Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The government’s failure to properly manage Australia’s foreign relations.

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—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the most important roles of the person who holds the office of Prime Minister of Australia is to manage our international relations in a way that benefits the national interest. In fact, the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states that one key goal of foreign policy is to have:

Australia’s national interests protected and advanced through contributions to international security, national economic and trade performance and global cooperation.

Members on our side can recall the very high expectations after the election of the current Prime Minister, who had served a lengthy stint as shadow minister for foreign affairs and who clearly regarded himself as a foreign policy expert. That was largely based, it would seem, on his work for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the 1980s. Australia’s foreign relations would be ‘taken to a new level’ under this newly crowned expert, it was proclaimed. It is now very obvious that those expectations were grossly overinflated. But I think it is instructive and, indeed, prudent to look at some of the statements of this Prime Minister when in opposition—that is, statements he made about the coalition’s handling of foreign affairs—so that you can put in context the confected outrage we hear now when questions about his handling of foreign policy matters are raised.

In 2000, the Prime Minister inferred that John Howard was a racist and that he was an impediment to Australia forging closer relations with Indonesia. In 2001, this Prime Minister attacked the International Monetary Fund as—and, Leader of the Opposition, you will like this—a ‘flagship of global neoliberalism’. In 2002, the current Prime Minister issued a series of media releases claiming there was Australian taxpayer funded people smuggling going on in Indonesia.

Again in 2002, the current Prime Minister issued a media release repeating false claims that the coalition government was prepared to ‘dump Asia for the US alliance’. And despite saying in a speech that ‘Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction’ is ‘a matter of empirical fact’, he later changed his stance and became a scathing critic of the war in Iraq. In 2005 the current Prime Minister criticised Prime Minister Howard for saying that Australia could play a bridging role between China and the United States, but now the current Prime Minister claims that role for himself. He has variously accused the previous Prime Minister of being ‘loose with the truth’ and of ‘misleading parliament’ yet refusing to produce any evidence and many times without any evidence at all. Indeed, there are many examples of the current Prime Minister, when in opposition, using foreign policy issues to launch personal attacks and cast slurs against the then Prime Minister, the then trade minister and the then foreign minister. So, given this track record, we should not be surprised that this Prime Minister is quite prepared to exploit Australia’s important foreign relationships for domestic political gain. But, of course, this Prime Minister will ruthlessly and arrogantly use anything for domestic political purposes.

One of the first signs of this arrogance was the infamous phone call with the then President of the United States. You will recall that one. The United States of course is Australia’s most important ally, the only global superpower, the world’s leading democracy and a crucial contributor to stability and prosperity in our region. Our relationship with the United States has never been broader, deeper or closer than in the past decade or so, and relations remain strong. However, this Prime Minister was prepared to provide the media with a false version of a private conversation with the President of the United States—and not only false, but designed to make the Prime Minister look smarter than the US President, who was supposedly meant to look stupid. But an adviser to President Bush, Daniel Price, appeared on Sky television recently and exposed this once and for all. He made it very clear that President Bush had not asked the question: ‘What’s the G20?’—that is the question the Prime Minister claims he asked—because President Bush had already made the decision to elevate the role of the G20 and had already contacted world leaders about the G20. While it is hard to conceive of a circumstance where damage could be caused to the Australia-US alliance, that is no reason to take the relationship for granted and to treat our closest international friend with contempt simply to score cheap domestic political points.

This incident raised serious question marks over the Australian government’s reliability and trustworthiness, not only among Americans—Democrats and Republicans alike—but across the wider diplomatic community. Who would take a call from a man with a track record of leaping into print on sensitive issues raised privately and confidentially? Where does this sort of behaviour lead? Remember, we have witnessed the unprecedented step of the US administration having to issue a disclaimer to the Washington Post to explicitly deny the claims made in Australia about the conversation between this Prime Minister and the then President of the United States. And we still have had no explanation from the Prime Minister about how or why this debacle came to pass.

Similarly, we have a long and valuable relationship with Japan, one of our most important trading and security partners. Relations have strengthened far beyond the traditional trade links to include cooperation between our forces in Iraq. The relationship with Japan is a valued asset. It should not be neglected, much less squandered. What were the Japanese to make of the Prime Minister’s baffling decision to exclude Tokyo from his first major trip to the region as Prime Minister? And what were our friends in Japan to make of the incredibly insensitive declaration of a ‘war’ on Japanese whaling and the decision to send an Australian government boat to collect video footage of whaling that this government then released to the media?

