Sky News

Sunday Agenda

Julie Bishop, Deputy Opposition Leader & Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister

23 August 2009

Interview with Julie Bishop, Deputy Opposition Leader

Sunday Agenda program, 23 August 2009

Helen Dalley: It began with a disagreement over a visa for the Uighar, Rebiya Kadeer, but it
escalated into a major political row over the government’s handling of our entire relations
with China. The Opposition says Mr Rudd’s done the damage and he’s done his best to turn
it back on them.

Well, politicizing our relations with China? Making the situation worse?
Responding to those claims is Julie Bishop, Deputy Opposition Leader and Shadow Foreign
Affairs Minister. And she joins me now from Adelaide.

Julie Bishop, thanks very much for joining us.

Julie Bishop: Good morning.

Helen Dalley: Well, now does the PM have a point that in fact you are just politicizing this
issue?

Julie Bishop: It is time for Mr Rudd to take responsibility for his handling of our sensitive and
important relationship with China. He’s trying to create an environment where no one is
allowed to criticise him for his handling of this relationship, but from the outset there have
been mistakes, mismanagement, and it’s time Mr Rudd focused on managing this
relationship properly rather than trying to suggest that the Opposition has in some way
damaged the relationship with China. It’s time he stood up and took responsibility. He only
has himself to blame for the fact that senior Chinese officials are cancelling meetings, that
senior Chinese leaders are not coming to Australia, and in probably the most humiliating
action for Mr Rudd the Chinese have withdrawn cooperation from Mr Rudd’s Asia Pacific
community proposal. So Mr Rudd needs to focus on repairing the damaged relationship with
the Chinese. It is too important for us for him to continue on in this way.

Helen Dalley: Julie Bishop, isn’t it the case that your side is actually blowing hot and cold on
this? Earlier in the year the Coalition accused Kevin Rudd of being too soft on China and
that he was too close, he was a ‘roving ambassador for China’. Then Brendan Nelson said
he should get tough on China about Tibet. Then after the speech that the prime minister
made in Beijing in Mandarin, Brendan Nelson said he probably shouldn’t have criticised
China about Tibet in public. And then Andrew Robb came out and said that Kevin Rudd’s
comments were appropriate. Then you said he wasn’t tough enough on the Stern Hu arrest.
Now you’re saying he’s too tough in public and that he bungled the visa for Ms Kadeer. You
are all over the place, aren’t you?

Julie Bishop: No. Mr Rudd is sending the inconsistent messages to China. There’s been no
consistency and the messages coming out of Australia from Mr Rudd are totally confused.
On the one hand he travels abroad and promotes China’s interests while he’s in the United
States. You might recall he went on a television program and mentioned China about 20

Sunday Agenda 23 August 2009 Julie Bishop

times in one interview and hardly mentioned Australia. And then on the other hand he goes
through this bizarre behaviour of refusing to sit next to the Chinese ambassador on a BBC
television program causing great offence. Then the government’s white paper identifies
China as the greatest military threat to Australia, which of course offers needless provocation
to China. And then on the other hand Mr Rudd tries to say that it’s all the Opposition’s fault
that the relationship with China has deteriorated. Now it’s time for him to take responsibility
for his actions. This is about Kevin Rudd’s relationship with the Chinese Government, not the
Opposition’s, and we will continue to question and criticise him and we will not be cowed into
silence because Mr Rudd feels it uncomfortable when people question him.

Helen Dalley: All right. Let’s take a couple of those issues, what exactly was bungled about
the visa given to Rebiya Kadeer? You said on Thursday that the visa was bungled.

Julie Bishop: I did not say the visa was bungled. I’m talking about the handling of the whole
issue. Ms Kadeer has been here before . . .

Helen Dalley: Excuse me, I’ll just read you the quote. You said “the bungling of the handling
of the visa to the Uighar leader”.

Julie Bishop: Exactly.

Helen Dalley: So, what exactly was bungled?

Julie Bishop: This has never been about the issuing of a visa. Ms Kadeer has received a
visa in the past and there was no controversy, but this time because of the government’s
mismanagement of this relationship the issuing of the visa became a controversy. It did not
need to be. It should have been handled in a way as it was previously. Now 18 months ago
the Rudd Government was able to deal with the issue of Ms Kadeer and the visa in a way
that didn’t cause controversy, but this time relationships had so soured that Mr Rudd was not
able to deal with the issue of a visa without it causing a great controversy. Now, Mr Rudd
must take responsibility for that.

Helen Dalley: But are you saying that the government should have changed its position on
the visa and not allowed it?

