Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Milne, Singh and Ludlam today relating to the white paper, Australia in the Asian Century.

Over the weekend, the white paper was positioned in the media with maximum coverage. It stated that a key priority was that every student should have continuous access to high-quality Asian language education, including access to at least one priority Asian language—Mandarin, Hindi, Indonesian or Japanese. The reality of the situation is: it is all aspirational. It is not reflected in a single dollar being spent. That is the key issue here. You have a situation where the government in the 2011 budget ended funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools program—ended it, with no additional funding for Asian languages, cultural studies or anything like that.

The Greens wrote to the government at the time. I can cite a letter written on 1 June 2011 to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, from former Greens leader Bob Brown, talking about ending the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools program, saying: 'This must not happen.' He concluded with, 'I urge you to commit to investing in Asian literacy in Australian schools.' That funding was ended. Over the weekend we had, 'Oh, Australian students must have access to Asian language education.' I agree. But the minister then says, 'There is not a cent in the budget at the moment for teachers,' and you cannot teach an Asian language without teachers.

Yes, the NBN is going to be important. Yes, the connection with an Asian school is going to be important over the internet, but you still need teachers who are capable of actually teaching the subject, and there is not one cent going into additional teaching or the development of programs. So, at best, you can say that it is aspirational. Senator Evans said 'Yes, well, we're thinking about how best to do it'—thinking about it, but not spending a dollar on it. That is the key issue.

Secondly, the Australia in the Asian centurywhite paper is incredibly dominated by economic focus, saying: what is in it for Australia in the Asian century?' The fundamental thing that demonstrates is that we do not actually understand Asian culture. For Asian cultures, developing the relationship is the first thing. You have to commit to the relationship, invest in the relationship, build the friendships, build the trust and then develop the business relationship on the back of that. You cannot just blow hot and cold.

I was in India in the mid-1990s when Australia engaged in the Australia-India New Horizons, and the Indians at the time said, 'It is good, but Australia blow hot and cold. They will do this for a year or two and then they will go and prefer China again'—which is exactly what happened. Now we are back to saying, 'India is marvellous; let's go back there,' but for the Indians is it once bitten twice shy and they will see about whether this is a serious engagement relationship or whether we are going to continue the hot and cold.

Then I go to the issue that my colleague Senator Ludlam raised, and that is: why was Allan Gyngell invited to rewrite the paper? Was it because the government was not happy with the level of exposure of the United States' role in this white paper? The fact that that happened will signal to every Asian nation that, where Australia is concerned, we take our advice from the United States about how we engage with the region. So the effectiveness of the white paper is already undermined by the fact that the Asian countries now all know—as in fact all Australia should know—that the government was not happy with the white paper as it was originally drafted and got Allan Gyngell to redraft it.

Senator Bob Carr deliberately avoided that question today by saying, 'We consulted with any number of people.' But, in consulting with any number of people, did you give the paper to every person you consulted and say, 'Rewrite it how you would like to'? Of course not. There is a vast difference between consulting a range of people and getting a final draft and then giving it to someone to rewrite through the lens of the US relationship with Australia. That is where I think you will get a lot of Asian countries saying to the Australian government, 'Are you serious? Do you have an independent foreign policy? Are you seriously looking at Australia in the Asian century or Australia as the US would have Australia engage in the Asian century?'

The Greens have been saying for some time that we need an independent foreign policy. The government's decision, with no consultation with the parliament, to agree to a US base in Australia—and that is effectively what has happened in Darwin—is going to send a very strong signal to our Asian neighbours that when Australia stands up Australia is speaking with the US lens on, not with an independent foreign policy. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.