about the relationship between Australia and the United States or about Middle East peace shows how unworthy those opposite are. We continue to engage with the United States constructively, and, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister is in the United States as we speak, meeting with counterparts as we announced. We continue to engage constructively. I've had three constructive discussions with President Trump. We'll continue to engage in international politics in a way that protects our sovereignty, in a way that stands up for our national interest and in a way in which Australia plays a positive role in the world, as we have historically.

One of the other things that has defined Australia's international engagement is that, overwhelmingly, it has been bipartisan. If you compare the response and the childish nature of that question with how the Labor opposition responded to the announcement by Prime Minister Morrison to the AUKUS arrangements, I think that is all clear to see. We on this side of the House responded in a constructive, positive way. We always stood up for Australia's interests. I note and want to thank the member for Canning for his remarks where he said recently—just last week in an interview—that, when the Australian Prime Minister is up against any criticism which can be seen to be criticism of Australia, he'll stand up for Australia. That is something that we have done consistently, and we'll continue to stand up for the national interest, and they'll continue to show just how irrelevant they are.