Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recently, my dear friend, Senator Glenn Sterle, and I undertook a delegation to the United Nations, where both of us were very keen to understand how we could explain to our constituents why the UN matters to them directly.

There was a time when the UN's purpose was very clear. Following the Second World War, the decolonisation of Africa and maintaining peace in Europe was their No. 1 focus. Having spoken with so many people at the UN, it was very clear that their focus is now towards reform of the UN itself. That is an important reform to be done.

One of the observations I'd bring back—and it's important for us to understand—is that the structure of the UN is largely the same as it was in the 1950s. For anyone who has worked in management consulting or seen restructures in recent years—goodness me, in my 20 years of engineering, the changes that have occurred have been significant in that period.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A division has been called in the House and proceedings are suspended to enable honourable members to attend the division.

Sitting suspended from 09:48 to 10:36

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are some key points I want to bring back from my time there. Firstly, we are clearly at the point of divergence in our approach to significant issues at the UN with our American cousins. During my time there, there were some key issues that came up—obviously, the recognition of Palestine. A second one that was important was played out quite strongly in the media: during Climate Week, as we laid out our targets for 2035, Mr Trump was leading a negotiation with the Turkish government for the sale of LNG. I am not suggesting we should be in alignment fully with the US; we should be doing what is right for us. But we are clearly at a point of divergence.

The second point is there's a real strain on multilateralism. If we look at the growing use of government-to-government agreements in the place where multilateralism may have taken place previously—free trade agreements, the QUAD, AUKUS and even the US government dealing directly with particular companies—this is a significant change.

The third one was to note the role of the UN in significant conflicts around the world. If you think about the two major ones we've seen in recent times—Ukraine and what's happening in Gaza—and compare the role of the UN in those conflicts to the role of the UN in the second Gulf War, clearly there is a very big change there. We're back to something similar to a spheres of influence model, where superpowers divide up the world again, and I think the UN is not quite prepared for that.

I have held off on this final point but I made it at the time: speaking to every single US politician, think tank industry member over there, it was very clear the critical minerals deal would not have been done without the work of Ambassador Rudd. It's important to acknowledge that. He led that conversation in the US, it is acknowledged widely. The deal is very good for Australia. In the conversation we had with Mr Rudd, it was very clearly pointed out that critical minerals only make up six per cent of our resources industry. We need to protect the 94 per cent, and that is the next stage of the conversation he wants to have with the US. I think it is an important conversation for us to follow up and to support team Australia in that position.