TV interview, Afternoon Agenda, Sky News

TOM CONNELL, HOST: Reports today that there could be an end to repatriation flights the Australian Government is organising from of course war-torn Lebanon. My colleague Olivia Caisley, she spoke a short time ago to the Assistant Foreign Minister Tim Watts and started by asking about his message to Australians still in Lebanon.

TIM WATTS, ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Well, my first message to any Australians still in Lebanon is now is the time to leave. The security situation is fragile, and it could disintegrate with very short notice. The airport remains open at the moment, but we do not know how long that will continue, we don't know how long airspace will remain open, and so we are continuing to operate facilitated departure flights from Lebanon to Cyprus, then back to Australia. And we're really pleased that 1,988 Australians have now departed Lebanon on those flights, but to the 3,350 Australians who have registered their interest to leave in Lebanon and have not yet departed, we're really pleading that people take the next available flight out of the area. We do not know how long these flights are going to be able to continue to operate.

OLIVIA CAISLEY, REPORTER: But when it comes to the Middle East, the Prime Minister yesterday said that he's in lockstep with the US President Joe Biden on Israel, but unlike the US, Australia hasn't explicitly backed some of the IDF operations we've seen, where they've been going into parts of southern Lebanon to target Hizballah’s strongholds. Does the Australian Government support those operations?

WATTS: Well, there's striking international unanimity on what is trying to be achieved in the conflict between Israel and Hizballah at the moment. So we've been very clear in saying that, as a matter of international law, Israel has a right to self-defence. We've also been clear that, similarly as a matter of international law, that right needs to be exercised in consistency with international law. So that means responses need to be necessary, proportionate. They need to exercise distinction and precaution with respect to civilian life. But similarly, we've also said, and this is not just Australia, this is the entire international community, that we need to break the cycle of violence in this region. We need to exercise restraint and de-escalation from all parties to this conflict to create space for a diplomatic solution. Now, the US State Department spokesman overnight made it clear that the US wants to see a diplomatic resolution to that conflict because, and I quote, “a diplomatic resolution is the only real enduring security for Israelis and Palestinians”. Now that's been supported by a G7 statement a week ago that's called for space for a diplomatic solution and de-escalation. And it's been echoed by a statement by Australia, the US and 10 other countries have been calling for that de-escalation.

CAISLEY: There are some distinctions, though. I mean the United States explicitly calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, the Albanese Government calling for one in Lebanon and Gaza. So, when it comes to that right to defend itself, various Labor Ministers have said, Israel does have that right. But does that extend to these incursions, these IDF operations we're seeing in southern Lebanon, targeting those Hizballah strongholds?

WATTS: I should be clear, the international community is entirely consistent here. And as I say, Australia joined the United States and ten other countries in calling for a ceasefire in the conflict with Lebanon, we've been clear that there is a right to self-defence at international law, but that we need to break the cycle of violence here. We need to seek restraint. We need to see de-escalation. I should say here really, the only person that's out of step with this international consensus at the moment is Peter Dutton. I'm not aware of Peter Dutton ever calling for a diplomatic resolution to any conflict in the Middle East. It seems that his position is one of constant, continuing escalation, a position of no regard for ceasefires, no regard for the protection of innocent civilian life. Now, that is not the position of the international community, including the United States, because the only way to get an enduring resolution to this conflict is through a diplomatic solution.

CAISLEY: Yeah. Well, do you think that Israel has been complying with the international rules of war?

WATTS: Well, the international rules of law are clear. There is a right of self-defence in response to attacks, but the way that that right of self-defence is exercised needs to be consistent with those principles of precaution, those principles of distinction, and those principles of proportionality. Now we've been very clear that the fight against Hizballah is still governed by rules of international law. International law applies when you are exercising right to self-defence. It applies when you are in a conflict with a terrorist group. Now we've been very clear that Lebanon cannot become another Gaza, and that innocent civilians in Lebanon cannot pay the price for the defeat of Hezbollah, and we can't reach a diplomatic resolution in the context of military escalation. That's why you saw that G7 statement calling for the cessation of hostilities as soon as possible, to create space for that diplomatic solution.

CAISLEY: In the Australian today, former Prime Minister John Howard has compared Anthony Albanese to Mark Latham, saying that he doesn't have a nuanced understanding of foreign policy and national security. Do you think that's a fair comparison?

WATTS: Well, I would just say that Australia's position is to work closely with likeminded countries, and we are a part of the international consensus on the way to respond to the conflicts we are seeing in the Middle East. We work closely with the G7, we work closely with partners like the US, UK, EU, Japan, Canada, all of who signed on to that statement that I was talking about earlier. So, as I say, the only outlier we're seeing here at the moment is Peter Dutton.

CAISLEY: So, the Prime Minister, he's at the ASEAN Summit. Talks are underway. He'll also be meeting with the Chinese Premier Li Qiang. I wanted to ask, where are things progressing when it comes to pushing for the release of Australian-Chinese writer Yang Heng Jun, is there any progress there?

WATTS: So, we have taken a consistent approach to our engagement with China since the last election. We've been very clear that we'll cooperate where we can, we'll disagree where we must, and we'll always engage in the national interest. Now, it's obvious that the point of disagreement has been trade disputes, has been human rights and has been in certain consular matters that we have had. Now we have consistently raised the issue of Yang Heng Jun with Chinese officials at all levels. I've raised it with counterparts. The Prime Minister has raised it, the Foreign Minister has raised it. We've taken a patient, calibrated and deliberate approach to this issue, but we'll continue to engage and advocate on that particular case.

CAISLEY: How do you think Australia should best prioritise its diplomatic focus? Because ultimately, multiple fronts are opening up, and it is a global concern.

WATTS: Well, this is a big part of why the Prime Minister is going to the ASEAN-Australia Summit and the East Asia Summit. He's having bilateral meetings with a range of leaders from around the region. And a focus of those meetings will be talking with our partners, talking with other countries in our region about conflict prevention. You know, in the South China Sea, we want to see disputes resolved in accordance with international law, and we have called for engagement and dialogue on that. We don't want to see any disputes resolved with force. It's disturbing that we've seen conflict return to Europe. We've seen conflict return to the Middle East. So, conflict prevention is now a really significant part of our international agenda, and we seek to work with regional partners on that agenda.