Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to manage, protect and grow Australia’s foreign relationships in the Asia/Pacific region in a balanced manner.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For all the talk of the Prime Minister’s foreign affairs experience, after six months in government all the talk in our region is about the Prime Minister’s obsession with China at the expense of all other major relationships in North, East and South-East Asia. Already there has emerged a serious concern about the lack of balance and perspective in Australia’s regional foreign policy under the Rudd government. Already it is clear that this government came to office with no clear plan for protecting and growing and balancing our critical relationships in the Asia-Pacific region. Outside of China the major actions so far appear to be designed to ‘trail our coats’ with old friends and with strategic allies alike.

In just six months the Prime Minister has failed to pick up the phone to the Prime Minister of Japan to explain Australia’s gunboat diplomacy against Japanese whalers. It took 5½ months to make contact, despite the great honour that Japan bestowed on Australia immediately after the election in inviting our Prime Minister to the G8 talks in July. That was an invitation which was purely at the discretion of the Japanese Prime Minister and yet there has been no contact despite highly provocative actions being taken by Australia against the Japanese.

In just six months the Prime Minister has snubbed Japan and every other Asian country except China in his 17-day world tour. In just six months the Prime Minister has taken the axe to an already lean Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade by slashing over $100 million from the budget despite already committing Australia to an increased role in climate change, the UN, Asia and the Pacific and Afghanistan. Again, this government does not match actions with words. It slashed $100 million from the department of foreign affairs despite announcing a much upgraded program on the world stage.

In just six months the Prime Minister downgraded negotiations on a free trade agreement with both China and Japan. In just six months the Prime Minister effectively told India that we do not trust them with our uranium by reneging on the agreement of the former coalition government to supply India with uranium for power generation, seriously reducing India’s capacity to combat climate change. In just six months the Prime Minister abandoned Australia’s commitment to the quadrilateral dialogue involving India, the United States, Japan and Australia, again raising concerns, especially with India and Japan, about the Rudd government’s China bias.

All of this is against a background where the standing and the influence of Australia had never been higher when the Rudd government took office. Yet all those actions have occurred in the space of six months which have undermined that standing and influence. Over nearly 12 years of coalition government Australia found its confidence on the world stage and did not shy away from its responsibilities as a free nation. We were able to balance both of those important objectives. Over 12 years the coalition worked to strengthen simultaneously all of our key relationships. As a result the US alliance had never been stronger or our ties with Japan as broad and as deep. Relations with China had never been more productive. We enjoyed a close and frank relationship with the democratic leaders of Indonesia and we welcomed India as a major emerging power in global affairs.

Our approach to foreign policy was, first and foremost, directed to delivering greater national security and economic prosperity to Australians. It was grounded in realism to serve the national interest and was ably led by our former Prime Minister and the member for Mayo. We ensured that Australia played an important leadership role in our own neighbourhood while also being willing to fulfil broader international responsibilities with confidence and with resolve. Much of that in six months in the region has been undermined. Years of painstaking work to strike that balance has been undermined. We strongly believe that Australia can and should make a positive and enduring difference in international affairs.

Critically, our standing and influence around the globe, and in particular in our own region, was built upon an uninterrupted and superior economic performance compared with other major Western economies over the last 12 years, despite confronting the Asian financial crisis, the 2001 US recession, the tech bubble, 9-11 and the worst drought in 100 years. Much of our position, standing and influence in the region was born out of that superior economic performance. Good economic management assists good diplomacy, and good diplomacy helps to deliver good economic management. It enabled us to strike good relationships and to develop a measure of cooperation, especially with countries in the region, many of whom were very badly affected by the Asian financial crisis and the US recession, saw the aftermath of 9-11 in a serious way and were affected by the tech bubble. Because of our performance as an economy we were able to provide cooperation and that in turn enabled us to weather those storms. But all of those things are about consistency and balance in our international affairs.

In this context, Mr Rudd’s longstanding relationship with China and his Mandarin-speaking abilities should be a great advantage to Australia. However, to fully capitalise on those attributes—that longstanding relationship, that knowledge of China—Mr Rudd needs to almost overcompensate with other countries in the region so that fears of China bias do not sour many other critical relationships. So far, the opposite has been the case. India and Japan have been offended—gratuitously, unnecessarily. Indonesia has been overlooked—gratuitously, unnecessarily. Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and many others have rated no mention, no consideration. In March, Indonesia’s defence minister made a most unusual public intervention when he publicly expressed concern that the Rudd government may be putting too much stock in its relationship with China to the detriment of its links with near neighbours.

