Senator Wong questions remarks allegedly made by Ambassador Hockey about moving our embassy to Jerusalem

EXCLUSIVE

I often wake up in the morning to catch the main morning news bulletin broadcast by the ABC at 7:45 am on my local radio station.

A week ago I heard a news item about Senator Penny Wong lambasting Ambassador Joe Hockey for remarks who allegedly made last December which don’t align with the Australian government’s position on the location of Australia’s embassy in Israel remaining in Tel Aviv, there being no plans or intention to move the embassy to Jerusalem as Donald Trump has decided to do with the American Embassy.

Now ABC Radio fails to provide a podcast of their main daily news bulletin so if you miss it it is your bad luck. Moreover if you happen to hear a news item and you are interested in following it up you cannot readily obtain a copy of  it.  Another black mark for our biased ABC that fails repeatedly to be properly accountable.

But coming back to what was reported. I contacted DFAT (the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade) saying:

When the Hansard transcript became available a few days later  I was finally in a position to track down the exchange (see below) that took place between Senator Wong and DFAT.

The remarks show Labor’s Foreign Minister trying to blame the government for allowing its US Ambassador to step out of line. Actually what Ambassador Hockey tweeted remains a mystery and Senator Wong insisted that DFAT report back with what Hockey supposedly said that breached government policy.

Hockey has been commenting favourably about the Trump administration saying Donald Trump would win another US presidential election and

The recently-flagged recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and striking a deal with Democratic leadership to raise the debt ceiling were examples of Trump “learning how to use the power of the office to reshape policy”.

The hounding of Ambassador Hockey by Senator Wong and the ABC over some allegedly tweeted remarks he made a couple of months ago is sadly symptomatic of how the ABC views such issues with its manifestly anti-Israel mindset and also suggests we need to be wary of what might happen to Australia’s relations with Israel if Labor got into power.

[Editor: What was intriguing about the Senate Estimates hearing was that two other senators also took to the floor to talk about issues to do with Israel and the Palestinians, Senator Rhiannon (Australian Greens) and Eric Abetz (Liberal). JMedia has also posted the video clips and the transcripts of what they had to say.
Rhiannon, as one might have expected, brought up the case of Ahed Tamimi who has been charged by Israeli authorities for attacking an Israeli soldier. Abetz alluded to the mischievous actions of UNRWA and its perpetuating of the conflict by recognizing descendants of Palestinian refugees also as refugees even when they have been granted citizenship of another country.]

Transcript

Senator WONG: The letter was released by the foreign minister’s office at a very convenient time. In the last estimates round, Ms Adamson—and I don’t take any issue with this—you said:
We have an embassy in Tel Aviv; we don’t lightly move embassies; Tel Aviv is the main location for diplomatic missions in Israel; and there is no intention on the government’s part to move it.
That remains the government’s position?
Ms Adamson: Yes, it does.
Senator WONG: You’ve confirmed that that there had been no consideration to moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, notwithstanding the new articulated position of the US Administration?
Ms Adamson: That’s correct.
Senator WONG: Was DFAT or the foreign minister made aware—at any point post the decision of the US administration, has the government been provided with advice, in relation to any possible move of the Australian embassy?
Ms Adamson: Not to my knowledge, no.
Senator WONG: Is it the position of the Australian government that President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital may facilitate a plan for peace?
Mr Neuhaus: We have taken no position on that as a government. There is an argument that says it adds to pressure.
Senator WONG: That’s not the articulated position of the Australian government.
Mr Neuhaus: That is not the articulated position of the Australian government.
Senator WONG: Why is the Australian ambassador in Washington making such an argument?
Mr Neuhaus: I’m not aware of what the ambassador has said, in that regard.
Senator WONG: Mr Hockey is quoted by the ABC as saying on 8 December, ‘Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital may facilitate a plan for peace.’ Is that an expression of the Australian government’s position?
Ms Adamson: Our position, as formally articulated, is that our own embassy is in Tel Aviv and we have no intention of moving it. The government expressed some disappointment when the original US decision was announced.
Senator WONG: Correct.
Ms Adamson: The ambassador in Washington is uniquely placed, in discussions with the US administration, to get a sense of what their thinking around it might be, but that’s not a formal Australian government position. It doesn’t, though, follow that it wasn’t a sensible thing for the ambassador to say, given his engagement with the US administration.
Senator WONG: Why is it a sensible thing to say if it doesn’t reflect the Australian government’s position?
Ms Adamson: What I’m saying is he has access to the US administration. He’s in conversation with them. There are those, as Mr Neuhaus said, who argue that but it’s not something you would hear from Canberra.
Senator WONG: Surely, we have the same position in Canberra as we do in Washington.
Ms Adamson: We do, but Mr Hockey is engaged in conversations with the administration and he has very good connections into the White House. It is certainly the case—
Senator WONG: His job is not to reflect the US administration’s position, it is to reflect the Australian government’s position.
Ms Adamson: Yes, it is, but in terms of commenting on a move that had been made and the thinking behind it, the US government’s position—that is a position that has since been articulated. It’s not unreasonable to attribute that to President Trump and therefore not unreasonable, I would say, for Mr Hockey to have mentioned it or tweeted it.
Senator WONG: Were you aware of these comments?
Ms Adamson: Was it a tweet that you referred to?
Senator WONG: It was a tweet about Mr Hockey’s comments.
Ms Adamson: Yes. I have said before that I follow Mr Hockey on Twitter.
Senator WONG: Did anyone ring him up and say, ‘Actually, that isn’t the Australian government’s position’?
Mr Neuhaus: Certainly, I didn’t, nor would I be in a position to do so.
Senator WONG: It might have been better if you had.
Ms Adamson: I’m sure he is well aware of what the Australian government’s articulated position is.
Senator WONG: How do you know that?
Ms Adamson: Because all of our heads of mission are.
Senator WONG: But he’s saying something different.
Ms Adamson: He is in conversation with the administration.
Senator WONG: There’s a difference between understanding what someone’s position is—
Ms Adamson: I agree.
Senator WONG: and making comment which references argument that is not the position of one’s government.
Ms Adamson: No, but in order for me to give the verdict on this that you’d like me to, I would need to look very carefully at the circumstances. I’m happy to do that.
Senator WONG: I’d like DFAT to provide, on notice, any information they can about the full text of those comments and the circumstances of them.
Ms Adamson: I would always like to check with those who’ve made comments.