Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Howard government’s relationships with our Pacific neighbours have reflected a continuing pattern of inattention and failure interspersed with occasional bursts of belated and sometimes unsuccessful frenetic activity. We hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to reshape the question to say that our criticism of the way he has handled the matter equals support for the actions of people overseas—that we are supporting the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea against Australia. Our concern is not that the Australian government has acted, but that it has acted incompetently. Our concern is not that the Australian government has spoken up about matters, but that it has spoken up in a manner that has been counterproductive.

The speech we have just heard epitomises the core of the problem—foreign policy as a matter of domestic partisan advantage: how can I debate a foreign policy issue in this parliament to score a cheap political point here? Who was it who raised all the domestic partisan political points? It was the foreign minister, every time. When he debated Iraq, who was it who spoke about appeasement? One of the lowest standards of public debate of a major international issue in Australian history was when this foreign minister talked about appeasement because we had the temerity to suggest, before it happened, that the invasion of Iraq might not be a good idea. Now we are saying not that we support somebody else’s policies but that we want Australia’s policy implemented more effectively.

What we want to look at in the Pacific is not just, ‘How can I play it for domestic political advantage?’ or ‘How do I react to this immediate problem?’ We want to look at where there is a long-term strategic, economic or humanitarian framework for our relationship. A proper relationship should have all three, but I am prepared to be more modest. I would settle for one. Where is the strategic framework? Where is the economic development framework? Where is the humanitarian framework? A proper policy would have all three, but I would like to find just one.

Those opposite have been in government for 10 years—the foreign minister was at least correct in saying that—and the state of our relationship is right down to them. The chickens are coming home to roost, and it is most obvious in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The tragedy is that those are the two countries in which our policy needs to be the best. World Vision recently put out an excellent document called How are the neighbours? in which they assess all the countries in this region against the Millennium Development Goals. Do you know which two countries come out with the worst standards? Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, the two places where our capacity to provide support is least effective, for a variety of complex reasons, one of which is the incompetent handling of the relationship by the foreign minister. It is not that he has stood up but how he has done it. It is not that he has spoken but the manner of his speaking. It is not that he has engaged in the relationship but that he has mismanaged the relationship.

The two countries where there are no Millennium Development Goals assessed as being on track to be achieved—that is, zero out of the seven listed here—are Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. They are the two countries where our relationship needs to be best. Of course it is even more so in Papua New Guinea because of its significance as our neighbour and because of the great issue that hangs over Australia, which we fail to address time and again, which is the crisis of AIDS in Papua New Guinea, where we need a close, effective relationship. And what we are saying is that the health minister cannot even come to the country! There is nothing that we need more than a good relationship with Papua New Guinea to work on, amongst other things, the crisis of AIDS there.

But it goes beyond that. It is not about whether we did the right thing yesterday. Over the last 10 years this government has failed the Pacific on climate change. I know it is a terrible thing but I am going to quote the Sydney Morning Herald. It is shocking. I really ought to ask somebody’s permission. They correctly said in January 2006—quoting, amongst others, I might say, the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs, whose comments I will come to in a moment—that the problem with climate change is such that a number of Pacific islands could be rendered uninhabitable within a decade. The article stated that New Zealand and Canada had already responded and that Australia was said to be ‘missing in action’. That remains the case today. Of the three countries that should be in the lead, two are there and one is missing—and that is us. The article said:

“It’s the most significant problem the Pacific faces at the moment and the Australian Government is missing in action,” said the Opposition’s Pacific Islands affairs spokesman, Bob Sercombe.

That is exactly right, Member for Maribyrnong. You nailed it on the head. That is why the minister is attacking the shadow minister: because he nailed his failure right on the head. The biggest issue facing the Pacific is climate change, and we go round with petulant performances but no policies. We go round lecturing them about governance and corruption, which we should, but we leave them on their own when they are in danger of being inundated. There has been absolutely no positive reaction by the government to the discussion paper put out by the shadow minister and the shadow minister for environment, Our drowning neighbours. It is a discussion paper raising important questions—the most fundamental question about the future of this region—and there is nothing from the government. They fail on the key test of economic development.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs talks about problems of governance in the region. Commentators and the World Bank are saying that, whether it is organised crime or terrorism, there are growing numbers of unemployed youth in the region who are increasingly vulnerable to organised criminal elements. Recently the World Bank estimated that by 2015 there will be more than 4.5 million people in the Pacific region without formal employment. The New Zealand government, advancing its interests and the interests of the Pacific countries, is trying to assist with the employment needs of Pacific islanders by instituting a trial scheme of labour mobility for Pacific islanders. The World Bank has recommended it and New Zealand is taking it up on a trial basis.

The Senate committee under the chairmanship of our former colleague Senator Cook recommended in an excellent report that we should trial such a scheme. The NFF supports it, the tourism industry supports it and the ACTU is prepared to support it. Most recently, the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign put out an excellent document, once again showing our relative failure to act. That campaign said that the government should trial a ‘well-regulated and carefully monitored Pacific island migrant worker scheme’ along the lines of Canada’s scheme with the Caribbean. Other countries know how to do this. It is not about supporting others and bagging Australia when we say, ‘Other countries have worked out a solution to this problem; why can’t we?’ Why can’t we take a stance? Everybody knows that it cannot be done until a fair and decent industrial relations law is established in Australia, so that the interests of those who come here and the interests of Australian workers are protected.

There are 100,000 people who come here on working holiday visas. We should make something similar available for Pacific islanders. It is not as if we do not have people coming in temporarily to meet the needs of the farming industry and other industries. The government’s argument is that we do not do that, but 100,000 people do come in on working holiday visas. We do not even have to go down the complicated issue of section 457 on this matter. The World Bank says that it would be good for the Pacific island countries. It would also be good for the Australian economy. It would give us the chance to offer hope instead of offering despair—and despair is the breeding ground for crime and terrorism.

As the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs said in his opening remarks, this crisis that we are confronting, which has been building up over the last 10 years—it did not appear yesterday or the day before or in the last few weeks—shows that our relationships have really deteriorated. Why have they deteriorated so badly? It is because of the approach of this foreign minister in his dealings with our neighbours now and in recent years. His approach casts a pall over relationships and exacerbates the problem. The way in which he delivers Australia’s message is counterproductive. He sounds like a parent speaking to a naughty child. He lectures the Pacific, and they are supposed to stand to attention to receive the lecture.

Everybody knows that corruption needs to be addressed, and the best people in those countries want to address it. Everyone knows that there needs to be a focus on governance, and the best people in those countries want to deal with it. Everyone knows Australia’s aid has to be focused and not wasted, and the best people in those countries want that to happen. We need to be supporting those people, but the government has failed to grasp the importance of our relationship in the region. It has oscillated between an unwillingness to become involved and an extreme overreaction. (Time expired)

See this speech in context