As our strongest friend in Asia, and our largest export market by a country mile, the only question the Japanese wanted answered when the Prime Minister took office after 24 November was: would he visit Tokyo before Beijing? Here is a man who is supposedly enormously experienced in the region and in international affairs. He understood the implications of not only not going to Tokyo before Beijing but ignoring the Japanese government and the Japanese Prime Minister for 5½ months, despite taking highly provocative action against whaling, despite receiving an invitation to the G8 summit and despite all sorts of other issues—ignoring all of those overtures from Japan. The Prime Minister must have understood the implications of his actions. For Mr Rudd to then spend four days in China on a 17-day world tour and not find one hour to visit Japan caused a great loss of face in Japan. He must have understood this. He knows these things. It was an act of diplomatic stupidity or, the more I look at it and try to search for explanations the more it seems an act of diplomatic perversity.

No doubt this action will serve to undermine Japan’s sense of confidence in its own position and in its relationship with Australia. It has set back our relationship a long way. This is our closest friend in Asia. We have had 50 years of a most extraordinary relationship with this country, Japan. And with six months of, in my view, ignorance, the Prime Minister of this country has severely undermined that relationship. Japan also lost face when our Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, made his offensively worded remarks on the abandonment of the quadrilateral talks between Australia, the United States, Japan and India while in a press conference with China’s foreign minister. Can you imagine that? What were they thinking about to put our foreign minister up with the Chinese foreign minister at a time when a series of actions had made other countries in the region doubt and worry about the China bias? What were they thinking about to put our foreign minister up to announce the unilateral abandonment of the quadrilateral talks? This has worried not only Japan but also India, and it has confused the United States. They wonder what we are on about. This is disturbing. China is of course of great importance to Australia—

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn’t think so, listening to you!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is called balance; that is what we are talking about. The quadrilateral dialogue of democracies was clearly abandoned to appease China. This is disturbing. China is of great importance to Australia, but we must not be in the position of tugging the forelock to any country. We must not be in that position. Further concerns have been raised in Japan and India and among South-East Asian countries over the lack of meaningful consultation with Australia over the Prime Minister’s preference to institutionalise and expand the six-party talks that were originally established to discuss North Korea—expand them to include Australia but not India or Indonesia.

The Rudd government’s decision to reverse the former coalition government agreement to supply India with uranium for clean power generation is also a serious snub to India and reduces India’s capacity to combat climate change. Its grubby motivation for reneging on this understanding with India is born purely out of party politics. And that is what they told the Indians—this is just a matter of party politics; this is not about the national interest. Nuclear power generation would be a safe, sustainable and nonpolluting source of energy for India. Clean nuclear power has the potential to meet 35 per cent of all of India’s expanded energy needs by 2050.

Yet what do we do with 40 per cent of the world’s uranium? We put our heads in the sand. It makes absolutely no sense at all to sell uranium to China and Russia and not to India. And 95 per cent of the people on the other side would believe, accept and agree with that. But, no, party politics says otherwise. Indian government officials have said they were angered by the Rudd government’s pathetic hypocrisy on this issue. This issue alone could make Australia a strategically important partner to India, the world’s largest democracy and an emerging regional powerhouse. It is the only thing they really want from us, the major thing. It is a big issue.

To date the Prime Minister has offended or ignored most countries in Asia and has failed to present a coherent policy towards Asia other than for China. Even in China, there are growing and persistent concerns about the way in which they are being discouraged from investing in resource projects in Australia. They are getting all sorts of funny signals coming out of Australia. They are being directly told to withdraw applications while this Australian government thinks about it. It is another watching exercise. But this is a dangerous situation.

The Howard government demonstrated that Australia could simultaneously deepen and broaden all of these relationships. The Rudd government has a regional repair job to do, and has to do it fast. The Prime Minister should start tonight, in his address to the Asia Society annual dinner, and acknowledge the damage his 5½ month snubbing of Japan has done—(Time expired)

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

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this discussion, but it is a rather strange piece of timing by the shadow minister that leads me to do so. After all the time that the parliament has been sitting, we get an MPI from the shadow minister for foreign affairs when he knows that both the cabinet ministers in the portfolio are overseas. It does not give great confidence in his capacity to lead the discussion. But we are quite happy to take it on.

There is another very interesting element in how this MPI came about. I think that if the Speaker did a forensic assessment he would find that there is actually an old signature overwritten and the member for Goldstein’s put in its place. I am sure that when I was on the tactics committee for the opposition we drafted exactly the same thing. We must have left it behind in the tactics committee room and they found it after all this time and thought, ‘Oh, that’s a good idea,’ and Andrew signed it and sent it in!

