Election Diary: Albanese government stays mum over whatever Russia may have said to Indonesia
- Written by The Conversation
The imbroglio over the reported Russian request to Indonesia to base planes in Papua initially tripped Peter Dutton, and now is dogging Anthony Albanese.
After the respected military site Janes said a request had been made, the Australian government quickly obtained an assurance from the Indonesians there would be no Russian planes based there.
Moreover, the government was able to score a hit on Dutton, who had wrongly named Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto as having said there’d been a Russian approach. Later, Dutton admitted he’d stuffed up.
One might have thought the story would have died as the election caravan moved on. But it continued when it became obvious the government would not say, despite repeated questions, whether it knew a request had in fact been made to the Indonesians.
Then Russia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Sergei Tolchenov, leapt into the fray. Tolchenov wrote a letter to The Jakarta Post, responding to an article by Australian academic Matthew Sussex on The Conversation, which was republished in the Post.
His letter dripping with sarcasm, the ambassador wrote:
It is hard to imagine that any ordinary Australians should be concerned about what is happening 1,300 kilometers from their territory, about matters that concern relations between other sovereign states and have nothing to do with Australia. Perhaps it would be better for them to pay attention to the United States’ Typhon medium-range missile system in the Philippines, which will definitely reach the territory of the continent?
It is clear that the leaders of the two main political parties, replacing each other in power and calling it democracy, are now trying to outdo each other, heating up the situation. They stop at nothing, and the time has come to play the so-called ‘Russian card’. This means to show to overseas mentors who is more anti-Russian and Russophobe. In this regard, I would like to remind them of the words of US President Donald Trump, which he pronounced in the White House on Feb. 28, 2025, to the Ukrainian citizen ‘Z’: ‘You have no cards’.“
Meanwhile, Employment Minister Murray Watt strayed off the government’s script of diplomatic silence when he told Sky on Sunday, "There is no proposal from Russia to have a base anywhere in Indonesia in the way that Peter Dutton and his colleagues have been claiming”.
The questioning intensified.
Late Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was back on Sky to impose the official blackout over what the government knew of the alleged discussions between Russia and Indonesia.
“What we know about that, and when we knew about it, is obviously not something I’m going to ventilate in the public domain.
"What matters here is that the Indonesians have made it completely clear to us that they have absolutely no intent of having Russian aircraft operating from their nation,” Marles said.
Another instalment of “What the Russians Asked” may come in Tuesday night’s third leaders debate on Nine.
We keep getting lectured in this campaign about various significant issues (such as tax reform) that are being pushed under the carpet. But there’s something else that’s being overlooked: whether our institutions are in need of a big overhaul.
With public trust low, accountability vital but often wanting, and our democracy sometimes resembling a car urgently needing a service, there are plenty of reforms that could be considered.
John Daley (formerly of the Grattan Institute and now an independent consultant) and Rachel Krust, in a report released Monday and titled Institutional reform stocktake, propose a rich agenda for change. The stocktake was sponsored by the Susan McKinnon Foundation, a non-partisan body committed to promoting all aspects of better government.
The report identifies short-term priority reforms as well as ones that would take longer to achieve.
Parliamentarians often claim we’d be better governed with four-year terms. But given that would require a referendum, it is effectively out of reach. So the stocktake advocates a next-best option: fixed three year terms, which could be legislated. Four year terms would be a more distant aim.
