John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share 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.

See this speech in context