David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The petulance of the Government in its conduct of Australia’s relationship with our Pacific neighbours.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Bob Sercombe (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia’s most fundamental interest in the Pacific is reflected in names like Kokoda, Milne Bay, Buna and Gona in Papua New Guinea, and Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, and a very considerable warmth continues to resonate in the Australian community towards Pacific islanders for the support offered to our troops and our allies’ troops during the Second World War. Australia, however, has other very basic interests in the region. We have asymmetric threats in our part of the world. We have health issues. There are issues in relation to transnational crime on which we need to work in close partnership with the governments of the region. The issues of crime were illustrated recently when six foreign nationals were charged in Guam with smuggling $1.2 million worth of arms. We have very significant economic interests in the region. Investment, especially in the resources sector, is highlighted by the forthcoming PNG mining and petroleum conference to be held in Sydney, which will be attended by four Papua New Guinean ministers—unless they have their travel restricted by the government. The point remains that PNG, in particular, and other places in the Pacific are of very great economic importance to Australia.

There are very substantial people-to-people links. Tens of thousands of Australians visit the region on an annual basis or live in the region. We have made a huge investment to date in partnerships in the region, such as RAMSI. Our global partners clearly look to Australia to provide some sort of lead in the region, and they frankly must be awfully bewildered at the moment by the downward spiral of relationships in the region. We also have a close interest in closer integration of the region through the Pacific Plan and other initiatives, but this government simply cannot get a balanced policy. This government is unable to strike an appropriate balance in its approach to the region. It is either hands-off or it is heavy-handed.

When we look at the hands-off approach of the government, we see the Prime Minister’s failure often to attend meetings of forum leaders in the region. We see the failure, perhaps on a lesser scale, of any ministers from this government to attend important business forums such as the PNG business forum earlier this year where a delegation of four PNG ministers, led by their then Deputy Prime Minister, was in attendance. Just last week there was the Fiji forum, led by the Prime Minister of Fiji and attended by a number of ministers, but no Australian minister deigned to go to it. I have to concede that the Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) came but, with the greatest respect to the parliamentary secretary, she is hardly an appropriate measure diplomatically to the Prime Minister of Fiji.

However, the granddaddy of them all is the hands-off approach that the Minister for Foreign Affairs took up until 2003 in relation to the Solomon Islands and the repeated requests from the Solomon Islands for intervention. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is at the table, was saying right up until only months before the RAMSI intervention:

An intervention would be widely resented in the Pacific region. It would be difficult to justify to Australian taxpayers.

He went on:

The real showstopper is that it would not work, no matter how dressed up it is.

So much for the minister’s judgement about the necessity and the success of intervention in the Solomon Islands.

Then we oscillate to the heavy-handed approach of the government, and we see that in full force at the moment where we see headlines in the Herald Sun such as ‘PM: we will dictate terms’. We have seen the contemptuous comments over recent times by the foreign minister in particular in terms of the Pacific where he said things like, ‘RAMSI stands between Solomon Islands politicians and the honey pot,’ or when talking about the restrictions he said—and now he is grinning—

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it is not true?

Bob Sercombe (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did say it. When talking about travel restrictions on Solomon Islanders he said—

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Downer interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Foreign Affairs can reply.

Bob Sercombe (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that Solomon Islanders ‘will “reflect” because they like to come here’. What a patronising, arrogant way to talk about our neighbours. Then he talks about ‘shovelling aid’. He says the last thing the Solomon Islands can afford is to get into an argument with major donors—once again, an arrogant, patronising approach which underpins so much of the difficulty in the relationships in the region. We now have a crisis spreading from the Solomon Islands to Papua New Guinea and, tragically, I think possibly to next week’s forum meeting, which is a critical meeting because of the importance of advancing important regional initiatives. I know that the Fijians, who are the hosts of that forum, are quite concerned about this.