What it describes, if you take a step back 12 months, is the situation of foreign policy failure in this region by the previous government which we have taken six months to fix. I noticed of course that, while the MPI refers to the Asia-Pacific, the shadow minister did not mention the Pacific once. It is not surprising. Our relationships with all the countries in the Pacific were in chaos. I will leave my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs to deal with that in greater detail, but they were in chaos. And we have taken a long time to start to turn around the damage that was done by the arrogance, ignorance and incompetence of the previous government.

It has taken us six months to repair a large number of our international relationships. It did not take us very long because we started by signing the Kyoto protocol, which changed the perception of countries in our region about our willingness to carry our share of the burden and participate. It did not take us very long because, apparently unbeknownst to the shadow minister, the Prime Minister made his first overseas visit to Asia to Indonesia and had a very good meeting with President Yudhoyono, who of course he knows quite well. That has substantially enhanced the character and standing of our relationship with that crucially important neighbour, Indonesia.

I do not feel the slightest need to be defensive about foreign policy issues when comparing the performance of this government over six months with the 12 years of our predecessors—12 years that included the greatest foreign policy failure of a modern Australian government: the commitment to the war in Iraq and the insidious influence that had on our relationships with countries throughout the region who made their judgements about us by the character of that commitment. I am very proud of the foreign policy progress we have made in the region and more broadly. I want particularly to talk about the relationship with China and the relative capacity of any government to have a good relationship with China at the same time as we have a good relationship with Japan and India.

I want first, though, to go to this extraordinary proposition that somehow or other the previous government was passionately committed to the quadrilateral arrangement and that we no longer are. Strangely, on 9 July last year the then Minister for Defence, Dr Nelson, said that he had assured his Chinese counterpart that Australia was not interested in forming a security pact with Japan, the United States and India as a regional buffer to China. He said:

I have explained the nature of, and basis of, our trilateral strategic dialogue with Japan and the United States. But I have also reassured China that so-called quadrilateral dialogue with India is not something that we are pursuing.

Didn’t the leader tell you that is what he said? Hasn’t he told you that he said you did not support it? Are you saying that the leader forgot to tell you that he does not support that dialogue? Then again, on 8 September the foreign minister said—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Robb interjecting

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

He said that in China to his Chinese counterpart. The foreign minister said that expanding the strategic dialogue to include India was not on the table for the moment. ‘Nothing like that is going to happen anytime soon; we are looking more in a general sense at progressing the relationship,’ he said. Let’s get real. That is the position that the previous government held. We think the relationship with all those countries and the capacity to engage in good relations with them is important. I want to start by talking about Japan and then I want to say something about India.

We have, it is true, a very important relationship with Japan. There is no controversy about that proposition. Everybody who has ever engaged in any foreign policy discussion in Australia knows that the relationship with Japan is as fundamental to Australia’s future, economically, diplomatically and strategically, as any of our other relationships. We share and continue to share a comprehensive strategic security and economic partnership with Japan, and our relationship with Japan is at a historically high level of substance and intimacy. On 9 April, in his ASPI speech, the foreign minister said:

Japan has been our closest and most consistent friend in our region for many years.

Australia and Japan have many things in common, including our shared values, our democratic outlook and our shared regional engagement.

Japan is a key economic, security and strategic partner of central importance.

It does not actually sound like the minister is referring to a country that we are snubbing or ignoring, and of course six cabinet ministers have visited in the first six months. Very soon the opposition will be complaining that too many people are travelling. As soon as the figures come out they will be saying, ‘Too many people are going around the place,’ but today they are saying that there are not enough. Mr Smith has been to Japan twice and he is visiting again in late June. Mr Crean visited very early, in January. Minister Carr, Minister Ferguson, Mr Burke and Minister Wong have visited. The Treasurer is visiting on 13 and 14 June and of course the Prime Minister will visit twice this year, including next week’s dedicated bilateral visit as well as the G8 summit in Hokkaido, to which the shadow minister correctly referred and which we regard as very important. We are very pleased to be invited as an outreach partner by Japan and we will enthusiastically respond. We are going there with concrete propositions to put, consistent with the interest which Japan has shown in the relationship by inviting us.

We have also been actively engaged in the relationship with Korea, which I was pleased the foreign minister did eventually mention but to which he gave no serious consideration. I would like, if time permits, to come back to that, but it is a relationship that I regard as underestimated as a key element in our North-east Asian relationship.