India, with its strength, its stability and its rising prosperity, is also a beacon for political and economic freedom. A strong and successful India is a blessing for the world. India is facing great challenges as it develops an economy to lift millions out of poverty. One of those challenges is to limit or reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, yet this Prime Minister imposed a ban on sales of uranium to India, which is striving to greatly expand its range of nuclear reactors to provide low-emission energy for its industries and cities. This Prime Minister is saying that we cannot trust India to use Australian uranium for peaceful purposes. Yet Canada has lifted a ban on uranium sales to India. Canada believes that India is a trusted friend and that the sale of uranium to India is absolutely appropriate. So not only have we missed the colossal opportunity to export uranium to one of the most developing countries in the world with huge energy needs; the Prime Minister is denying India uranium from Australia so that it is not able to expand its nuclear capability using Australian uranium.

And then we come to China. The Mandarin reading and speaking Prime Minister, it was hoped, would improve relations with the nation that is rapidly growing in importance economically but also in terms of regional stability. While there have been several well-documented stumbles in the relationship, it was brought home to me recently during a visit to Beijing that one issue takes precedence over all of the other stumbles of this government when it comes to our relationship with China. The government of China, the people of China, are deeply offended by the implication in the Prime Minister’s defence white paper that Australia regards China as a military threat. It was impressed on me repeatedly that China viewed Australia as a valuable partner who they hoped would be a long-term, reliable supplier of the resources and energy they needed to develop their economy and lift many more millions of people out of poverty. Make no mistake, the Chinese leadership have taken serious offence at the inference in this government’s white paper that China could seek to invade Australia within the next 20 years.

It is also deeply regrettable that the Labor government is overturning Australia’s longstanding bipartisan policy of refusing to support one-sided resolutions against Israel in the United Nations General Assembly. The coalition has always recognised the aspirations of the Palestinian people to self-determination. But any prospect for a lasting peace in the Middle East also requires that the Palestinian people and Israel’s neighbours recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and the right of the people of Israel to live within secure borders. This must be the crucial foundation for any durable two-state solution. Resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly that speak only of Palestinian rights to a homeland yet make no reference to the right of the state of Israel to exist are inflammatory and counterproductive. This is especially so when key backers of these resolutions such as Iran speak openly of seeking the destruction of the state of Israel.

Late last year we first saw a shift in Australia’s voting patterns for United Nations General Assembly resolutions on the conflict in the Middle East. It is disappointing that the Australian government has again voted in support of such a resolution. We in the opposition again express our hope that the Labor government is not trading on fundamental questions of principle in order to attract support at the United Nations for the Prime Minister’s personal campaign to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

More than 60 years ago the Australian government was one of the first countries to vote in support of the creation of the state of Israel at the United Nations. It has not been the traditional practice of Australian governments to adopt or endorse some of the one-sided resolutions against Israel that now come before the United Nations. This government has now voted in favour of three of these resolutions. Why? Why have they done this? We can only assume it is to do with the Prime Minister’s effort to garner votes for his personal crusade to secure a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Australia should never get into the business of trading on principle or on our support of Israel simply to gather votes for the campaign for the Security Council. It is a slippery slope. If some principles are compromised, where will this government stop?

Most recent in the list of the Prime Minister’s foreign policy difficulties has been Indonesia and the circumstances surrounding the Oceanic Viking. The Prime Minister, with megaphone diplomacy, announced that he had struck a deal with President Yudhoyono. In other words, the failure of his government to protect our borders was now a problem for Indonesia to resolve. It became known as the ‘Indonesian solution’. The Prime Minister and his ministers repeatedly called on Indonesia to honour their side of the bargain. In other words, the government had made it Indonesia’s problem. They outsourced to Indonesia the problem caused by this government’s failure to keep our borders intact and to maintain the integrity of an orderly immigration program.

Indonesia is undoubtedly and conspicuously one of the great new stories of this decade. It is a flourishing democracy. The re-election of President Yudhoyono marked an explicit repudiation by Indonesians of those espousing extremism. We are supportive of any effort to ensure that our relationship with Indonesia is one of close cooperation and mutual respect. What are the Indonesians to make of the fact that this government has repeatedly turned to Indonesia and directed all criticism of the Indonesian solution to the Indonesians: the Indonesians should get these people off the boat; the Indonesians should provide support; the Indonesians should provide detention facilities; the Indonesians have to resolve the Labor government’s policy failures?