Let us be quite clear. The opposition have always readily acknowledged that there are significant and serious governance issues in some parts of the Pacific. That is why we were so critical of the government’s delay in relation to the Solomon Islands intervention. That is why we supported the Enhanced Cooperation Program with Papua New Guinea, the police component of which the government incompetently allowed to collapse when it had not done its homework in relation to legal and constitutional issues in PNG.

The present issues regarding Julian Moti are matters properly for the law and for the courts and not for politicians, whether Pacific island politicians or Australian politicians. As the minister indicated in his answer to a question earlier, it was in fact a Labor government that introduced the child sex tourism legislation, which we clearly support. But the government’s petulance, particularly over recent days, is not what is needed. It is, frankly, counterproductive. It sets us back from the serious, assiduous, competent work that improved governance in the region requires.

We do not need reinforcement of some of the negative perceptions about Australia’s role in the region—perceptions of arrogance, bullying and contempt. We do not need inflammatory comments, megaphone diplomacy or, frankly, Minister, hissy fits. This is not a recent phenomenon. Back in 2003 the very respected ANU academic on the Pacific, Professor Ron May, wrote:

The Prime Minister is not well attuned to the Pacific and Australia’s interests are not going to be helped by him rampaging around talking about weak states and intervening and getting people off side. What they don’t need is a Prime Minister coming in and making insulting comments.

Regrettably, Professor May’s comments have not been taken note of by the government. We do not need the threats to the aid program that are implied by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs or references to ‘shovelling’ aid.

As the Canberra Times stated just this morning on this question of aid:

But such plain diplomatic talking can backfire, especially when, as in the case of PNG, there are other governments willing to step in to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Australian funding—governments with fewer scruples or concerns about the long-term viability or economic health of their client states.

I think that illustrates the difficulty we have. If money is wasted, let us remember that the Australian government, through AusAID, is responsible for the program. The government’s agency is directly involved in joint processes of allocating funds for programs and projects. There is no longer any block budget funding. Is the minister therefore admitting his negligence on aid by his implied threats to withdraw it? As I mentioned earlier, we do not need disruption of the forum. It is no joke, but in today’s Australian

Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Beazley interjecting

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Downer interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will cease discussing things across the table.

Bob Sercombe (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a cartoon of the Prime Minister rigged up in armour and Mrs Howard asking him: ‘Have you found something practical to wear to the forum in Fiji, dear?’ I think that unfortunately illustrates some of the problems that those at the Australian have in mind. But it certainly is not a joke, and it is certainly not a joke when the foreign minister of Fiji says, as he recently has, that the present row is a major setback for regional security.

We do not need counterproductive outbursts that make the necessary cooperation to improve governance much more difficult. Indeed, cooperation must be built on respectful relationships if it is to succeed, not on hectoring and certainly not on pulling down the shutters and refusing to meet ministers from countries like Papua New Guinea. How puerile is that? The Sydney Morning Herald once again bells the cat on that. This morning it said, amongst other things:

The only PNG minister scheduled to visit Australia soon is the Defence Minister ... If details of the defence force flight that carried Moti remain cloudy, surely it would be better to have the minister responsible here for a robust grilling than not.

Indeed. That simply illustrates once again the counterproductive nature—which the media in Australia are picking up on—of this government’s approach.

We always have to remember that language and tone in diplomacy set the parameters of the relationship. Similarly, limitations on Solomon Islands politicians make dialogue about improved governance that much more difficult. So the government’s petulance makes getting results so much harder. There is a widespread perception in the region that the minister and the Prime Minister just do not understand the region, and cannot handle the relationships that are fundamental to engaging the region. They probably prefer Paris and London.

As the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Greg Urwin, said not so long ago in comparing Australia to New Zealand, New Zealand takes a fundamentally different approach to the Pacific when compared to Australia. That is this: New Zealand regards itself as a Pacific nation. It does not regard itself as in the region. It regards itself as of the region.

