Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The subject of the matter of public importance this afternoon is the government’s failure to properly manage Australia’s foreign relations, and we have heard the shadow minister for foreign affairs on that matter. She started with comments that the Prime Minister had made when in opposition. Let me return the House to the commitments that the Labor Party made at the last election so far as our foreign and international relations were concerned. They can be summarised very clearly in three essential undertakings: that Australia needed to enhance its engagement with the Asia-Pacific region, that Australia needed to re-engage with the United Nations and multilateral institutions, and that Australia needed to continue to ensure that our alliance with the United States continued to be the bedrock of our strategic security and defence arrangements.

The Labor Party in government has met all those commitments. Let me deal with each of them in turn and then I will come to the various bilateral relationships that the shadow minister has referred to. In the course of the election campaign and in the course of the last parliament, the Liberal Party asserted that if the Labor Party was elected to office, if there was a Rudd Labor government, then the alliance would be in tatters and the alliance would fall. What we have seen since we came to office is to the contrary. The alliance is continuing to serve Australia’s national interest very well. The Australian government has worked very closely with two United States administrations of different domestic United States political persuasions—the Bush Republican administration and the Obama Democrat administration. The high-level engagement has been very productive as we have seen from the engagement between the Prime Minister and President Obama. The formal instrument that we use to engage our alliance relationships on a regular basis, the so-called AUSMIN meetings, where the Foreign Minister and the defence minister of Australia meet with the Secretary of State and the defense secretary of the United States, has been effected very well and was effected very early into the first year of the Obama administration’s term of office, in Washington in April of this year.

So in the course of her remarks the shadow minister made assertions about the state of the relationship between Australia and the United States. The alliance has served us well for a long period of time and on anyone’s objective measure—not the political utterances of a parliamentarian in the House but on anyone’s objective measure—that alliance is in good shape. When I spoke to Secretary of State Clinton in Singapore in the margins of the APEC meeting, she is looking very much forward, as is Secretary of Defense Gates when I spoke to him in Washington recently looking very much forward, to next year engaging again formally in the AUSMIN consultations.

So far as the Asia-Pacific is concerned, in the last parliament we were very critical of the way in which our responsibilities in the Asia-Pacific either had been neglected or were in a state of disrepair. When we came to office, Australia effectively had no relationship with Papua New Guinea. That relationship was in tatters and has now been restored, as reflected by the close working relationship we have with Papua New Guinea and the success of the two Australia-Papua New Guinea ministerial forums. That key Pacific relationship was in tatters and it has now been repaired. Our relation with the Solomon Islands was also in the very unhealthy state of disrepair. That has also been repaired. Australia’s engagement in the Pacific as a partner—not as a hectoring lecturer—is widely appreciated by our Pacific friends and neighbours and is one of the reasons that Australia was warmly welcomed as the new chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, underlined by the very successful leaders meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum that we had in Cairns recently.

Let me move to the United Nations. The government very strongly believes that it is in Australia’s national interest to engage not just at the bilateral level, not just regionally but also internationally and multilaterally, through the United Nations as the premier international institution. We know that when the Liberal Party were in office they took an entirely contrary view. Their view was to walk away from the United Nations, to criticise it, to suggest that it was no longer of any utility whatsoever. As I said previously, instead of seeking to engage with the United Nations, they wanted to stand outside the building and throw rocks at it. We are very strongly committed to the United Nations and to multilateralism, for the very fundamental reason I will outline. Every major challenge that Australia faces and that other nations face, whether it is climate change, whether it is international economic circumstances, whether it is transnational crime, whether it is pandemics, whether it is disaster relief—every major challenge that we have as a nation nestled in the Asia-Pacific with a population of 22 million, every challenge we face requires engagement regionally and multilaterally, requires engagement institutionally in the important international forums. That is what we are doing because that is unambiguously in Australia’s national interest.

So we were absolutely committed to continue to engage with our United States alliance. That is in a very good state of repair. Unlike the Liberal Party in government, we are very conscious of dealing with our Pacific partners on an equal basis, not lecturing them, and those relationships have been restored. And we are very strongly committed to working with the United Nations and other international institutions to secure outcomes and objectives that are in our national interest.

A couple of other points. When we came to office one of the first things we did, indeed the first thing we did, was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Often people forget that the Kyoto protocol is a protocol to a United Nations treaty. That reflected two things: our engagement with the United Nations and our adherence to the view that climate change is one of the major challenges of our time. That was one thing which sent a signal to the international community that Australia was back, in a respectable way, that we wanted to be part of the international community.