I want to turn to the other relationship to which the shadow minister referred at some length—that with India. I feel rather strongly about this because in 1996 we left our relationship with India on an upward trajectory. It was ignored for a decade and then the previous government suddenly decided they might be able to do something—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not true.

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

I can tell you why it was on an upward trajectory: I put it there and I left some propositions for the previous Prime Minister to pursue. He did nothing about them. I know that for a fact, because they were propositions which I set down, invitations which I arranged for him to receive which he never took up. That is not something that I imagined. That is something I know I did on behalf of this country, and I thought it was a useful thing. I was rather hoping it would not be that Prime Minister who took up the invitation, because I was hoping we would win the election, but, when we lost, I was looking forward to Prime Minister Howard taking it up and he never did. I thought it was a very sad event and I feel really disappointed about it. But the relationship was on an upward trajectory, and they were underplayed, underestimated and undersupported for a decade until we saw, shortly after the United States saw it, the fact that we might be able to sell some uranium there. It was never a central element of the modern strategic assessment of the previous government.

If you look at anybody who has taken a sensible analysis of any country’s position in the 21st century, particularly Australia’s, the key relationships are the North-east Asian relationships that we fundamentally need to focus on and our friends in Asia and South Asia. We finally have to recognise that we are an Indian Ocean country with significant relationships with the countries of South Asia. It has unfortunately been left to us to repair that decade of neglect, and I am determined to do that. It is not going to be built on a one-issue strategy of saying, ‘We have a brilliant idea. We’re going to sell uranium to India,’ which will fail. I think that internationally that was never going to be a successful proposition. But I really deplore the attitude of the previous government to India, and to come now with this bit of cant and pretend that there was some great relationship with India which is being underplayed—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dunkley will desist.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dunkley is ignoring the chair.

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

We have, however, very important relationships to pursue with a whole range of other countries in our region. We have a significant need to enhance our relationship with ASEAN, and I do not think this needs to be a matter of partisan controversy in this country. Everybody in Australia knows that there is no sensible way forward for Australia without good relationships with the countries of ASEAN. I was very disappointed with the early years of the Howard government and its relationship with some of those countries but, by the end, I think we were on a trajectory that was consistent with that which the previous Labor government had and which all governments should maintain.

I am not going to say they did everything wrong. I think they started badly with China and I think they started badly with ASEAN, but by the end they had got back on a trajectory which I thought had some merit. There is absolutely no sign that it is in any danger. There is absolutely no sign that there is some concern in the countries of ASEAN that Australia is not enthusiastically cooperating with them institutionally through the Secretary-General of ASEAN, with whom I have had the opportunity to have meetings directly and who I think is offering very significant possibilities for enhancing Australia’s participation in the region and for strengthening the role of ASEAN in the region—which I regard as an unqualified plus.

There is no sign that the governments of Singapore or Malaysia think that the Australian government is not actively engaged in their concerns. And we do have an opportunity, which the previous government did not have, through no fault of theirs, to enhance our relationship with Thailand because the military government has gone and democracy has been restored. We have the capacity to re-establish that relationship and we are actively engaged in that process. So to say that those relationships are on a downward trajectory is entirely a hallucination. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. These are governments with whom we have a very good relationship and with whom we intend to maintain a very good relationship. Most of them are ones where the relationship is already good. In some instances, as with Thailand, for reasons that are understandable and were inevitable, they are going to be substantially improved. However, with regard to the Pacific, we have also been left a record of chaos and resentment which has been substantially improved by the direct intervention of the Prime Minister.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you looked at the $400 million? Was any of that ours?

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

It was lost during your term. If it was ours, you lost it. But, no, clear evidence is that it was not. In fact it was in your term, so I would not go on too much about that. The fact is that we were left a legacy of chaos and resentment which the Prime Minister has gone a long way to improving, particularly through the Port Moresby Declaration and through the establishment of the Pacific Partnerships for Development. If any of our neighbours were to read the speech which the shadow minister just made—and the only saving grace for our diplomatic relations is that none of them will—all the countries of the Pacific would be appalled to find that in a speech about the Asia-Pacific not one country of the Pacific was mentioned. Why would the shadow minister not mention them? Because there is no story to tell. We had cancelled ministerial forum after ministerial forum with Papua New Guinea because we had no ministerial-level relationship—none at all. That is not a controversial statement; that is simply a statement of fact. There had been none; they had been cancelled. We needed to do a lot of hard work to restore our relationship with all the countries in our region. The Prime Minister has transformed our relationship in a positive manner by the Port Moresby Declaration and by the initiative he took in going to Papua New Guinea and the step he took to build on ministerial relationships. (Time expired)