Other important events are scheduled. Let us hope that the petulance does not prevent the ministerial forum taking place at Kokopo later this year, because there are certainly important issues to discuss at that ministerial forum, including the potential return of Australian police to Papua New Guinea. That is very important for our security as well as PNG’s security.

In these circumstances we need to find a way forward. There is a strong Pacific tradition of eminent persons groups—respected senior leaders—to work through issues. One of the very few Liberals who is widely respected in the region is Andrew Peacock. Andrew Peacock was a foreign affairs minister who we would not unqualifiedly endorse, but certainly in the Pacific he was widely respected. He was also a territories minister. An eminent persons group led by someone like Andrew Peacock to engage on the now expanding dispute is a real option that the government ought to consider and consider quickly to prevent these rows snowballing further and further corroding the fundamentally important relationships we need in the region.

Relationships need to be got back on track quickly. A continuation of the problems may well call further into question the RAMSI initiative in the Solomon Islands. Frankly, that would be a disaster for the whole region and particularly for the Solomon Islands. However, it is clear from media coverage recently and from comments from the Solomon Islands government that if this dispute continues to escalate then that particular initiative may well be in serious doubt.

There is to be a national election in Papua New Guinea next year. Based on the election held in 2002, one can anticipate that that process is likely to be interesting to say the least. It may generate serious issues for the relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea and it may well develop into serious constitutional issues on bases that I will talk about on some other occasion.

Australia’s vital interests are involved in the region. We need much more than petulance to achieve results, including, I might say, results on advancing the process of repatriating to Australia individuals who should face court in Australia. But where you have an increasingly poisonous atmosphere it is destabilising, counterproductive and very much inimical to Australia’s interests.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance. It is quite good news that yesterday we had a debate on Iraq and today we can have a debate on the Pacific. I notice that the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs cannot even fill up his time to discuss the issues of the Pacific. He cannot even fill a full 15 minutes.

Several things are interesting about the Labor Party. The first is that the Labor Party does not take the Pacific very seriously. Apparently, the ever-talkative shadow minister for foreign affairs and trade is too senior to deal with the Pacific. So the Pacific is relegated not just to a junior shadow minister but to a junior shadow minister who has been deselected by the Labor Party. That is how important the Pacific is to the Labor Party. Even the garrulous shadow minister for foreign affairs—saying the word ‘garrulous’ reminds me of Gareth Evans—who is often described as ‘Gareth Evans without the charm’, you would think would want to participate in the Pacific debate and be involved in bagging the government constantly on Pacific affairs. But apparently the Pacific is not quite important enough for him, so it has all been relegated. Labor’s interest in the Pacific is false.

The second observation I have made about the Labor Party over the years—and I do have a bit of experience in this parliament—is that it has a bit of a chip on its shoulder about Australia. We always have to apologise to other countries. We always have to go cravenly to the rest of the world to try to win their approbation. And if anybody in the rest of the world, even in the Pacific, criticises Australia, the Labor Party regards it as—you know what?—a failure of Australia. If anyone criticises Australia, it is our fault. I think this is a psychological issue. I think a person with self-confidence is a person who can stand up for what they believe in, and a person who loves this country is a person who will stand up for this country and its interests and will not always think that because we are criticised by foreigners somehow those foreigners are always right.

I know the shadow minister does not know anything about the Solomon Islands Prime Minister, but people who do know about him will know a lot about his background, and we do. In this particular case, when somebody like that kicks our high commissioner out of the Solomon Islands for talking with the opposition, you would think that all members of this parliament would say that that was a shameful thing to do and would stand up for Australia. But what did the Labor Party do? The junior shadow minister—not the senior shadow minister—came out and bagged Australia. It was our fault. It was a failure of Australia that Mr Sogavare kicked out Patrick Cole. Those with whom I work on this issue day by day could not believe that press release. We were absolutely aghast. The only people who back Mr Sogavare are a handful of his people—not the people of the Solomon Islands, who are appalled—and the Labor Party in Australia, because if Australia is ever criticised it is always Australia’s fault.