But in this whole Indonesian solution they did not stop with Indonesia. They then went to New Zealand and said that New Zealand had to take the people off the Oceanic Viking, then the Philippines, and, what about Sri Lanka? In this attempt to cover up the shambles of the failure, the colossal policy failure on behalf of the Labor government, they have chosen to use the relationships that have been built up over many years with Australia’s neighbours to cover up their failures. They have used foreign policy to score cheap domestic political points. All Australians should condemn this government’s failings on foreign policy.

It is summed up by the government’s Asia-Pacific community where the Prime Minister announced that the architecture of the Asia-Pacific would be realigned in accordance with his vision of a European Union community and yet he did not contact one other country to consult. (Time expired)

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Israel?

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

I will deal with all of them; do not worry. Japan’s Prime Minister and Australia’s Prime Minister were close to the first two prime ministers to speak when the new Japanese Prime Minister came to office. Our relationship with Japan is very strong. The trilateral strategic dialogue I had with Foreign Minister Okada and Secretary of State Clinton in New York reflected the strength of our relationship, the strong economic, social and strategic partnership that we have with Japan.

On India: during the Prime Minister’s visit to India we signed a strategic partnership. Regrettably, Australian foreign policy for over a quarter of a century has neglected India. In the first speech I made as foreign minister, I said that we have to enhance our engagement with India, and we are. India is on the rise, just as China is on the rise.

Let me deal finally with the Middle East. The government has changed three votes before the General Assembly—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had her turn earlier.

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

They were on settlements, reflecting precisely the same view as the United States administration; on the Geneva conventions applying to the occupied territories—and how would Australia have looked in the terrible Gaza conflict last December and January if we had not adhered to the application of the Geneva conventions?; and, thirdly, on the right of self-determination of the Palestinians.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had her turn. She is abusing the standing orders.

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

When you look at who votes in those matters, at the strong stand that Australia takes defending Israel’s interests on the Goldstone report and at the strong stand that Australia took in the Durban II review, we are in very good company because our approach to these matters is a two-nation-state solution and to support the peace process. (Time expired)

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this important motion in the House of Representatives and to commend the motion by my senior colleague the deputy leader of the parliamentary party. The government’s failure to properly manage Australia’s foreign relations is a very important topic because in today’s world it has all kinds of implications. It is not just an issue of hardcore security but it affects softcore security as well. It has enormous implications for social and economic prosperity in our country, so it is absolutely incumbent upon Australians, Australia’s Prime Minister and the Australian government to manage our relationships with all the key countries of the world, and indeed those nations in our part of the world, with great care and diligence.

My view on the role of the Prime Minister and an Australian government is that their absolute first priority is the defence and national security of the country. The first obligation of any Prime Minister and any Australian government must surely be to ensure the security of their country. For me, and I suspect for all the constituents of Ryan that I represent and the overwhelming majority of people in this country, that must also extend to the protection of our national borders. Clearly in the last week in particular, but also in the preceding weeks, the integrity of border protection policy has come to the fore.

I will also put forward what I think is the second most important view of a Prime Minister of this country and his or her government: that must be to promote, facilitate and strengthen the international relations of this country. Clearly, the Asia-Pacific region is of fundamental importance. To use the words of a former Labor Prime Minister, our security does lie in Asia. Absolutely it does and there is no doubt about that. Equally, of course, we cannot disentangle or disconnect ourselves from the critical importance of the United States to Australia. We have longstanding historical and cultural ties with the US, which is a nation that will always be dear to our hearts—indeed, so dear to me that I married an American, and a very fine lady she is too. That is how much I think of Americans.

This motion that the Deputy Leader has put up is critical, because it asks Australians to question the quality of leadership of the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian government. I want to raise this in relation to three countries in particular. It might be said that the government’s failure to manage Australia’s relationships with these countries is glaring. It is inconsistent, it is counterproductive and it is highly politically driven; absolutely so, in my view.