Julie Bishop: This is not about the Opposition’s position on the visa because we have never
criticised it. We didn’t criticise it 18 months ago, we didn’t criticise it now. This is about the
fact that 18 months ago this visa was issued without controversy, and then because of the
deterioration of the relationship between Mr Rudd and the Chinese Government it became a
controversy. Now, Mr Rudd must take responsibility for this.

Helen Dalley: But how can he if you’re saying that the visa was issued 18 months ago, the
same visa was also issued now, why should he change the policy from what you’re saying
he should have?

Julie Bishop: I am talking about his handling of the whole relationship. As many
commentators have stated it’s the culmination of a series of mishandling . . .

Helen Dalley: Sorry, you are basing it on the handling of the visa.

Julie Bishop: . . . about the whole relationship. And so we’ve not criticised the issuing of
the visa then, we’re not criticising it now, but we’re saying the whole mishandling of the
relationship with China is such that now everything becomes a controversy and Mr Rudd
should start focusing on repairing the damage that he has done to this relationship and not
trying to deflect it away onto the Opposition. It is far too simplistic for Mr Rudd to try and say

Sunday Agenda 23 August 2009 Julie Bishop

this is all about the issue of a visa to Ms Kadeer. There is a whole raft of issues that have
gone on between the Rudd Government and the Chinese Government that have led to this
deterioration in the relationships. Now, we were able to manage a very mature relationship
with China based on mutual respect. We had common interests but we had different values
and we understood each other and were able to deal in that way. But under Mr Rudd you
have to ask yourself this key question, has the relationship with China improved under Mr
Rudd? It’s patently clear that it has not and he needs to repair it and repair it swiftly.

Helen Dalley: Julie Bishop, I just go back to the earlier comment and question about your
going hot and cold, your side of politics on this. I mean former Immigration Minister, Philip
Ruddock, said this week that granting Ms Kadeer a visa was a mistake. Then current
Senator, Barnaby Joyce, agreed with the government that it wasn’t a mistake to grant a visa.
Do you think Australia . . .

Julie Bishop: Mr Ruddock did not say that.

Helen Dalley: Pardon?

Julie Bishop: Mr Ruddock did not say that. He clarified that position. He said that it was a
mistake in the circumstances of the whole handling of the relationship . . .

Helen Dalley: I’m sorry I have the quote in front of me. He said, yes, it was a mistake.

Julie Bishop: I spoke to Mr Philip Ruddock, he said the whole handling of the relationship
has been a mistake. No one in the Coalition criticised the issue of the visa, the first time nor
the second time. What we criticised, and we will continue to criticise until Mr Rudd rectifies it,
is his handling of this relationship. He is sending a confused message to China.

Helen Dalley: All right. You have said that several times. Can I just ask you about your
position?

Julie Bishop: And no wonder the Chinese are confused because Mr Rudd has not had a
consistent position on China. On the one hand he’s trying to be China’s ambassador
overseas; on the other side he needlessly offends them over a whole range of issues. It’s not
about one visa and it never has been.

Helen Dalley: It’s also the case, isn’t it, that the Coalition was against the Chinalco deal with
Rio. That wasn’t necessarily the government’s position. So when the China Daily talks about
the “anti-China chorus” from Canberra and Australian politicians being “sinophobic” they
could be talking about you and Malcolm Turnbull, couldn’t they?

Julie Bishop: The Chinese Government is concerned about the government in power. They
don’t even have an opposition in China. They are concerned about the government that
makes the decisions of the day. And this was another example where the government did
not make clear to China the arrangements with the Foreign Investment Review Board. It’s
quite clear that the government was sitting on that decision hoping that events would
overtake it as events eventually did. But again that sends such a mixed and confused
message to China. Why didn’t they tell China that there was a foreign investment review
board process that could take some time and could in fact end up with a recommendation
not to proceed and it wasn’t just a rubber stamp. But the government wanted to wait and that
sent a confused message to China.

Helen Dalley: Ms Bishop, if I could interrupt you please, do you agree that in fact Kevin
Rudd’s Government did not cause the problem that arose when Rio reneged on the Chinalco

Sunday Agenda 23 August 2009 Julie Bishop

deal. It had nothing to do with the Foreign Investment Review Board in the end. The
government had nothing to do with that and that peeved the Chinese when Rio pulled out.

Julie Bishop: Well I’ve never said that the government caused the Chinalco problem, I’ve
never said that.

Helen Dalley: But you are saying he’s caused all these problems with China, he has to take
responsibility for.

Julie Bishop: I’m talking about the confused messages that the government is sending. And
the key issue is: is our relationship with China better now than it was when Mr Rudd came to
office and patently the answer is no it is not.

Helen Dalley: Well on many scores in fact some would say that now it is better because in
fact right when you are saying this week that the relationship is at a crisis point the big
Gorgan LNG deal came about. And even Rio and BHP are saying it was still very much
business as usual with iron ore sales to China, which have actually increased in the past few
months despite the Stern Hu debacle.