Mr Sogavare chooses to appoint as his Attorney-General somebody who, as it turns out, is wanted by the Australian Federal Police. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions thinks charges should be brought against this person. Not only is that relevant in a legal sense but there is more to it than that. The allegations against this person—and they are just allegations until they are tested in court—I think are especially egregious. I think they are incredibly serious allegations. But there are two countries which have not helped to send this person back to Australia, and we got into an argument with them. Surprise, surprise! Not even for one minute do I regret getting into an argument with somebody about something as serious as that.

I am a father of four children. I know a lot about children. I care a lot about children, and I think allegations like that—and it is just an allegation; it is not proven—should be tested in court. I feel strongly about people who try to protect that kind of person. I do not care what the Sydney Morning Herald says or whoever else the member for Maribyrnong may quote. For me, it is a very important issue. It is not an issue that I think lends itself to some puerile party political game from the Australian Labor Party, from its defunct shadow minister. The Labor Party do not even think he is worth re-endorsing and they get him to introduce an MPI on an issue like this because they are just a tiny bit embarrassed about it—and so they should be. I feel strongly about this and I do not mind what people say about me. I think we are a proud, strong, great country and we should stand up for good values and good things.

For the Labor Party to criticise the government over this is typical of the kind of stab in the back that we get from the Labor Party whenever we get into a dispute with another country. It is always our fault. Even when other countries decide to deliberately not repatriate to our country someone who has been charged with child sex offences, it is our fault for being unhappy about it. No wonder I never joined a weak show like the Australian Labor Party. What a weak and pathetic show it is. The shadow minister thinks it is all terribly funny, because for him it is just a little game—another opportunity, another day to have a crack at the Liberals. We heard all sorts of cant and nonsense from the shadow minister about how we do not care about the Pacific, and we heard about some academic from the Australian National University, or wherever it was, who does not like John Howard. I mean, seriously! This government has been in power for 10 years, and we appreciate that we are patronised every day and accused of blithering incompetence and utter stupidity, but we happen to have been on the Pacific beat for 10 full years. We know a lot about the Pacific, and we read a lot about the Pacific—and we have access to information that the opposition do not ask for. They do not ask for briefings, although we would be happy to give briefings sometimes if they would choose not to make party political points the whole time, and if they wanted to get across the subject. I do not recall—I stand to be corrected, so I look to the advisers box—receiving a letter from the opposition asking for a briefing on the flight of Mr Moti from Papua New Guinea to the Solomon Islands.

I think that if the opposition knew what we know they would be ashamed of the position they have taken on this sensitive issue. They would be ashamed of themselves. I think that the position they have taken is absolutely disgraceful. If they knew all the facts, maybe they would not play party politics with such joy and relish or take comfort, for goodness sake, from the Sydney Morning Herald. I do not have anything against the Sydney Morning Herald, but if the Labor Party think it should be their guide why don’t they just elect the Sydney Morning Herald to lead them? At least it has a consistent point of view, which is more than you can say for the weak Leader of the Opposition.

The Labor Party say we have not done much in the Pacific. They were in government for 13 years. I know Gordon Bilney. He is not a bad bloke, but the fact is that he was a junior minister. Gareth Evans was all so grand and mighty he could not be bothered to deal with small countries in the Pacific. He wanted to re-engineer the United Nations. I do not mind Gareth, by the way, but he was not interested in the Pacific. Everybody knows that. After all, I became the minister after him, and I know what the department said about his attitude to the Pacific. He was not interested in it. It was not where he wanted to operate. It was not the big stage. So Paul Keating put Gordon Bilney in to do the job. Gordon is a well-meaning sort of bumbler, and not much happened. We shovelled aid into the Pacific, but we did not do anything about the problems of corruption and governance, and—surprise, surprise—not very much happened.