I have a passion for international relations. It is something I have a particular affection for, having had the great pleasure and great privilege of studying foreign affairs at Cambridge University. For me, ‘inconsistent’, ‘counterproductive’ and ‘politically driven’ are tags for this government’s management of our foreign relations. Let me take the case of Indonesia, because it is very pertinent at the moment. Indonesia, measured in purchasing power parities, rates as the 16th largest economy in the world, at $910 billion. Its GDP is actually greater than Australia’s. The United States stands at $14.4 trillion, China at $7 trillion, followed by Japan, India and then Germany. From the Parliamentary Library’s research, on 2009 figures measured in US dollars, Indonesia’s purchasing power parity is $910 billion. Australia, at No. 18, follows Indonesia at $799 billion. This is a country of enormous significance to us. This is a country of some 231.5 million people. We all know it is the largest Muslim democracy in the world. Australians might not know that the capital city, Jakarta, is the 14th largest city in the world. In mid-2007 it had a population of 15.1 million people. Our country’s population in 2007 was 21 million people.

This nation of Indonesia, with its 13,600 islands that make it a sovereign nation, is one which is absolutely fundamental for the Australian government and the Australian Prime Minister to have very warm ties with. I commend former Prime Minister Howard for the way in which he embraced Indonesia, and President Yudhoyono for the way in which he absolutely put our relationship front and centre. Yet of course we know now what Prime Minister Rudd thinks of Indonesia and how he handles it. My understanding is that Indonesia is very unhappy with Mr Rudd, because there was a leaking of a private conversation between the Australian Prime Minister and President Yudhoyono over the fate of asylum seekers and the Deputy Leader, the member for Curtin, alluded to how it seems somewhat interesting that the Prime Minister has a tendency to reveal private conversations with leaders of other countries. I think it is untenable that the integrity of the leader of our country could be put in question by the leaking of conversations with other world leaders. That is just unacceptable.

Indonesia is critical. We have seen in recent days how the management of our relationship with Indonesia has just been torn to pieces, with the news that President Yudhoyono is actually not coming to Australia this week. That is terrible because it has been some time since he has come here. The last visit was in 2005, during the Howard government. For a nation of this significance the postponing of such a visit is not a slap in the face to this country or to the Prime Minister; it is more like a punch in the head. It shows a lack of respect for the Prime Minister. As an Australian citizen—let alone as the member for Ryan, a member of this parliament—I feel terribly disappointed that President Yudhoyono would have such a lack of respect for my Prime Minister that he would postpone an important bilateral visit. In fact, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when he actually knew the Indonesian President was not coming to Australia. When was the Australian government told that he would not be coming here? It was only revealed very recently that he was not coming. That was a great disappointment.

With border protection, we have all these boats coming here, we have all these asylum seekers coming here, and some 50 boats have arrived since Mr Rudd and Labor decided to weaken the coalition’s legislation. We cannot have a situation in this country where people can just hop on a boat and come to this country and hold hostage the policies of the country. That is just unacceptable and a terribly poor way to formulate immigration and foreign policies. In fact, I touched on this issue in my maiden speech in 2002. I talked about how important it was for this country to be generous and tolerant but to never compromise border security and the domestic security of this country.

I regret very much that my time is fast running away, so let me touch very quickly on India, another incredibly important country in our part of the world. Mr Rudd was in India last week and I have gone through all the press releases and his speeches and local papers and nowhere do I see any commentary about Australia selling uranium to India—probably the greatest thing we could do to strengthen and enhance our relationship with India. This is a country of some 1.1 billion people, a country that in a few years time will be the largest nation on earth, in terms of its population.

We could do so much for our bilateral ties with India if we sold our uranium to India. After all, we are happy to sell it to Russia and we are happy to sell it to China, and now Canada is selling uranium to India. But, no, Australia cannot do that. Yet former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr and Paul Howes, the Secretary of the AWU, say let’s sell our uranium to India. Mongolia is selling its uranium to India. But, no, we must not do that. Why is this politically driven? It is politically driven because the Australian Labor Party says, ‘No, we must not sell our uranium to India but we will sell it to Russia; we will sell it to China. There are no problems there.’

This is the inconsistency. This is how counterproductive it is. Imagine the jobs. Imagine the strength of our economy. Imagine all the flow-ons of that, the billions. Which hospital in this country would not take some proceeds of that? Which road? Certainly the roads in the Ryan electorate would take some of that cash from selling our uranium to India. I could go on, because this is an issue of great passion for me. I say to Mr Rudd and to his colleagues, let us sell our uranium to India. Let us do what John Howard did. We can sell our uranium to India. It would be good for Australia. (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s matter of public importance motion there is an almost palpable desperation to create some kind of relevance for the Liberal Party. They are almost bereft of coherent policy on foreign policy or international relations, as we have seen with the small assistance the member for Ryan has attempted to provide with his claim to have an interest in international relations—which, I regret to say, is usually manifest in his spending more time overseas than he does in Australia. In the speech she has just given, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition shows her failure to understand the broad strategic foreign policy framework which the Rudd government has worked so assiduously to create in the two years since the last election. What we have seen in the last two years since the election of the Rudd government is a renewed commitment to multilateralism and, with that renewed commitment to multilateralism, a regaining of the respect of the nations of the world for Australia’s position in the world.

