Bob Sercombe (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

There is a cartoon of the Prime Minister rigged up in armour and Mrs Howard asking him: ‘Have you found something practical to wear to the forum in Fiji, dear?’ I think that unfortunately illustrates some of the problems that those at the Australian have in mind. But it certainly is not a joke, and it is certainly not a joke when the foreign minister of Fiji says, as he recently has, that the present row is a major setback for regional security.

We do not need counterproductive outbursts that make the necessary cooperation to improve governance much more difficult. Indeed, cooperation must be built on respectful relationships if it is to succeed, not on hectoring and certainly not on pulling down the shutters and refusing to meet ministers from countries like Papua New Guinea. How puerile is that? The Sydney Morning Herald once again bells the cat on that. This morning it said, amongst other things:

The only PNG minister scheduled to visit Australia soon is the Defence Minister ... If details of the defence force flight that carried Moti remain cloudy, surely it would be better to have the minister responsible here for a robust grilling than not.

Indeed. That simply illustrates once again the counterproductive nature—which the media in Australia are picking up on—of this government’s approach.

We always have to remember that language and tone in diplomacy set the parameters of the relationship. Similarly, limitations on Solomon Islands politicians make dialogue about improved governance that much more difficult. So the government’s petulance makes getting results so much harder. There is a widespread perception in the region that the minister and the Prime Minister just do not understand the region, and cannot handle the relationships that are fundamental to engaging the region. They probably prefer Paris and London.

As the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Greg Urwin, said not so long ago in comparing Australia to New Zealand, New Zealand takes a fundamentally different approach to the Pacific when compared to Australia. That is this: New Zealand regards itself as a Pacific nation. It does not regard itself as in the region. It regards itself as of the region.

Other important events are scheduled. Let us hope that the petulance does not prevent the ministerial forum taking place at Kokopo later this year, because there are certainly important issues to discuss at that ministerial forum, including the potential return of Australian police to Papua New Guinea. That is very important for our security as well as PNG’s security.

In these circumstances we need to find a way forward. There is a strong Pacific tradition of eminent persons groups—respected senior leaders—to work through issues. One of the very few Liberals who is widely respected in the region is Andrew Peacock. Andrew Peacock was a foreign affairs minister who we would not unqualifiedly endorse, but certainly in the Pacific he was widely respected. He was also a territories minister. An eminent persons group led by someone like Andrew Peacock to engage on the now expanding dispute is a real option that the government ought to consider and consider quickly to prevent these rows snowballing further and further corroding the fundamentally important relationships we need in the region.

Relationships need to be got back on track quickly. A continuation of the problems may well call further into question the RAMSI initiative in the Solomon Islands. Frankly, that would be a disaster for the whole region and particularly for the Solomon Islands. However, it is clear from media coverage recently and from comments from the Solomon Islands government that if this dispute continues to escalate then that particular initiative may well be in serious doubt.

There is to be a national election in Papua New Guinea next year. Based on the election held in 2002, one can anticipate that that process is likely to be interesting to say the least. It may generate serious issues for the relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea and it may well develop into serious constitutional issues on bases that I will talk about on some other occasion.

Australia’s vital interests are involved in the region. We need much more than petulance to achieve results, including, I might say, results on advancing the process of repatriating to Australia individuals who should face court in Australia. But where you have an increasingly poisonous atmosphere it is destabilising, counterproductive and very much inimical to Australia’s interests.

See this speech in context