When I became the foreign minister, there was a civil war in Bougainville. I never blamed the Labor Party for the civil war in Bougainville when I was in opposition. I did not make pathetic points like that. The Labor Party tried. Gareth Evans, Gordon Bilney and Paul Keating were concerned about this issue, and I did not think it was worth making some puerile party political point about it. But when I became the foreign minister I had already visited Bougainville as the shadow minister—not for Pacific islands affairs but for foreign affairs. I had actually bothered to go there myself. We worked with the New Zealand government—which did a great job, by the way—in the form of Don McKinnon to put together a peace settlement in Bougainville. More than four times as many people died in the civil war in Bougainville as have died in Northern Ireland since the so-called troubles began in 1969. Okay, there are no TV stations there, and it was not an issue that people wanted to debate much in this parliament—except during the Sandline affair, when the Labor Party said it was all our fault. There was not much debate or discussion. We contributed, in a very major way, to bringing that terrible civil war to an end.

The deselected junior shadow minister has got the audacity to say that we do not care about the Pacific. That just shows what a fool he is. He is a fool to take sides with a bunch of people who are protecting and harbouring someone who is facing child sex tourism charges in this country, and he is a fool to overlook something like the Bougainville civil war and the role Australia played in helping to bring that to an end. We have indeed done our best for the Solomon Islands, and I think that the ordinary people of the Solomon Islands are delighted with what we have done over the years. RAMSI has been a very big success. I go to Papua New Guinea a lot, and I know that a lot of the ordinary people of Papua New Guinea are enormously grateful for what Australia has done.

There is a problem in the Pacific with corruption, and the Labor Party think that the best way to deal with that is to continue with this policy of always cuddling up to the elites and having little gabfests and chats with the elites. Now they want to set up an eminent persons group of elites to somehow negotiate away Australia’s interests. It is all about the elites. That is all it is about. We spare a thought for the ordinary people of Papua New Guinea, and we spare a thought for the ordinary people of the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Tuvalu and Kiribati. Those people have, in some cases, been well served by their leaders—and, frankly, everybody knows it in Australia. The people in the gallery know it only too well. The elites in those countries, in some cases, have done a good job, but in some cases they have not done a good job. If we get into an argument with those elites, the Labor Party says that it is our fault. No, it is not. It is not our fault. We are going to stand up for what we think is right and, if that means having some arguments with other people who we think are wrong, we will do it.

I said in question time that there are people in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea who are very good, decent and educated people and who are excellent leaders of their country, and they are very unhappy about the Moti issue and very concerned about issues like corruption. And the people who let those people down are people like the member opposite, the member for Maribyrnong, who bags the Australian government because of the concerns it has about a very serious issue. It is our fault!

What a spineless political party the Labor Party is. It has not always been. I always say Andrew Fisher—the member for Maribyrnong would not have even heard of Andrew Fisher—was one of the very best Labor Australian prime ministers. In fact, I got the High Commission in London to make sure that his grave was being properly looked after because I am concerned that in Highgate Cemetery it has not been. He was a good man because he was strong. And Bob Hawke was quite a strong leader. But what a pitiful, pathetic outfit there is sitting opposite today. They are always on the side of the foreigner. Guess whose side we are on on this side of the House? We are on Australia’s side. That is our team. Foreigners may be your team, but our team is Australia.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Howard government’s relationships with our Pacific neighbours have reflected a continuing pattern of inattention and failure interspersed with occasional bursts of belated and sometimes unsuccessful frenetic activity. We hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to reshape the question to say that our criticism of the way he has handled the matter equals support for the actions of people overseas—that we are supporting the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea against Australia. Our concern is not that the Australian government has acted, but that it has acted incompetently. Our concern is not that the Australian government has spoken up about matters, but that it has spoken up in a manner that has been counterproductive.