There is a long list of foreign policy achievements which I have not even remotely got the time to deal with in the time available. I would start by pointing to the way in which Australia’s commitment to multilateralism and engagement with the world is enabling Australia to participate in the global battle—and we should not be in any doubt about its global nature—to deal with climate change. What we saw from the former government was a disengagement with the global process in relation to climate change. What we have seen from the Rudd government is an engagement at every level with the councils of the world, an engagement which will enable Australia to play a major role, we hope, at Copenhagen. The Prime Minister has said that he has been invited by Denmark’s Prime Minister Rasmussen to be one of the ‘friends of the chair’. Australia has been instrumental in strengthening and confirming the role of the G20 as the premier institution for global economic governance, and Australia’s participation in the G20 has enabled our country to raise climate change issues in that forum as well.

I will just list a range of other relationships that the Rudd government has forged and is working on, all of which have been able to be called upon for aid in relation to the global battle against climate change. We could point to APEC, which was of course initiated by a Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, in 1989. APEC is now flourishing. It was attended by the Prime Minister last week, and it of course has a link with the G20. Nine of the members of the G20 are also members of APEC. One of those common members is Australia, and Australia has been able to raise climate change in both of those forums.

Australia is spearheading efforts in the Pacific region to secure stability and security for small island states. We have been working hard on stabilising the Solomon Islands and we have been pressing for an early return to democracy in Fiji. The role that Australia has been playing in the Pacific has enabled Australia, again in the climate change context, to champion the particularly pressing need that a number of the smaller countries in the Pacific have for action to be taken on climate change. Australia is currently the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum and at the Cairns conference was able to be instrumental in the delivery of the Pacific Leaders’ Climate Change Call to Action, which of course is a call to action to deal with the threats to some of our Pacific neighbours.

In September, at the request of the UN Secretary-General, Australia co-chaired a roundtable at the UN Special Session on Climate Change. We have been able to forge a relationship with Mexico on climate change. At the G8 meeting at L’Aquila in Italy in July—and Australia is not a member—Australia was able to attend and we helped to form a two degrees Celsius, 450 million parts per million ambition for global action on climate change. I have no doubt left out some other multilateral engagements that Australia has been able to make to assist in the global battle against climate change, but I should also mention the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, which Australia launched at that meeting of the G8 at L’Aquila in Italy. That is how the new form of engagement, the commitment to multilateralism, that Australia has demonstrated under the careful stewardship of foreign minister Smith and Prime Minister Rudd, has been able to assist us in relation to climate change.

But I also wanted to mention just how absurd are some of the nitpicking propositions that were advanced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, notably in relation to China and in relation to Australia’s longstanding and continuing support for Israel. In relation to China, I happen to have coincided with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a visit to China. I participated with you, Deputy Speaker Burke, in a parliamentary delegation, led by the President of the Senate, which arrived in Beijing on 1 November. Over the subsequent 11 days we visited Shanghai, Chengdu and Lhasa, finishing in Hong Kong. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not present at any of the very high level meetings that the parliamentary delegation was able to have with the Chinese leadership. Who knows what the Deputy Leader was listening to, because, at the parliamentary delegation’s meetings with the Chinese leadership—and I should stress that it was at the highest levels of the Chinese leadership—we heard over and over again about China’s commitment to its relationship with Australia and how much China values its relations with Australia. And just before the parliamentary delegation went to the People’s Republic of China, there was of course the visit by Vice Premier Li Keqiang.

Perhaps the most significant of the meetings that our parliamentary delegation had with the Chinese leadership was with the Vice-President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, who made it very clear just how much China values its relationship with Australia, pointing to the massive increase in trade with Australia in recent years. Our two-way trade with China has grown from quite a small amount when another Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, restored our relations with China to some $78 billion in 2008. The senior Chinese leaders with whom we met, who included the Deputy Minister for Commerce, Madam Ma, pointed out, as is obvious, that as a result of the global financial crisis there had been some lessening of that two-way trade. But they were at pains to point out in all of our meetings that the lessening of the two-way trade between China and Australia has been a smaller lessening than the trade drops experienced with other countries.