The second thing through which we sent a very good signal that Australia was back, that our international standing and reputation had been restored, was the apology, which sent a very good signal, followed up by our recent adherence—very belatedly, I must say, so far as a national timing is concerned—to the General Assembly Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

A third thing which sent a signal that Australia was committed to internationalism, was committed to international norms, was committed to trying to deal with difficult problems on a regional and international basis, was the way in which when we came to office we changed some of the arrangements that the previous government had put in place so far as people smuggling and people movements were concerned and the holding of people in detention.

I regret to advise the House that, on the basis of my consultations and what I have heard over the last few years, the previous government’s approach to detention, to boat people, to people smuggling left an indelible stain on our international standing and on our reputation. Fortunately, because of the changes we have made to detention arrangements in particular, that has also been substantially rectified. Whilst we have had our difficulties in the last month so far as the Oceanic Viking matter is concerned, one thing we have not done is seek to take domestic political advantage off the back of vulnerable people. One thing we have not done is seek to take domestic political advantage by vilifying people in a difficult circumstance. One thing we have not done is to put an indelible stain on our international reputation by riding roughshod over people in a very difficult situation.

We have responded by discharging our obligation to search and rescue, by discharging our obligation to the international conventions so far as refugees are concerned and by dealing calmly and patiently with a matter instead of trying to take domestic political advantage by vilifying people who are not in a position to take care of themselves.

Let me now deal with some of the baseless assertions made by the shadow minister. If one were to believe the shadow minister, then one would proceed on the basis that our important relationships with Indonesia, China, Japan, India and the United States were in tatters. On any measure, our relationship with the United States is in good repair. I have dealt with that. Let me deal with our relationship with Indonesia. Whilst it is clearly the case that we have had a difficult period dealing with the Oceanic Viking matter, that has not in any way disturbed the fundamental nature of the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. Indonesia was one of the relationships that the previous government did leave in good repair when we came to office. I have said that in the House before. I acknowledge that unreservedly. Australia and Indonesia have, however, taken that relationship to an even better and higher level.

The ratification of the Lombok treaty, or the Perth-Lombok treaty as I refer to it—brought into force when Hassan Wirajuda and I signed it in Perth—sets the framework for the modern relationship between Australia and Indonesia. I have had many conversations with my counterpart, new Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, and one thing we are absolutely clear on is that the future challenges for Australia and Indonesia, both on a bilateral basis and in our region, have not and will not in any way be disturbed as a result of the Oceanic Viking matter. When I had dinner with Marty in Singapore, in the margins of APEC, we spent most of the time talking about the future challenges; how Indonesia was on the rise; how it was moving from a regional influence to a global influence; how we were partners in the G20; and how Indonesia had changed qualitatively as a nation, adhering now to democracy. Its current president is the first to start a second democratically elected full five-year term. It is attached to the institutions of democracy, wanting to protect and enhance human rights. This is a vital relationship and it is in a better state now than it was when we came to office.

So far as China is concerned, yes, there have been tensions in the relationship in recent times. Those tensions crystallised over the issuing by Australia of a visa to Rebiya Kadeer. I could, if I wanted to, detail to the House all of the commentary that was rendered about the Liberal Party and the shadow minister when the Liberal Party said that the government had made a mistake in issuing that visa. I am very happy to relay to the House, if the shadow minister wants me to, the comment that the Liberal Party was not a fit and proper party to be in office while it held that view.

If you read the white paper carefully and assiduously, as I have done, it does not identify one particular country in respect of which threats come. All of these issues crystallised with the Rebiya Kadeer visa. I refused to intervene and allowed a visa to be granted to her because, unlike the Liberal Party, the Labor Party believes in freedom of speech. The Labor Party believes that a person can come to this country and express a view whether the government believes it or not. If the Liberal Party had been in office they would have bowed their heads and refused to allow her to come to this country.

China continues to enhance its economic and general relationship with us. I conducted with Foreign Minister Yang the first two strategic dialogues between Australia and China. The Gorgon deal that was signed with China is the largest trade deal made by Australia with any other country. Our economic and general relationship continues to improve. The visit here of Vice-Premier Li was a most successful visit. The speech I made at the Australian National University’s China Institute and the speech that Vice-Premier Li made here make it crystal clear: we have in some areas different values, different virtues and different approaches. There will from time to time be differences. This government, unlike the Liberal Party, will not compromise on our values and virtues. We will manage whatever differences arise in the way in which we have. Let me now turn to Japan.

See this speech in context