The speech we have just heard epitomises the core of the problem—foreign policy as a matter of domestic partisan advantage: how can I debate a foreign policy issue in this parliament to score a cheap political point here? Who was it who raised all the domestic partisan political points? It was the foreign minister, every time. When he debated Iraq, who was it who spoke about appeasement? One of the lowest standards of public debate of a major international issue in Australian history was when this foreign minister talked about appeasement because we had the temerity to suggest, before it happened, that the invasion of Iraq might not be a good idea. Now we are saying not that we support somebody else’s policies but that we want Australia’s policy implemented more effectively.

What we want to look at in the Pacific is not just, ‘How can I play it for domestic political advantage?’ or ‘How do I react to this immediate problem?’ We want to look at where there is a long-term strategic, economic or humanitarian framework for our relationship. A proper relationship should have all three, but I am prepared to be more modest. I would settle for one. Where is the strategic framework? Where is the economic development framework? Where is the humanitarian framework? A proper policy would have all three, but I would like to find just one.

Those opposite have been in government for 10 years—the foreign minister was at least correct in saying that—and the state of our relationship is right down to them. The chickens are coming home to roost, and it is most obvious in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The tragedy is that those are the two countries in which our policy needs to be the best. World Vision recently put out an excellent document called How are the neighbours? in which they assess all the countries in this region against the Millennium Development Goals. Do you know which two countries come out with the worst standards? Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, the two places where our capacity to provide support is least effective, for a variety of complex reasons, one of which is the incompetent handling of the relationship by the foreign minister. It is not that he has stood up but how he has done it. It is not that he has spoken but the manner of his speaking. It is not that he has engaged in the relationship but that he has mismanaged the relationship.

The two countries where there are no Millennium Development Goals assessed as being on track to be achieved—that is, zero out of the seven listed here—are Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. They are the two countries where our relationship needs to be best. Of course it is even more so in Papua New Guinea because of its significance as our neighbour and because of the great issue that hangs over Australia, which we fail to address time and again, which is the crisis of AIDS in Papua New Guinea, where we need a close, effective relationship. And what we are saying is that the health minister cannot even come to the country! There is nothing that we need more than a good relationship with Papua New Guinea to work on, amongst other things, the crisis of AIDS there.

But it goes beyond that. It is not about whether we did the right thing yesterday. Over the last 10 years this government has failed the Pacific on climate change. I know it is a terrible thing but I am going to quote the Sydney Morning Herald. It is shocking. I really ought to ask somebody’s permission. They correctly said in January 2006—quoting, amongst others, I might say, the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs, whose comments I will come to in a moment—that the problem with climate change is such that a number of Pacific islands could be rendered uninhabitable within a decade. The article stated that New Zealand and Canada had already responded and that Australia was said to be ‘missing in action’. That remains the case today. Of the three countries that should be in the lead, two are there and one is missing—and that is us. The article said:

“It’s the most significant problem the Pacific faces at the moment and the Australian Government is missing in action,” said the Opposition’s Pacific Islands affairs spokesman, Bob Sercombe.

That is exactly right, Member for Maribyrnong. You nailed it on the head. That is why the minister is attacking the shadow minister: because he nailed his failure right on the head. The biggest issue facing the Pacific is climate change, and we go round with petulant performances but no policies. We go round lecturing them about governance and corruption, which we should, but we leave them on their own when they are in danger of being inundated. There has been absolutely no positive reaction by the government to the discussion paper put out by the shadow minister and the shadow minister for environment, Our drowning neighbours. It is a discussion paper raising important questions—the most fundamental question about the future of this region—and there is nothing from the government. They fail on the key test of economic development.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs talks about problems of governance in the region. Commentators and the World Bank are saying that, whether it is organised crime or terrorism, there are growing numbers of unemployed youth in the region who are increasingly vulnerable to organised criminal elements. Recently the World Bank estimated that by 2015 there will be more than 4.5 million people in the Pacific region without formal employment. The New Zealand government, advancing its interests and the interests of the Pacific countries, is trying to assist with the employment needs of Pacific islanders by instituting a trial scheme of labour mobility for Pacific islanders. The World Bank has recommended it and New Zealand is taking it up on a trial basis.