As the foreign minister has just told the House, the relationship we have with China is one which does not prevent our government from raising human rights issues when those issues need to be raised. We as a delegation were able to raise with the Chinese leadership our concerns about the human rights situation in Tibet and about the need for a speedy resolution of the situation of Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu. The strength of the relationship is demonstrated by the fact that we are able to raise these matters.

In relation to Israel, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of herself for suggesting that there has been any lessening in the strength of Australian support for the state of Israel. She omitted to mention—and this is the selective approach she took to almost all of the topics she mentioned—the support Australia gave to Israel during the Gaza conflict at the start of this year; the vote that Australia made at, and Australia’s position in withdrawing from, the Durban review conference and its assistance to ensure that other countries did the same; the Deputy Prime Minister’s visit to Israel as part of the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum in June this year; and Australia’s position on the Goldstone report. (Time expired)

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is one of those rare moments when members of the government actually stay around and listen during an MPI. They are obviously willing to listen to any discussion other than the obvious mammoth in the room, that being the events in Indonesia. As many of those government members scurry back to their electorates tonight, I say to them: you may be able to escape the questions this week but you will not be able to escape the questions from your own electorate. The tradies, the subbies and the apprentices in your electorates will be asking you the very simple question: ‘Where do you stand on asylum seekers?’ It is a simple question to which could not get an answer from our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is all but a neighbour of mine in Brisbane, but the people in Bulimba, Morningside, East Brisbane and Redlands have not got an answer to this. Where was the fair go? Where was the honesty?

This Prime Minister is walking not both sides of the street but both sides of the Timor Sea on this issue, trying to appease Indonesia—and that has been left in smoking rubble—and trying to appease Australians with all of these conflicting messages about being ‘tough but humane’ and ‘compassionate but fair’. But there is absolutely nothing consistent. In the end the only casualties are those poor unfortunate souls sitting in Tanjung Pinang—those poor souls who cannot rely on fair treatment—and the Australian public servants who do a good job, who cannot look these asylum seekers in the eye and say: ‘We will treat you fairly. There is a process around our foreign relations and we will consider your case fairly. You will be heard within an average of 52 weeks in 85 per cent of cases.’ But no.

By any definition, this is a special deal. No matter what arm of the media you come from this is a special deal. In the pubs and clubs and pick-up zones of my electorate, this is a special deal. Talk to the mums in the shopping centres, talk to the fathers commuting home from work: it is a special deal in anyone’s eyes. You are not fooling anyone. We started with a Prime Minister who was all ‘Mr Nambour’ about ‘not throwing fairness out the back door’; we saw the television ads. I went to Mooloolaba State School—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Bowman, there is no need to shout. There is no need to shout, thank you.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and we did not have time for people whose attitude was to walk both sides of the street. He did it at Nambour State High School, he did on the TV ads and he is doing it right now.

The other question which Australians would ask is about honesty. Will you stand up for your decisions or will make up a border protection cabinet committee that makes a quiet, secretive decision and then scurry off whispering in each other’s ears: ‘Whatever you do, don’t cc the PM’s office. Just send this letter off in Tamil after you’ve found an interpreter, but make sure the Prime Minister doesn’t know about the decision because, when he’s asked, he needs to be able to say he knew nothing.’ He is only the place where the buck stops. But no decision is made if it is a tough one. No, that is done by some completely unelected committee.

I say to members of the government, to the staffers and bureaucrats: how do I convince the people sitting at the Cleveland Sands Hotel? How do I look them in the eye and tell them who cut this smokin’ deal? Do I say to them, ‘No, they’re staffers and bureaucrats’? Was the Prime Minister involved in this one? ‘No, the greatest collective control freak we’ve known as a leader of this country didn’t even know about the deal!’ I cannot sell that message at the Capalaba Tavern or the Grand View Hotel. I could not sell that if I tried, and I challenge anyone to attempt to.