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It continues to amaze me the way that politics interfere with dealing with reality in this place, honestly. The member for Fraser is looking for examples. I would like to recap on some of those and subsequent speakers will do the same. It is worth while to think about Japan as our largest export market and, certainly from a constituent point of view, an important market for the people I represent in this place. It is a fellow Pacific Rim democracy. The relationship has 50 years of experience in its strength. In recognition of Japan’s increasingly active role internationally, relationships between our two countries have broadened into a closer strategic partnership in the promotion of peace and prosperity not just in Asia and the Pacific but beyond that. It has included cooperation in disaster relief after the Asian tsunami, peacekeeping operations in Cambodia and East Timor, and direct coordination between our military forces in southern Iraq. To put this strong relationship at risk is just not acceptable. How members of the government can stand here and defend the Prime Minister’s snubbing of Japan just beggars belief.

Let us look at Indonesia, an important strategic near-neighbour of ours with a large population. We have put in tremendous cooperative arrangements with this near-neighbour of ours on border security, the war against terrorism and inter-aid support. To put that at risk beggars belief. It is true that China represents a huge opportunity, not just for Australia but for other countries. It is the fastest-growing economy on the globe, and its rising political and strategic importance is one of the most significant changes that are currently occurring in a global order. To stand here in this place, as the member for Fraser has done, and defend the way in which the Prime Minister has overemphasised our developing relationship with China at the risk of jeopardising our increasingly strong relationships with our Pacific neighbour countries beggars belief.

But maybe I will cling to the fact that perhaps he has recognised his lack of courtesy in not ringing the Japanese Prime Minister about the gunboat diplomacy in terms of the whales. Maybe he has recognised that, because he is off to Japan on Sunday. I would like to put on the record some advice to the Australian Prime Minister on some of the things he might address in restoring any misunderstandings he has created with this important trading partner of ours. He might provide long-term assurances on energy resources to Japan which are commensurate with the strong relationship we have developed in our 50-year partnership. He might get the free trade agreement discussions back on track after downgrading these negotiations. I do not know how he is going to do that when, after perusing the budget documents, I see that valuable funding to achieve those negotiations has been scuttled. But he needs to be mindful of how important that free trade agreement is to the country he is representing.

He might attempt to add real meat to the bones of the historic agreement we made in 2007, the Japan-Australia Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation, and he might explain, as the member for Goldstein has pointed out, why Australia has just unilaterally abandoned the quadrilateral dialogue between Japan, India, the United States and China. The quotation from the member for Fraser is an absolute misrepresentation of the position of previous government members. The need for a regional security arrangement and establishing strong bilateral relationships are entirely different matters. Quotes ought to be kept in context. I am disappointed to hear that from the member for Fraser.

The Prime Minister might give some assurance about resurrecting the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate with Japan and other nations on a bilateral and regional basis, given the insult that has been indirectly delivered—and one needs to understand these are cultures that are easily insulted and do not understand the Australian way. He might propose that Japan and Australia mutually agree to initiatives that each country should take to enhance nuclear disarmament in the Asia-Pacific region, and he might explain to Japan what, if any, legal action he intends to take against Japan over this issue of whaling. He needs to explain the ironclad commitment to take Japan to the International Court of Justice rather than the International Whaling Commission and explain to them in a way that does not damage our relationship with this important trading partner.

So far he has indicated that he has a four-day program in Japan and he will focus on shared regional concerns over climate change, regional architecture and regional issues. I hope he concentrates on compensating for the indirect insult he has made by previously not even allowing one day—not even a phone call, as the member for Goldstein has been constantly saying through this discussion—and jeopardising an important relationship. Let us hope he can achieve that early next week and reassure the Japanese that a longstanding and very strong relationship over 50 years will continue.

How he is going to fix the indirect insult to the Indians is going to take even more hard work. To say to the Indian government, ‘We just don’t trust you,’ and tear up a very strong agreement on the export of uranium to India—that has taken years to develop in the interests of the nation’s strong economy and mining—will take some explaining. To put that in jeopardy and just tear up all that work, driven by ideology rather than a decent understanding of the arrangements that could be put in place to ensure there are safeguards on where the breakdowns in uranium product ultimately end up—there are very strong and scientifically based rules to achieve that—was a mistake. That insult to the Indians is going to set this nation’s economy back, because there is no doubt that, as one of the largest holders of uranium in the world, it is a very important commodity to our economy.