The Senate committee under the chairmanship of our former colleague Senator Cook recommended in an excellent report that we should trial such a scheme. The NFF supports it, the tourism industry supports it and the ACTU is prepared to support it. Most recently, the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign put out an excellent document, once again showing our relative failure to act. That campaign said that the government should trial a ‘well-regulated and carefully monitored Pacific island migrant worker scheme’ along the lines of Canada’s scheme with the Caribbean. Other countries know how to do this. It is not about supporting others and bagging Australia when we say, ‘Other countries have worked out a solution to this problem; why can’t we?’ Why can’t we take a stance? Everybody knows that it cannot be done until a fair and decent industrial relations law is established in Australia, so that the interests of those who come here and the interests of Australian workers are protected.

There are 100,000 people who come here on working holiday visas. We should make something similar available for Pacific islanders. It is not as if we do not have people coming in temporarily to meet the needs of the farming industry and other industries. The government’s argument is that we do not do that, but 100,000 people do come in on working holiday visas. We do not even have to go down the complicated issue of section 457 on this matter. The World Bank says that it would be good for the Pacific island countries. It would also be good for the Australian economy. It would give us the chance to offer hope instead of offering despair—and despair is the breeding ground for crime and terrorism.

As the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs said in his opening remarks, this crisis that we are confronting, which has been building up over the last 10 years—it did not appear yesterday or the day before or in the last few weeks—shows that our relationships have really deteriorated. Why have they deteriorated so badly? It is because of the approach of this foreign minister in his dealings with our neighbours now and in recent years. His approach casts a pall over relationships and exacerbates the problem. The way in which he delivers Australia’s message is counterproductive. He sounds like a parent speaking to a naughty child. He lectures the Pacific, and they are supposed to stand to attention to receive the lecture.

Everybody knows that corruption needs to be addressed, and the best people in those countries want to address it. Everyone knows that there needs to be a focus on governance, and the best people in those countries want to deal with it. Everyone knows Australia’s aid has to be focused and not wasted, and the best people in those countries want that to happen. We need to be supporting those people, but the government has failed to grasp the importance of our relationship in the region. It has oscillated between an unwillingness to become involved and an extreme overreaction. (Time expired)

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs in opening the matter of public importance spoke of Kokoda, Milne Bay and Buna—names which are redolent in Australian history, names which people would associate with some of the attributes that Australia would like to identify with. But where I am confused about the position of the Australian Labor Party is: how is it consistent to turn a blind eye to someone who is wanted by the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for child sex offences? Is the Labor Party suggesting that, when the Papua New Guinea government uses a Papua New Guinea defence force plane to transport Julian Moti from Papua New Guinea to the Solomon Islands, we should say nothing, or we should say that this is okay? When the problem in the Pacific islands is in maintaining the rule of law, addressing and reducing corruption and making sure that they have strong governance so that aid and development assistance is effective, the Labor Party criticises and makes a personal attack on the Minister for Foreign Affairs for saying that this is not on.

As I said, the shadow minister mentioned some places of importance. I have some new names that people will remember from the last 10 years: Bougainville and the peace monitoring group; East Timor and INTERFET, the Solomon Islands and RAMSI. These are examples of the interest that Australia takes in the South Pacific and the help that we are prepared to offer when needed. They are examples which Australians should be very proud of. They are examples that have given the people of Bougainville, East Timor and the Solomon Islands the chance for a new beginning.

Australia is the largest donor to the Pacific. It is estimated that we will be giving $766 million in aid in 2006-07: $332 million going to Papua New Guinea and $434 million going to Pacific island countries, including $223 million to the Solomon Islands. It is a lot of money. Our constituents expect that we will make sure that this money is spent effectively and they expect that we will do what we can to reduce corruption and improve governance in these countries.