Finally, there is the notion of a fair go, the one thing that we have always relied on in this country. Illegal arrival rules were tightened and improved in 2002 and, with that, the boats dropped away to three boats a year and then one boat a year—putting all the trickery of counting the numbers before 2002 aside. We clearly set up rules in this country which most Australians were extremely supportive of. I understand the Prime Minister has, as I have said, an awkward walk on both sides of the street, trying to appease conflicting constituencies. But the Australian people—and many of them do not read the papers every day, listen to the radio every day or watch TV all day—will be asking a simple question: was it really a fair go for those 78? First of all, they would not leave the Oceanic Viking, so they are rewarded for being obstructive. Second, when they are taken off they are promised, ‘Everything will be okay for you and you will be treated differently from those on the other side of the bars.’

This is a triumph for these asylum seekers, and their obstruction, over our Prime Minister. It has weakened our Indonesian relationship. It has been exposed for what it is by this side of the House. This government needs to look again at its actions of last week. I support this motion. (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is another case of the opposition grasping a highly questionable premise for the sake of some dubious political point scoring. No-one in this place expects that a political debate should be anything other than frank and even fierce, but at the same time one would hope that debates on the really important topics would spring from justifiable cause. Yet in the course of this year we have seen the opposition make claims against the Prime Minister and call for the Prime Minister’s resignation on the basis of a fraudulent email provided to them by a disgruntled public servant with a track record of assisting the Liberal Party. Today we debate a proposition with an equally hollow and questionable basis. Again, it is a proposition that rebounds upon those who advance it. Australia’s foreign relations are of critical importance to this country, and it follows that wanton criticism of our foreign relations should only proceed on substantial grounds. This is a serious matter of national policy and international reputation. It is not something one should drum up lightly in between contributions via Twitter.

Such a debate might usefully proceed, for example, where there is evidence that the government has taken Australia into a war that does not directly affect its security, that is without the sanction of the United Nations and that is based on an ever-shifting, ever-dissolving rationale. Or it might proceed from circumstances where the government has failed, at the very least, to adequately supervise Australia’s wheat exports, with the result being the payment of millions of dollars to the regime of Saddam Hussein in Australia’s largest trading scandal. Or it might be applicable where the government has consciously and deliberately undermined the United Nations and multilateralism and ridiculed the findings of UN human rights bodies and rapporteurs concerning Australia’s treatment of its Indigenous peoples and asylum seekers. But none of these circumstances obtain in relation to this government. They applied, rather, in relation to the previous government.

As someone who worked within the United Nations for eight years before entering parliament and who maintains contact with UN and other governmental and NGO personnel across the globe, I will state the obvious: the shift in Australia’s international standing between this government and the last is stark beyond belief. Whereas a great number of Australia’s actions under the Howard government were an international embarrassment, the Rudd government has cooperated constructively with other nations and brought great credit to Australia in the view of the international community.

On the question of this government’s record when it comes to foreign relations, let us consider the facts. From the moment of its election in November 2007, the Rudd government has comprehensively re-engaged with the international community. The government’s first act was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In so doing, we reaffirmed Australia’s historical position and role as a state that is proactive in the cause of international cooperation. In two years of government we have ratified a number of important international agreements and incorporated the substance and purpose of a number of international agreements into Australian law. Today, for example, the Attorney-General introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill, which will enact a specific offence of torture within the Commonwealth Criminal Code and will extend the application of the death penalty prohibition to state laws, in accordance with Australia’s international obligations under the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This government, in the context of the global financial crisis and in addition to its world-leading management of the domestic economy, has also played its part in achieving the acceptance of the G20 group of countries as the premier international forum for dealing with global economic issues and challenges. This not only gives Australia a seat at that important table but, in taking the consideration and carriage of such matters from the G8 to the G20, also now includes the crucial participation of countries like Brazil, India and China. On that historic shift, Andrew F Cooper, Associate Director of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, remarked:

As witnessed previously at Washington and London, Prime Minister Rudd has made good use of his seat at the G20 table. Certainly, he has been one of the biggest supporters of the expanded club. If the G20 is to continue at the leaders’ level, it will be a reward for Australia, recognising its ability to mobilise and enhance global debates.

Does that assessment in any way conform to the proposition that this government has not properly managed Australia’s international engagement or its foreign relations? When it comes to important bilateral relationships, this government, through the work of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has carried forward our engagement with all our important bilateral partners—with the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, India, Indonesia, New Zealand and our Pacific Island neighbours, and our other Asia-Pacific regional partners.

The government’s record and its achievements in managing Australia’s foreign relations and its international engagement speak for themselves. This is a record of which we are proud, and these are achievements that are for the long-term economic, social and security benefit of this country.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is now concluded.