I might conclude my remarks by making reference to my anxiety about the Rudd government’s commitment to building on these strong relationships and converting them into strong trading relationships for the benefit of hard-working primary producers of this country. I hope he will recognise the need to have a balance between a pursuit of multilateral forums for trade reform and a parallel policy with respect to the need for bilaterals. We have heard the Minister for Trade vacillating from one side to the other on this. First off, bilaterals to be a minor role, then a balanced role, then a minor role again. Yet last week he is out there beating his chest on the establishment of the FTA with Chile—completely and entirely the work of the previous government. At least I am encouraged that he has recognised that bilaterals have an important role. But bilaterals will not work unless countries have strong, trusting relationships with one another. I will be looking to make sure that the Prime Minister is going to undo his terrible indirect insult to Japan. I wish him well from Sunday until the end of next week in re-establishing that important relationship.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein has proposed a matter of public importance, and the terms in which that matter of public importance was proposed were:

The failure of the Government to manage, protect and grow Australia’s foreign relationships in the Asia/Pacific region in a balanced manner.

He did not mention the Pacific at all. When my counterpart as the first speaker in this debate drew attention to this the response by way of interjection was, ‘We’ll leave it to further speakers.’ Well, I waited, and the member for Mallee spoke and he has not mentioned the Pacific at all.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be patient.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be patient? It is plain that the leading speakers who are speaking about this government’s approach to the Pacific, to our region, are following what they did in government: ignoring it as an important subject of our foreign policy in this debate just as they did in government for 11 years. They ignored our nearest neighbourhood for 11 years and they are still ignoring it.

The member for Fraser was kind enough, on behalf of the government, to acknowledge that we are not making the case that in the period of the Howard government, and the period in which the foreign minister was Alexander Downer, everything was wrong. But what we do say is that their claim that everything was right is hysterically overblown and their attack on this government—a government that has made the best ever start in terms of restoring credibility to our relationship with our own region—is entirely a fig leaf to disguise the failures that they left behind.

Let us identify those failures. Firstly, they claimed that they held the greatest regard in the international community of any previous Australian government, and yet when they contested a seat on the Security Council, that bid ended in abject humiliation. We take no pleasure from that. We seek that seat ourselves so that Australia can have the status that it ought to have in the international community, but the fact is their bid ended in abject humiliation. Secondly, they put us on the wrong side of the greatest issue of our time: climate change. They refused to sign the Kyoto protocol. They did not adapt to the changing science and they left us in a position where our international credit was reduced because of that. Thirdly, they led us into participation in Iraq on flawed intelligence—the greatest foreign policy blunder of our time—and they followed it up with the mismanagement of the AWB, which traduced our trading relationships that they say are so important to them. Fourthly, they failed to listen to the warnings that were coming out of the Solomon Islands when requests were being made of them for assistance in our own neighbourhood. They did not make small interventions with assistance when required so that when the country collapsed in internal chaos, they had to inject, at a very high cost, military forces and extensive policing that is still ongoing. It needed the cooperation of the whole region to deal with something that could have been dealt with in a much more cost-effective way with an early response to the warnings. I myself took up the issue by writing directly to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, which the then Minister for Foreign Affairs ignored. And finally, we have a situation where the previous government ignored not only climate change, but they also failed to respond to the growing need to deal with hunger and poverty in our world by not addressing the Millennium Development Goals in a serious way. They kept our overseas direct assistance program at a tragically low level—0.32 per cent of GDI at the moment. The previous government ignored those issues, but we have committed to increasing it to 0.5 per cent to play our part in making poverty history.

This debate is a hysterically overblown smokescreen ignoring those gaping wounds in the credibility of the former government. And they are attacking us for what? For our key error, articulated as putting a visit to China before a visit to Japan. One country had to be visited first, and I am certain, had the visit been the other way around, we would be hearing quite a different story. But we have had a whole series of meetings with key ministers, with Japan. Our Prime Minister is on the verge of a visit to Japan. What an absurdity to come in here with this timing, this courage, for this debate on foreign affairs. The shadow minister has sat silently, almost mute, in all of these great events that have swirled, and now that the foreign minister is away—speaking and making Australia’s representations to conferences about global hunger as food prices go up—and our trade minister has been representing Australia at the World Trade Organisation and is now in the United States discussing trade initiatives with that country, we hear the roar of the mouse. He has the courage to come forward now to say that there is a strategic flaw in what we have been doing in the balance of our relationships in foreign affairs. This government has made the best start ever in rebalancing our relationships with our region and with the global community.

