Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

It is terrific that we have the opportunity today to talk about the foreign affairs portfolio, trade, tourism and so on. There is a lot of agreement across the aisle on issues around foreign policy—the importance of alliance relationships, the place of Australia in our region, the importance of the Indo Pacific region to Australia's future, and of course our support for international institutions like the United Nations and international laws and norms. Another area where there has been great support and bipartisanship over these last few years has been the support for the role that our defence forces are playing in Iraq and in Syria. I am sure all of us will be watching very closely during these next few days what happens in Mosul.

But one of the questions that Labor have consistently put to the minister is: when will we have the opportunity in the Australian parliament to have a more detailed debate and discussion about what happens next? We have heard very concerning reports of the very brave Kurdish fighters, the Peshmerga, approaching from one side, Iraqi state forces approaching Mosul from another side. There are international concerns about what will happen between these two forces after the battle for Mosul. So I would like to ask the minister first of all: when will she lead a debate in our federal parliament about Australia's role in this conflict overseas? Particularly, when will we have the opportunity to address the 'day after' scenario for Iraq? And also, when will we have the opportunity to have a discussion about the role the larger powers—Iran, Russia and others—are playing in the region and what significance that has for Australia? When will we have that debate in the parliament?

There are important differences between the government and the opposition, and the minister has alluded to one of them—our aid program. Labor committed at the last election that we would invest $800 million more than the Liberals over the forward estimates in the aid program. We would like the minister to address the fact that aid organisations, including the Australian Council for International Development, have said that this aid program under this minister has no vision, that this budget marks the Turnbull government as the least generous in Australian history. I would like to know whether the minister is proud of that achievement and whether she argued for those massive aid cuts or whether in fact she was rolled in the cabinet on those issues.

We on this side have a similar position to the government—that the international laws and norms are absolutely critical to Australia's future. We do best in a world that abides by the rules. We have seen the minister urging China and other parties in disputes in the South China Sea and the East China sea to abide by those international laws and norms and by the decisions that are made in respect of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. How does the minister continue to make that case publicly when Australia itself is being criticised globally for our refusal to come to a final arrangement with Timor-Leste on the seabed boundary dispute that has indeed been dragging on for so long? So could the minister also comment on how difficult it must be for her to be lecturing other countries on the importance of following the rules when Australia is not prepared to be judged by the same set of rules that we are urging others to follow.

I have one final question. The minister mentioned the extra $9 million, I think it was, on issues around people smuggling and border control. I would like the minister to tell us whether she still abides by the decision she made to vote against an arrangement with Malaysia for Malaysia to accept asylum seekers from Australia or whether, like the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, she now admits that was the wrong decision to make.

See this speech in context