As outlined in the white paper on foreign aid, in East Timor half of children under the age of five years old are so malnourished that they will have their growth permanently stunted. In Papua New Guinea, life expectancy is 56 and there is a serious HIV-AIDS problem. Australia’s values are reflected in our aid program. We are a compassionate and generous country and we believe that people should have a fair go. Some of the countries in the South Pacific face great challenges. For example, if Papua New Guinea grows over the next 20 years at about 3½ per cent per year, in 20 years it will have a per capita income where it was 15 years ago. If the Solomon Islands grows for the next 20 years at the rate it has over the last couple of years, it will have a per capita income where it was in the early 1980s.

I support the Prime Minister who, in September 2005, announced at the United Nations that Australia would be doubling the amount of overseas aid that it spends to $4 billion by 2010. When we look at our aid, we see that over the last 20 years half a billion people have come out of poverty in the Asia-Pacific area. The most stunning increases have been in East Asia with countries like China, Vietnam and Thailand, which all saw dramatic increases in the proportion of their population coming out of poverty.

Sadly, that is not the case in the South Pacific. What we have seen, if anything, is that these countries’ performance has actually gone backwards. Governance and corruption are serious problems. When the Labor Party were in office, they had budget aid. They would just give the money to Papua New Guinea and in the end it was hard to see where the money was being spent. The Australian government—the Howard government—does have a good track record in the South Pacific. With the involvement of the peace monitoring group, we have now had peace in Bougainville since late 1997. INTERFET, of course, was also very important in seeing that that country had an opportunity to become a new country. In Papua New Guinea, we have the Enhanced Cooperation Program, which was originally to provide Australian police in Papua New Guinea. That treaty was struck out by the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea but, even so, there are 40 Australian officials working under this program to ensure that these governance and corruption concerns are addressed.

The Howard government takes the Pacific Islands Forum very seriously and sees this as the appropriate way for addressing efficiencies between smaller countries, making sure that there is mobility of labour and that technical assistance can be provided where those countries want it. The appointment of Greg Urwin as Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum secretariat is a very significant appointment and it shows how seriously Australia does address the issue of the Pacific islands. Last year I had the opportunity to be the parliamentary adviser to the Australian mission at the United Nations and in that forum, the various committees—the second and third committees—and the General Assembly, it was Australia and New Zealand who were always raising examples from the South Pacific. We talked about women in the peace building process: in the peace monitoring group in Bougainville, in the Solomon Islands and in East Timor. It was something that we were very focused on. Rick Nimmo, one of the deputies, went to Georgetown to speak about RAMSI. This is something that Australia is very focused on and which we are seen internationally as being very focused on.

If you look around the region, what has been the reaction to this? The Acting Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Don Polye, said that the suspension of ministerial contacts by Australia was ‘understandable but regrettable’. We have had two ministers resign from the Sogavare government after differences with Sogavare over his handling of the spat with Australia. We have these ministers saying:

I am not happy with how the Prime Minister is handling things. It’s like he’s pulling things backwards.

So what we have are members of the governments in these countries who are more supportive than the Australian Labor Party of the Australian government’s decision. I cannot understand the position of members of the Australian Labor Party on this. It is almost like they want to go to Suva or to Waigani and say, ‘We are really on your side. We would handle things much better.’ But, in the end, we have a good track record and a good story to sell. Australia has been very effective in cooperating with countries in the region on a whole range of issues, such as counter-terrorism, people trafficking and drug smuggling. This is something that we are very proud of. But it is not acceptable to have someone who is wanted for child sex offences spirited out of a country with the help of the Papua New Guinea government and a Papua New Guinea Defence Force aircraft. That is not acceptable, and when it is not acceptable, you should say so.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is concluded.