I will now come to my area of specific responsibility. We came to office determined to articulate an alternative approach to Australia’s strategic relationship within our own neighbourhood. It is a neighbourhood that has not been mentioned. It is the one area in our global environment where we are, in effect, the superpower. We can influence events in many other areas, but within our own strategic area we must draw back from the bullying approach that characterised the previous government and use our influence wisely and with restraint. But we do have great influence in our region. And where we have our greatest influence, we hear the greatest silence from the opposition. No effective discussion of what they say is the key rebalancing; it is a rebalancing which we have led. Since the election, the Rudd government has undertaken an intense program of high-level personal contact with our regional neighbours. The Prime Minister’s first overseas trip was to Indonesia, to Bali, for climate change discussions. He met the Indonesian President and he met the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. Then he went on to East Timor and then to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The foreign minister, Stephen Smith, and other ministers—my parliamentary colleague, Bob McMullan—have visited our Pacific neighbours. We have visited Kiribas, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu; more visits are anticipated in coming months. We had a very significant meeting in Medang, the most important ministerial visit for years between Papua New Guinea and Australia—one which had been repeatedly put off by the former government. This meeting has rebuilt a relationship that the Labor Party set out in its fundamentals of how we would approach the Pacific in the Port Moresby Declaration. That strategic shift in our focus to recognise the importance of our own region is something that should be recognised by the Australian community.

Next week I am attending the ministerial arrangements that are held between Australia and New Zealand. We are sending across the Deputy Prime Minister with the strongest ever delegation to New Zealand, as it was the strongest ever delegation to Papua New Guinea. My appointment as Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs demonstrates that our region is the continuing priority for the Rudd government. It was something that the former government simply allowed to slip right off the radar. It permitted bad relationships, bad blood to form—manifested most obviously in the disaster of the Solomon Islands, which evolved under the nose of the former foreign minister despite it being brought to his attention in direct correspondence—and it manifested in the poor relationships that were allowed to evolve between Australia and Papua New Guinea. But we are turning those things around. We have already commenced negotiations with Papua New Guinea and Samoa on new partnership arrangements, and we will soon be commencing discussions with a number of other countries interested in developing Pacific partnership developments with Australia. And the response from our Pacific neighbours to the new Australian government has been overwhelmingly positive. The change in tone has been noticed, and appreciated. Whatever were the motivations of the former government, there is no doubt that under its stewardship—(Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former major in the Australian army and a former member of the Australian Federal Police, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak today about the importance of Australia’s foreign relations in the Asia-Pacific region. I think there should be no doubt that a nation such as Australia has an important part to play in the region. Stability and economic prosperity are critical to ensure that states in the Asia-Pacific region do not fail. The coalition understands that security does not begin and end at our borders. The prospect of failed states on our doorstep providing soft targets for criminals such as drug traffickers, people smugglers, extremists and even terrorists is not something we want to contemplate. The intervention by the former government to restore order and stability to a number of neighbouring states is not only morally right but also completely in Australia’s self-interest.

It is important to remember that Australia has a history of supporting nations in our region with money, advisers and other resources and aid. That aid should never be provided without accountability. These were principles by which the Howard government operated and which we on this side of the House still stand true on. I recall that earlier this year the Prime Minister made some disparaging remarks about the Howard government’s foreign policy stance with Papua New Guinea. I ask members to recall that elements within the government of Papua New Guinea put up barriers to the assistance of the Australian Federal Police. Elements within the government helped the fugitive Julian Moti escape justice on a PNG Defence Air Force flight. They have resisted the accountability conditions attached to Australia’s foreign aid payments. I note that it has recently been reported that $400 million is missing from the government of PNG’s finance department.

The Prime Minister has put aside all these points of accountability and responsibility—instead sacrificing important principles of 12 years of highly effective regional foreign relations, all to score a political point. The Prime Minister might think it useful to try to demonstrate a new relationship with the government of Papua New Guinea where a photo opportunity is more important than an effective foreign policy. But, while the government ignores accountability requirements, money is going missing in PNG, and their people are there suffering. This is not good for regional stability and it is not good for the confidence of the people of PNG in democratic processes. They want their government to serve them and not narrow interests.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Kerr interjecting

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Would the members at the table desist. The member is trying to give his speech. Member for Dunkley, if I have to tell you again, you will be out of here!

