Reference to the national interest in democratic politics is invariably embraced by governments rather than oppositions. Democracy, after all, is the resolution of conflict by nonviolent means following a contest of ideas between various interests. It is governments that invariably prevail in the battle of ideas.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong was interviewed by Sally Sara on ABC Radio National last Tuesday. She was asked about a letter that Sussan Ley had sent to some Republican members of the US Congress concerning the decision by the Albanese Labor government to recognise a Palestinian state.

On September 19, 25 Republicans, including senators Ted Cruz and Joni Ernst, wrote to the prime ministers of Australia, Canada and Britain and the President of France, describing their decision to “unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state” as “reckless policy that undermines prospects for peace”.

A copy of the letter was sent to President Donald J. Trump and to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

For her part, the federal Opposition Leader wrote to the US signatories advising that “the federal opposition opposes this decision and would reverse it should we form government”.

Asked by Sara about Ley’s approach, Wong was not amused.

She had this to say: “The opposition of Australia running a rogue foreign policy is not in the nation’s interests. You know, we are (at) Australia’s strongest when our country speaks with one voice; and I think Australians know that, and it is a pity that Sussan Ley does not.”

When asked what she meant by this, the Foreign Minister replied: “It is possible to back Australia and still be an effective opposition.”

It is understandable why Wong was annoyed by Ley’s intervention. After all, the UN heads of state and government meeting was underway in the General Assembly in New York and Anthony Albanese had just formally announced Australia’s decision with respect to a Palestinian state.

However, the historical evidence suggests that Ley is anything but a “rogue” Opposition Leader when it comes to foreign policy. There are, after all, many precedents on the Labor Party side of Australian national politics in opposing foreign policy decisions by governments.

Labor supported Britain during World War I (1914-18). However, it opposed the conscription of Australian men to reinforce the First Australian Imperial Force on the frontline. This was essentially a foreign policy decision over which Labor split in 1916. From opposition, Labor opposed conscription.

Labor supported the decision of the conservative government led by Robert Menzies to declare war on Nazi Germany in September 1939. However, when in opposition, Labor under the leadership of John Curtin did not support the decision of the Menzies government to dispatch the Second Australian Imperial Force to engage in battle against German and Italian forces in the northern hemisphere.

In 1950, the Menzies Coalition government decided to send military assets to Malaya to assist British and New Zealand forces in the defence of the British colony against a communist insurgency. Australia’s forces were increased in 1955 and 1957 and some remained in place until 1963 during what was called the Malayan Emergency.

In 1955 the Labor Party split again – on this occasion partly because of attitudes to communism. Labor leader Bert Evatt declared that Australia’s role in the defence of Malaya “will be easily misrepresented as an act of aggression”. It wasn’t.

In 1957, the Australia-Japan Commerce Agreement was signed. This was one of the most important civil treaties in Australian history and of benefit to both parties. An initiative of the Coalition government and supported by the Democratic Labor Party that emerged from the Labor split of 1955, it was opposed by Labor.

Labor leader Evatt told the House of Representatives on August 28, 1957, that “the treaty should not be adopted”. He was supported by Jim Cairns, a prominent member of the Labor Left.

Moving into more recent times, in September 1965 the Menzies government committed Australian military forces, in support of the US, to defend (then) non-communist South Vietnam against (then) communist North Vietnam. What is now called the Australian Defence Force remained in Vietnam until all combat troops were withdrawn by the William McMahon-led Coalition government in 1971. Only a few military advisers were in South Vietnam when Gough Whitlam’s Labor government came to office in December 1972.

Labor, under the leadership of Arthur Calwell and, later Whitlam, vehemently opposed Australia’s Vietnam commitment. Moreover, Labor MP Cairns effectively led Australia’s opposition to the Vietnam commitment.

And there’s more. In early 2003 the John Howard-led Coalition committed the Australian military to what was called the coalition of the willing (Australia, Britain, the US and Poland) to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

Speaking at the National Press Club in March 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean said: “As I speak, we are a nation on the brink of war; a war we should not be in.”

By mid-2004, Mark Latham was Labor leader. He committed Labor to withdrawing Australian forces from Iraq if it defeated the Howard-led Coalition government in the forthcoming 2004 election.

And now to modern times. In October 2018, the Scott Morrison-led Coalition government indicated that Australia would recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. At the time, as now, Australia’s embassy in Israel was based in Tel Aviv.

Specifics were never announced. But it was assumed that any move to change the embassy’s location would have been to West Jerusalem, which has been part of Israel since 1948 and is the location of the Israeli parliament and supreme court.

This decision was strongly contested by Wong in her capacity as Labor’s foreign spokeswoman.

At the time Wong declared: “Foreign policy and Australia’s national interest are far too important to be played with in this fashion.” She added that “all Australians deserve a leader who puts the national interest ahead of his self-interest and governs in the best long-term interest of the nation”.

The historical message seems to be that oppositions – whether Coalition or Labor – oppose government foreign policy on occasions. This Wong should well remember.