Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Hansard source

and that the previous government, the Hawke-Keating government, sought; going back to speculation in the time of Fraser, as I recall; and, of course, back before then, when we did previously serve. It is a continuing interest of every developed country in the world, including Australia. I have never done a checklist to say, ‘Every developed country in the world has sought at one time or another to be on the Security Council in the normal cycle of events,’ but as far as I know that is the case—I cannot think of one that has not sought to be elected, and certainly there is plenty of competition for the position. So it is a stunningly timid proposition that somehow Australia alone amongst developed countries is not one that should seek to be elected—that we should shrink away from being part of the international effort about global peace and security and cower away in fear in case somebody asks us a hard question. No previous Australian government has ever had that view. I do not criticise the Howard government for not persisting with their view. They had their reasons at the time. I am not sure whether I would have done it or not at the time because I do not know all the facts that they would have had access to that we in opposition did not have access to. But they did not say that the Security Council was an inappropriate place for Australia to be or that there was no role for us or for our voice to be heard in the world.

The Australian government is committed to reinvigorating Australia’s engagement with the multilateral system. We are committed to making a substantial contribution to global peace and security—a modest one. We are not the biggest country in the world, but we are not the smallest. We are about the 12th largest economy in the world. We are on the G20. We ought to be capable of discharging the reasonable obligations that all developed countries have and of making a useful contribution. But, more particularly, we ought be able, like other countries seek to do—and which is one of the primary purposes of diplomacy—to shape global responses to our interests; to influence international approaches in ways that serve Australia’s interests. That is why we have diplomats. That is why we have a foreign policy. It is about contributing to global peace and security and about trying to shape solutions in ways that serve our national interest and also that bring the interests of our region onto the international stage. Very few countries within WEOG—the Western European and Others Group, of which Australia is a member—have the capacity to bring Asia-Pacific issues to the Security Council. It is a legitimate and ongoing role. That is why we do it. It is not a unique reason and it is entirely consistent with the articulated priorities of the government in its foreign policy.

On the cost question, the government has, up to now, committed $13.1 million to the campaign. We intend it to be targeted and cost effective. The budget does not make any provision for the final two years. The funding for the final two years will be considered in the 2011-12 budget context. But we do not expect this to be a massive expenditure. We have committed $13.1 million from 2008-09 and we will outline what the final two years will cost in the 2011-12 budget context.

On the other matter, I will just get some information for you. We do not actually have a bilateral program with Thailand, so I am not quite sure what the $1.6 million is. I am just checking. I am aware there is something in the budget paper. I will get back to the shadow minister in just a moment on that.

See this speech in context