Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This debate is another case of the opposition grasping a highly questionable premise for the sake of some dubious political point scoring. No-one in this place expects that a political debate should be anything other than frank and even fierce, but at the same time one would hope that debates on the really important topics would spring from justifiable cause. Yet in the course of this year we have seen the opposition make claims against the Prime Minister and call for the Prime Minister’s resignation on the basis of a fraudulent email provided to them by a disgruntled public servant with a track record of assisting the Liberal Party. Today we debate a proposition with an equally hollow and questionable basis. Again, it is a proposition that rebounds upon those who advance it. Australia’s foreign relations are of critical importance to this country, and it follows that wanton criticism of our foreign relations should only proceed on substantial grounds. This is a serious matter of national policy and international reputation. It is not something one should drum up lightly in between contributions via Twitter.

Such a debate might usefully proceed, for example, where there is evidence that the government has taken Australia into a war that does not directly affect its security, that is without the sanction of the United Nations and that is based on an ever-shifting, ever-dissolving rationale. Or it might proceed from circumstances where the government has failed, at the very least, to adequately supervise Australia’s wheat exports, with the result being the payment of millions of dollars to the regime of Saddam Hussein in Australia’s largest trading scandal. Or it might be applicable where the government has consciously and deliberately undermined the United Nations and multilateralism and ridiculed the findings of UN human rights bodies and rapporteurs concerning Australia’s treatment of its Indigenous peoples and asylum seekers. But none of these circumstances obtain in relation to this government. They applied, rather, in relation to the previous government.

As someone who worked within the United Nations for eight years before entering parliament and who maintains contact with UN and other governmental and NGO personnel across the globe, I will state the obvious: the shift in Australia’s international standing between this government and the last is stark beyond belief. Whereas a great number of Australia’s actions under the Howard government were an international embarrassment, the Rudd government has cooperated constructively with other nations and brought great credit to Australia in the view of the international community.

On the question of this government’s record when it comes to foreign relations, let us consider the facts. From the moment of its election in November 2007, the Rudd government has comprehensively re-engaged with the international community. The government’s first act was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In so doing, we reaffirmed Australia’s historical position and role as a state that is proactive in the cause of international cooperation. In two years of government we have ratified a number of important international agreements and incorporated the substance and purpose of a number of international agreements into Australian law. Today, for example, the Attorney-General introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill, which will enact a specific offence of torture within the Commonwealth Criminal Code and will extend the application of the death penalty prohibition to state laws, in accordance with Australia’s international obligations under the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This government, in the context of the global financial crisis and in addition to its world-leading management of the domestic economy, has also played its part in achieving the acceptance of the G20 group of countries as the premier international forum for dealing with global economic issues and challenges. This not only gives Australia a seat at that important table but, in taking the consideration and carriage of such matters from the G8 to the G20, also now includes the crucial participation of countries like Brazil, India and China. On that historic shift, Andrew F Cooper, Associate Director of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, remarked:

As witnessed previously at Washington and London, Prime Minister Rudd has made good use of his seat at the G20 table. Certainly, he has been one of the biggest supporters of the expanded club. If the G20 is to continue at the leaders’ level, it will be a reward for Australia, recognising its ability to mobilise and enhance global debates.

Does that assessment in any way conform to the proposition that this government has not properly managed Australia’s international engagement or its foreign relations? When it comes to important bilateral relationships, this government, through the work of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has carried forward our engagement with all our important bilateral partners—with the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, India, Indonesia, New Zealand and our Pacific Island neighbours, and our other Asia-Pacific regional partners.

The government’s record and its achievements in managing Australia’s foreign relations and its international engagement speak for themselves. This is a record of which we are proud, and these are achievements that are for the long-term economic, social and security benefit of this country.

See this speech in context