House debates

Tuesday, 12 June 2007

Questions without Notice

Japan

3:01 pm

Photo of Andrew SouthcottAndrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the significance of the first ever Australia-Japan Foreign and Defence Ministerial Consultation? Is the minister aware of any policies that may pose a threat to this important bilateral relationship?

Photo of Alexander DownerAlexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and for his interest. The defence minister and I were in Tokyo last week for two-plus-two—

Photo of Lindsay TannerLindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Tanner interjecting

Photo of Alexander DownerAlexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

that is, the foreign and defence ministers on both sides—talks with the Japanese government. This is a round of discussions which followed the conclusion of the Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation between Japan and Australia by our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Abe of Japan. That was signed in March. These are the only talks of this kind that Australia has with any country, with the exception of the United States and the United Kingdom. As far as Japan is concerned, it only has two-plus-two talks with the United States and Australia. It is an opportunity for us to work through with the leadership of Japan not only issues such as North Korea, counterterrorism and counterproliferation but also, and very importantly for Australia, the South Pacific and developments in South-East Asia.

Fifty years ago, Black Jack McEwen, the leader of the then Country Party, now the National Party, negotiated the historic commerce agreement. Fifty years later Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Abe have concluded a security cooperation declaration demonstrating a substantial step forward, yet again, in one of the most important of all bilateral relationships. It does demonstrate a point that we have made in all our years in government, and that is that one of the keys to Australian diplomacy in promoting our national interest—that is what we do on this side of the House—is to build strong bilateral relationships with key countries: the United States, Indonesia, China, Japan and India. That is, if I may say so, one of the core strategies of an Australian foreign policy.

The honourable member asks whether this approach is threatened in any way. The opposition’s approach is somewhat different. I noted in the Australian Financial Review this weekend an interview by Geoffrey Barker with the member for Barton about foreign policy. I wondered at first why the member for Barton would be interviewed but I discovered on reading the article that he is the spokesman for foreign affairs. The member for Barton said that he would take a completely different approach. He said he opposed the coalition’s embrace of predominantly bilateral foreign relations in favour of a shift to what he described as a ‘liberal multilateralist agenda’. All of these great things that we have been doing bilaterally with the key countries in the region apparently—

Photo of Lindsay TannerLindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Tanner interjecting

Photo of David HawkerDavid Hawker (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The member for Melbourne is warned!

Photo of Alexander DownerAlexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

are of little importance compared to the so-called ‘liberal multilateralist agenda’. The opposition wants to downgrade the American alliance—apparently these key bilateral relationships are not so important anymore—and instead wants to play some sort of parlour game with a hotchpotch of like-minded international activists.

This kind of hazy lazy commitment to liberal multilateralism is of course very popular with the Labor Party. But on this side of the House we are guided by a different principle; we are guided by the principle of promoting Australia’s national interest. Actually, on this side of the House we are on Australia’s side; and on that side of the House you are liberal multilateralists, apparently. That is yet another reason why staying with the stability and certainty of the coalition government is the wise thing to do.