Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this motion moved by the member for Wills on the protection of civilians. I am always very happy to contribute to discussions on international relations, global governance and Australia's role in the world. There are few issues more serious than these, and as a former chief of staff of a former minister for defence and a former principal adviser on foreign affairs to the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, I take them very seriously indeed. Sadly, there are those in this place who either underestimate the gravity of these issues or simply fail to grasp their complexity. I am unsure which category the member for Wills falls into, but the subject is a good deal more sophisticated than this motion would indicate.

Let me outline three key elements pertinent to any discussion of global politics in this place—that is, the UN, the US and us, Australia. Firstly, the United Nations: of course the coalition supports effective action through the United Nations. Australia was a founding member of the United Nations and we have been a strong supporter for nearly seven decades since. Australians played a leading role in one of the United Nations' first peacekeeping operations at Indonesia's birth as an independent nation. Indeed, Australia had the privilege of providing the inaugural presidency of the UN Security Council in 1946. We filled that position again recently, and few would argue with the magnificent job performed by the foreign minister, the member for Curtin, and our Permanent Representative, Gary Quinlan. The unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 2166, the Australian drafted resolution dealing with the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, constituted the high-water mark of this period of Australia's diplomacy.

Since its inception, the United Nations has worked for peace, prosperity and the preservation of human rights. But there is another institution that has upheld these three values, which brings me to the second key element: our great and powerful friend the United States of America. This relationship can cause those opposite some discomfort. We in the coalition experience no such discomfort. We understand the unique role the United States has taken on since the Second World War, we understand the unparalleled burden placed on them and we understand the tremendous sacrifice and terrible cost. The role that the United States has played in establishing and maintaining the postwar world order has been uniquely powerful and pervasive. It is a role that we should never take for granted; for, if not the United States, then who? No other country has the capacity, the geostrategic circumstances, the inclination or the habit of upholding world order. Absent that engagement and absent that leadership, the world would look very different than it does today.

That brings me to the third key element: Australia's role. Lowy Institute Executive Director, Dr Michael Fullilove, caused quite a stir last year when he called for a larger Australia. Dr Fullilove's argument is that far from punching above our weight, as is often claimed, Australia punches at, and sometimes, below our weight. He reminded us that Australia is the 12th largest economy in the world, that we are the fifth richest people and that we are not a super heavyweight but we are certainly not a flyweight—and that is true.

Before we decide what weight division we are in, we need to define the reason we want to be in the ring in the first place. For me, the answer is a simple but extremely powerful one: as Australians, we are the beneficiaries of centuries of hard-won liberal democratic thinking, institutions, traditions and structures. The world order that has emerged from the horror of the Second World War has delivered unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom. In recent times, our role as a defender of those institutions, through our support of both the United Nations and the United States, has increased. But the false dichotomy of unilateralism and multilateralism is a straw man. It has never been a reality. It has certainly never been a zero sum choice. The nuance-challenged binary presented by those opposite does not reflect the complexity and multiplicity of international action and international governance. Australia can, has and will continue to be a steadfast supporter of, and participant in, collective security through the United Nations. Australia can, has and will continue to act in coalitions of like-minded countries to defend our common interests and common values. It is what we have always done. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to speak.

See this speech in context