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister’s soft, uncritical approach to the government of PNG serves no interest but the government’s. While the Prime Minister struts the world stage with Jeeves in tow, following closely behind, we have so far seen little regional involvement, but what we have seen has been ineffective and counterproductive at best. This is in stark comparison to the approach of the Howard government and of the member for Mayo, who were there for the people of East Timor in 1999 and again in 2006. The former government acted decisively with troops, armoured vehicles, ships, financial aid and technical advice. In the Solomon Islands, who was it that stepped in with the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, RAMSI? That is about safety and security, but it is also about repairing the machinery of government, and a critical aspect of that is the requirement for economic governance.

I worry for the people of the Solomon Islands if the Rudd government adopts the same approach that it took with Papua New Guinea. I worry that the Rudd government will choose the photo opportunity of big smiles and mutual backslapping ahead of what is necessary—a critical assessment of economic governance. Nations that have no economic stability and nations where the people have no confidence in democratic processes are nations that are at risk of failure. They are nations at risk of takeover by extremists and fanatics. The former government worked with many of the nations of the Asia-Pacific region to lock in strong democratic principles and effective economic governance arrangements.

With the examples of the Rudd government’s soft and uncritical approach to regional foreign affairs we have perceptions of progress. Above all, we have a clear and present failure of the government to manage, protect and grow Australia’s foreign relations in the Asia-Pacific region. If we do not get it right now, we will end up going backwards in the future and possibly into more dangerous environments. (Time expired)

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion moved by the member for Goldstein in this debate is one of such hypocrisy that even the member for Mayo might be blushing. Here they are raising the whole issue of the Asia-Pacific region when they, in government, had only one foreign policy iron in the fire, and that involved a direct beeline north-east beyond the Pacific to the United States of America. We need a little bit of a reality check here. The fact of the matter is that China is actually important. It is now our biggest overall trading partner, and it is growing. It will, in time—in all likelihood—become the largest economy on the planet, and it is shaping our own economy. It is right that we place a focus on it. But placing a focus on China has not stopped us from having relationships with our other Asia-Pacific partners with a much greater intensity than the Howard government ever did. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in one of his first major statements to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said in relation to Japan—if you have a concern about Japan:

Japan has been our closest and most consistent friend in our region for many years.

You do not get clearer than that, and you do not get clearer than the volume of ministerial traffic which has been going up to Japan since the Rudd government was elected into office. You can see similar activity in relation to India, where there is the pursuit of a free trade agreement. You can see similar activity in relation to Indonesia.

When the other side of the House talk about Asia, they completely forget the Pacific—that is, except for the member for Cowan, who has taken the opportunity in this debate to talk about the Pacific in a way to give Papua New Guinea another kick. That only follows on from the legacy of the Howard government. The Howard government took our relationship with Papua New Guinea to its lowest ebb. The only thing they did that was going to be of any use at all was to take police up there, and that initiative fell on its face because of heavy-handed diplomacy. They did not pursue a relationship with Papua New Guinea as equals pursuing a common agenda; they pursued it as Australia acting as superiors seeking to dictate to Papua New Guinea our own agenda. As a result, we saw our ministerial council—our most important bilateral forum with that country—fall into a state of disrepair.

The member for Goldstein is sitting there and in his heart of hearts he is thinking: ‘This is actually about Japan and India. Who cares about Papua New Guinea?’ Let me tell you that Papua New Guinea is our closest neighbour. It is a country which is larger than New Zealand. It has an appalling law and order problem and appalling health problems. It has the lowest life expectancy of any country in the world outside of Africa, and I would think the consequences to our country if that nation fails would be obvious. It is with little surprise that there is a joy to our north about the renewed relationship that they have with Australia through the Rudd government. One of the first prime ministerial visits was to Port Moresby in March, when the Port Moresby Declaration was established—articulating shared goals and responsibilities. We now have the ministerial council up and running and we have a meaningful engagement with Papua New Guinea, and Papua New Guinea has a chance to deal with its problems. At the end of the day we do have a strong voice in the Pacific. The rest of the Asia-Pacific region look to what we say with that voice and the manner in which we exercise our voice. The rest of the Asia-Pacific region looks to us, and they judge us on how we perform in our most immediate region.

Let us be absolutely clear. The Liberal Party made one contribution to policy in the Pacific, and that was the Pacific solution. The Pacific solution set back our relationships with our Asia-Pacific partners by a generation. Labor has a proud record in its engagement with the Asia-Pacific region, stemming right back to Curtin and Chifley projecting into Asia after the Second World War, to Whitlam’s engagement in China and to the Hawke-Keating government seeing our economic future in the Asia-Pacific region. That is where Labor stands. Labor cares about the Asia-Pacific region but understands that, in order to succeed in Asia, we have to care about the Pacific, and Labor intends to do both.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.