Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Sixthly, PNG health. Firstly, on people smuggling, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about Malaysia. The first thing I would say in response to her question is that the Malaysian government was actively engaged with us—that is, me and the foreign minister of Indonesia, Marty Natalegawa—in the Bali process and the Bali discussions and negotiations that occurred in the conclusion of the regional framework agreement, which we were able to produce as a co-chairman statement in March of this year, I believe—certainly in the first quarter of this year. That was a breakthrough agreement, and the reason it was a breakthrough—I am advised by persons within the UNHCR—is that there are some 13 regional attempts to form a regional framework agreement in other parts of the world at present. Most regions and the countries within them have reached the very practical conclusion that it is not possible to deal with asylum seekers and unauthorised people movements simply by dint of the effort of an individual national jurisdiction; it requires a regional response. That is where we have engaged Malaysia on a whole range of matters, which were reflected in that outcome. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be familiar with the details of that framework agreement.

The deputy leader also asked me a question concerning my specific engagement with the Malaysian foreign minister at the recent meeting of ASEAN held in Budapest. I had a conversation with the Malaysian foreign minister about the negotiations which were underway between Australia and Malaysia. We both concluded that these negotiations were best advanced through our respective immigration ministers or those responsible for that set of portfolio issues. That of course is where the matter lies, between the ministers and the officials. These negotiations are ongoing, which goes to the points she raised at the end of her questions concerning the observation of international legal standards. In the case of how asylum seekers are treated in Malaysia, and any ongoing role for the Australian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that these negotiations are ongoing and once they are concluded with a detailed agreement I will be happy to comment further on them.

On the second point she raised, which concerned the UNSC, she asked specifically about the use of special envoys, among other things. On the use of special envoys, my recollection is—and this is not a complete rendition—that we have used so far Tim Fischer, our current ambassador to the Holy See. We recently dispatched Tim—who is doing a first-class job as Australia's ambassador to the Holy See—to the Non-Aligned Movement meeting recently conducted in Bali. I was not able to attend, because parliament was then in session here in Canberra. We are also using a separate special envoy to francophone West Africa where Australia does not have any diplomatic representation. From time to time we have also used Bob McMullan, former parliamentary secretary here in the Australian government with responsibilities for international development assistance, as Australia's representative at a number of development conferences. The most recent one that I recall was the Conference on the Least Developed Countries held in Istanbul in the last couple of weeks. The purpose of special envoys, which has been used by previous bids and by previous governments, to simply to convey a message to those governments with whom we do not normally have regular, systematic bilateral engagement.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me specifically about what multilateral meetings ministers, including myself, had attended. My answer to that is: a truck load. I would be very happy not to attend many of them, but this is part and parcel of the consequences which flow once you undertake seriously a bid (Extension of time granted). The attendance at such multilateral meetings provides for an opportunity to participate in the full multilateral debate as well as engaging bilaterally with various governments.

If I could give the honourable member an example. Last Friday I was in the United Nations in New York where Australia did an excellent job in co-chairing the UN General Assembly high level conference on HIV-AIDS. That conference had the representation from several dozen heads of government from around the world, 40 or 50 foreign ministers as well as the permanent representatives right across the United Nations system. We were there to do a substantive piece of work—we did. I would draw her attention to the final declaration of the UN General Assembly. It achieved significant progress particularly in one area, committing the nations of the world to a new and I believe deliverable target if we could all collectively get our act together: to reduce maternal to child transmission of HIV-AIDS to zero by 2015, and through the proper deployment of antiretrovirals around the world we are capable of doing that.

Why have I used this as an example? Simply because not only have we done substantive good work in that multilateral conference, and I pay particular commendation to our permanent representative Gary Quinlan for his first-class work, it has the consequence in terms of Australia's credentials to undertake other responsibilities within the United Nations system that people look long and hard at what Australia has done and say this is a commendable multilateral effort.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised the question of GAVI. I attended the launch of the GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, in London on Saturday. This was a conference convened by the British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. The British government together with Australia are two governments around the world which are currently increasing their overseas development assistance, contrary to the trend that you see in many other European countries off the back of the global financial crisis, and I publicly commended the British government for so doing. British ODA currently stands at 0.56 of GNI; Australia's has now risen to 0.35 of GNI. Particularly on this initiative of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, Britain announced a further contribution of $1.3 billion at the conference, which I attended, while I indicated that Australia would increase its allocation from a previously announced A$60 million to A$200 million, which is now worth a bit more in US dollars, as we all around this place know full well.

The impact is terrific: this is one of the most effective aid delivery mechanisms around. The experts in the field advise that, through the contribution of A$200 million we fund 7.1 million vaccinations; that is, by interventions on the normal trajectory of these diseases that are covered across the pentavalent spectrum and the new vaccine categories dealing with pneumococcal against pneumonia and secondly rotavirus against diarrhoea we through the Australian effort will save the lives of 200,000 children. The next time you go to the MCG, look at all those faces at the ground and multiply it by two. That is the number of kids whose lives are being saved through these Australian taxpayer dollars. The further question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes to my authorisation for making such an allocation. That lies within the discretion of the minister responsible for Australia's international aid budget, and I so exercised that discretion and I believed exercised it in the correct direction.

The fourth set of questions which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked goes to the matter of Fiji. Fiji is a complex challenge for Australian diplomacy. I think both my predecessor in this position, Stephen Smith, and his predecessor, well known to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, found it a continuing challenge. Namely, how do you maintain global and regional democratic norms against a military coup which has done the following: first, suspended the constitution; second, sacked the independent judiciary; third, incarcerated various people who give the regime difficulty; fourth, suspended elections and said that they might hold them in 2014; and fifth, on top of that, breaking up conferences of religious leaders because they are seen to be a threat to the regime. We continue to maintain contact with the Fijian regime through the normal channels. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that our policy is isolated. It is one which is supported in terms of the suspension of Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum and from the Commonwealth (Time expired).

See this speech in context