Julie Bishop: Absolutely. There is a complete difference between the political relationship
between the Rudd Government and the Chinese Government and the commercial
relationships between big companies in Australia and in China. Now, the Gorgon deal is a
magnificent deal for Australia. It’s been in the making for some number of years. In fact the
development of Gorgan has been underway for decades. And a contract was signed
between ExxonMobil and PetroChina for $50 billion. That is a fantastic outcome for Australia,
for Western Australia. And so the commercial relations can go on. The political relationship
between the Rudd Government and the Chinese Government is in disrepair as evidenced by
the fact that Chinese officials are cancelling meetings. And as I said the most humiliating
blow for Mr Rudd is that China has withdrawn cooperation from Mr Rudd’s much touted Asia
Pacific Community proposal. Now, without China’s backing that is unlikely to proceed.

Helen Dalley: All right. Can I move on? Should Kevin Rudd meet the Dalai Lama on his visit
here later in the year?

Julie Bishop: I would hope he would. Prime Minister Howard met the Dalai Lama when he
came here. He is the spiritual leader in Tibet and I would hope that Mr Rudd would meet
him.

Helen Dalley: All right. Let’s turn very quickly to Afghanistan and there have been reports of
some violence during the elections. But I want to ask you about reports that the top US
Commander in Afghanistan, General McCrystal, wants our troops to be allowed to be
deployed outside the current zones. Should Australia agree to the general’s request?

Julie Bishop: Well, I’m not sure that General McCrystal has actually made that request at this
stage and obviously we would hope that the Australian Government would consider it. Our
troops are making a fantastic contribution to the outcome in Afghanistan, not only in a
military sense but also in a civilian sense, and the recent elections show, not withstanding
the violence and the intimidation, that an election could be held and it is a step forward in
democracy. And we certainly support the brave and courageous Afghani people who went
out to vote in the face of the Taliban violence. But in terms of whether Australia should
expand its commitment we would obviously have to consider what the request is and why
Australia would be required to do that.

Helen Dalley: He didn’t appear to be . . .

Sunday Agenda 23 August 2009 Julie Bishop

Julie Bishop: But we most certainly . . .

Helen Dalley: Go on.

Julie Bishop: We most certainly give support to the Rudd Government in its commitment to
Afghanistan. I made a speech in the House of Representatives last week speaking about the
role that Australia is playing as part of the international forces. We need to ensure that
Afghanistan doesn’t again become a headquarters for terrorism and we will need to stay the
course. It is going to be a long hard road and Australia needs to remain committed. Now, the
level of that commitment will depend on our capacity and the international community’s
capacity as well.

Helen Dalley: Just an issue that’s come up again that’s been raised before, but this morning
there are reports, and it’s more destabilising for the Liberals, with reports that Malcolm
Turnbull actually lobbied various ALP figures very hard a decade ago to join them, including
lobbying Bob Hawke.

Julie Bishop: Come on, Helen, the Labor Party’s going to have to make up their mind about
Malcolm. On the one minute he’s this neo-Liberal capital extremist, and now on the other
hand they’re trying to get us to believe that he’s a closet socialist. I mean this is an old Labor
Party tactic. They tried it the other week in Western Australia when there was a person
nominated as a potential Liberal candidate and they rolled out all the Labor heavies to say
that this man had actually tried to join the Labor Party. It’s a familiar tactic. I have known
Malcolm Turnbull for 20 years. . . .

Helen Dalley: But Julie Bishop, we have already known that Malcolm said there were you
know casual talks. This is now saying that he actually lobbied. Are you saying he did not
lobby to join the ALP?

Julie Bishop: I have known Malcolm Turnbull for 20 years. He has always been a Liberal. He
has run for preselection, he’s held official positions in our party. He is now the leader of our
party. If Malcolm wanted to join the Labor Party I’m sure he could have.

Helen Dalley: It’s nonetheless very destabilising, isn’t it?

Julie Bishop: But he didn’t. And of course there are going to be Labor people who were
trying to get Malcolm to join their party. Who wouldn’t’ want somebody of Malcolm’s
character and experience and intellect in their party? But Malcolm Turnbull has always been
a Liberal. He’s in our party, he’s our leader. He’s a man of great character, great personality.
His intellect and his analytical mind are unsurpassed in the parliament and if he were given
the opportunity to be prime minister of this country he would bring his capacity for creative
thought, his experience and his knowledge to the role.

Helen Dalley: Okay, Julie Bishop, we will leave it there. Thanks so much for your time.

Julie Bishop: Thank you, Helen.

Sunday Agenda 23 August 2009 Julie Bishop