Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition bequeathed a strong economic legacy to the incoming Rudd government in November 2007. It also bequeathed a strong, stable, balanced and mature foreign policy. In the consideration in detail stage of the appropriations for the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio, I want to focus on what appears to be one of the most significant policy decisions of the Rudd government and that has been to pursue a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council for its 2013-2014 term, which will be a two-year stint.

To date, the Prime Minister has not made any case whatsoever for the bid or how it would be in Australia’s national interest for Australia to win a seat. Nor has he provided any justification for the significant taxpayer expenditure that will inevitably be incurred, and has already been incurred, in order to pursue this ego-driven ambition of the Prime Minister, no doubt as part of his job application for the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The Prime Minister, when asked about this, pointed out that by 2013-14 it will be more than 30 years since Australia last held a seat, and he said, ‘It was a long time between drinks’—obviously in his best Barry McKenzie impersonation! He then argued that Australia could be more fully engaged with the United Nations, but he did not make clear how that would specifically assist Australia. At a press conference on 30 March the Prime Minister gave what is apparently his only attempt to justify this pursuit of a seat on the Security Council in these terms:

Australia is a strong supporter of the United Nations and while there are people who criticise the UN … I believe it’s important to see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty.

I do not know what that means in Ruddspeak, but it certainly does not give any justification or confidence to the Australian taxpayer. Then he said:

My view is pretty simple—you’ve got to be in it to win it, and have a go. We’re about to have a go. I think 30 years is a fair enough old wait between drinks and I think it’s time we actually got cracking.

That is the sum total of the Prime Minister’s justification for the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds on a temporary seat on the Security Council for 2013-14. Turning to this year’s budget papers, the government said, in language little more understandable:

Membership of the Security Council would enhance Australia’s ability to shape international responses to security issues.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary about the particular international responses to security issues that Australia is going to be able to shape by winning a seat on the Security Council. More specifically: what is the cost of the government’s pursuit of a seat on the Security Council? I do not just mean the direct cost of $11.2 million set out in the budget papers, but all of the costs, direct and indirect, that will be incurred between the budget and the year of the vote prior to 2013-14.

While I have the parliamentary secretary at the table, I will also turn to one concerning area where it seems that money in development aid is being diverted. We on this side of the House believe that the government’s pursuit of the United Nations Security Council seat is having a major impact on the priorities of this government. In other words, it is seeking to change long-held foreign policy positions in order to win this seat on the Security Council—indeed, compromise long-held foreign policy positions. So my question is also in relation to the $1.6 million in development aid to Thailand that has been diverted to ‘other priority areas’. I ask the parliamentary secretary: what are those ‘other priority areas’ to which the $1.6 million in aid to Thailand has been diverted? That is under part 2, expense measures. My first round of questions to the parliamentary secretary relates to the government’s justification; the cost—direct and indirect—in relation to the Security Council bid; and, specifically, the redirection of $1.6 million from Thailand. (Time expired)

See this speech in context