Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Overall I support the New Colombo Plan's aims and acknowledge progress in its delivery. I said in my first speech that the Australian people expect us to seek compromise and agreement across parties, and we should acknowledge when something's a good initiative. We shouldn't just bag and throw out things because they're someone else's idea and, of course, we should interrogate to see what's working and how things can be improved. Overall, in my view, the New Colombo Plan is a positive step which builds on Australia's decades-long tradition in public diplomacy in our region. It's too early to meaningfully assess the longer term benefits and outcomes, but we should expect tangible and intangible benefits from people-to-people contact over years and decades. The tangible are trade, economic and academic links, but the intangible, which can be as valuable or more valuable, fundamentally boil down to mutual understanding.

Improvements are possible. I've heard legitimate criticisms of the NCP, things like: a persistent criticism that it's too focused on elites—the wealthiest—and we need to address the equity issues; suggestions that there would be merit in extending the program to provide some focus on vocational qualifications; and scepticism from some about the value of the relatively short sojourns, in that this is a very different program from the original Colombo Plan, where study was generally for extended periods. There are concerns that there's a lack of focus on meaningful or substantive language acquisition and that the program's funded in part by cuts to the Australia Awards programs, which bring to Australia the best and brightest minds from Asia. These remain critically important, in my view, and it cannot be either-or.

The context is important, however. As always with this government, you've got to have a look at what's not said to really understand. Australia's future is inextricably linked to Asia. Geography is not destiny, but it is reality. We must do much more to deepen our relations with Asia, to seek, in the words of Paul Keating, 'Security in Asia, not from Asia'. This should be bipartisan and it should be sustained. Shame on you, government, for not having the generosity we're showing to the New Colombo Plan—you digitally burnt the Australia in the Asian century white paper. Slogans like 'more Jakarta and less Geneva' are not a substitute for foreign policy.

Penny Wong has made some wonderful, substantial speeches in recent months, laying the foundations for what will be a brilliant tenure as foreign minister. One point she makes powerfully is the need to understand the cultures of Asia and the mindsets of its people—the communitarian approach. Visiting alone, a bit of study and a few friends are not enough. The main window into culture is language, and our dismal record at learning Asian languages is an enormous problem. So, shame on this government for walking away from Labor's efforts to boost Asian language literacy. Those things have to be maintained for decades to have any meaningful impact.

As we have heard, the New Colombo Plan is being lauded as a signature initiative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, central to her legacy—no doubt she's focused on that now! And, while worthy, if this is her signature, the height of her ambitions for Australian diplomacy, then it's pretty sad when compared to the work of some of her predecessors of real calibre. It's not even a new idea, really—it's a resuscitation of an old idea from a Menzies era student exchange program. They are not that interested in picking up Menzies's ideas about homeownership though—being focused on us becoming a nation of landlords and renters.

Minister Bishop is a generally competent transactional minister, it's fair to say. She engages, she charms and she reads her DFAT prepared lines beautifully. She generally responds well to events—putting aside the meltdown on New Zealand, when she was trying to influence domestic politics with her little tantrum that New Zealand Labour may win government. It was actually a bit sad for those opposite who support her—I know she has some support—to watch her leadership ambitions go up in smoke that week in the House, as the true extent of her glass jaw and her lack of judgement when she goes off script without DFAT dot points was revealed. I almost wondered whether she was setting us on a path to war, but then she was reined in.

Fundamentally, she lacks ambition and big strategic goals for Australia. I was reminded of this last week when we hosted Gareth Evans. What a contrast. He has an incredible intellect, strategic nous and achievements that this minister could only dream of: the chemical weapons treaty, where the US called him and asked for help; the Cambodia-Paris peace accords—Bishop kowtowed last week to Cambodia; progress on denuclearisation; the Canberra commission; creation of the regional architecture that we live off today with APEC and the ASEAN ARF, laying the foundations for his later work on peace building and the responsibility to protect doctrine; the anti-apartheid movement; and the Antarctic commission. In this context, 'modest' is really an overstatement for the New Colombo Plan, compared to Gareth's achievements. Then again, it's a lot more than can be said for their previous foreign minister, that sad sack Downer. His only achievement that anyone can think of is lasting longer than Gareth. While we welcome the New Colombo Plan, it is not a substitute for substantive policy.

See this speech in context